Is Theravada "Realist"?

[tiltbillings]

And where are these "holes" located?

They are located in the Theravada philosophy and have been pointed out by f.e. Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna or in the Mahavibasha or Vijnaanakayasastra.

Unacceptable sources. If you are going to make claims about what the Theravada teaches, one needs to use Theravadin sources, not polemical treatises of rival schools.

[Akuma]

And where are these "holes" located?

They are located in the Theravada philosophy and have been pointed out by f.e. Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna or in the Mahavibasha or Vijnaanakayasastra.

Unacceptable sources. If you are going to make claims about about what the Theravada teaches, one needs to use Theravadin sources, not polemical treatises of rival schools.

An interesting idea to let only philosophers of school X criticize positions of school X. Maybe some day you should sit down and reflect why you think that way.

But as I said above already if we want to stay in the context of Theravada those holes have to be accepted. This means that if Alex for exampel or myself stumble over those holes then one has to know that they are existing and if we want to be authentic in representing Theravada philosophy we cannot try creating bridges over them as long as those dont exist in Theravada treatises.

[tiltbillings]

An interesting idea to let only philosophers of school X criticize positions of school X. Maybe some day you should sit down and reflect why you think that way.

Why should I accept as accurate critiques by rival schools, and that is even assuming that these authors were actually addressing the Theravada, or even accurately addressing the Theravada, which you cannot show that they are? If you want to present the supposed “holes” in Theravada philosophy, then to meaningfully do it, you need to use actual Theravadin sources as the basis of the critique, not later Mahayana or later Mainstream schools polemical works, which carry absolutely no weight within the Theravada. Which actual Theravadin texts did the authors you cited quote to make their points?

But as I said above already if we want to stay in the context of Theravada those holes have to be accepted.

But, as it stands, you have shown no holes within the Theravada position. You need to do a bit more work than referencing the authors your referenced, especially when you cannot even show that they are even addressing the Theravada and Theravadin works.

This means that if Alex for exampel or myself stumble over those holes then one has to know that they are existing and if we want to be authentic in representing Theravada philosophy we cannot try creating bridges over them as long as those dont exist in Theravada treatises.

Good luck with that.

[Akuma]

If you want to present the supposed “holes” in Theravada philosophy, then to meaningfully do it, you need to use actual Theravadin sources as the basis of the critique, not later Mahayana or later Mainstream schools polemical works, which carry absolutely no weight within the Theravada.

Its you who wants to make these "holes" the topic of this thread, not me.

[tiltbillings]

If you want to present the supposed “holes” in Theravada philosophy, then to meaningfully do it, you need to use actual Theravadin sources as the basis of the critique, not later Mahayana or later Mainstream schools polemical works, which carry absolutely no weight within the Theravada.

Its you who wants to make these "holes" the topic of this thread, not me.

There is no problem, because there are no "holes," at least not that you have shown.

[Alex123]

Hello Chownah,

Alex123,
I found this link in another thread....
http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana24.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
seems like it might support the view that there is a "real world"....maybe have a look and see if it provides something new...or maybe it is the same stuff you have been talking about and I've just missed it....
chownah

I'd like to correct something that you've said, I was talking about rūpa (not "real world" in direct/naive/common sense realism), that is independent of the mind. A subtle but big difference.

[chownah]

Hello Chownah,

Alex123,
I found this link in another thread....
http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana24.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
seems like it might support the view that there is a "real world"....maybe have a look and see if it provides something new...or maybe it is the same stuff you have been talking about and I've just missed it....
chownah

I'd like to correct something that you've said, I was talking about rūpa (not "real world" in direct/naive/common sense realism), that is independent of the mind. A subtle but big difference.

I haven't been differentiating betweent the two so can you give some ideas about what the difference is between "real world" and your view of rupa? It seems to me that they are both beyond range ("beyond range" as from The All sutta) and are some kind of substrate upon which our fabrications are based....so I'm hoping you can show me the difference which I am missing.
chownah

[Alex123]

Hello Chownah,
I'd like to correct something that you've said, I was talking about rūpa (not "real world" in direct/naive/common sense realism), that is independent of the mind. A subtle but big difference.

I haven't been differentiating betweent the two so can you give some ideas about what the difference is between "real world" and your view of rupa? It seems to me that they are both beyond range ("beyond range" as from The All sutta) and are some kind of substrate upon which our fabrications are based....so I'm hoping you can show me the difference which I am missing.
chownah

The objective base (āyatana) for Forms, sounds, smells, flavors, tangible objects exist regardless of whether you cognize it or not.
These make up part of the All, so it is not beyond range.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course objectively these material things may not be exact as our consciousness of them, and different sense faculty may interpret the same source differently. But they do exist regardless of whether there is consciousness or not. Without consciousness one wouldn't be able to describe or know them, but they still are.

IMHO idea or perception about an object, and object are different layers.


With best wishes,

Alex

[Akuma]

There is no problem, because there are no "holes," at least not that you have shown.

Well since Alex has apperently given up on me here u go.

First of all Majjhimanikaya I,43 and Visuddimagga 720 shows that there is no citta in Nirodhasamapati. Additionally its called Sannavedayitanirodha which means two universals (sanna and vedana) are missing, which means only cittas without the universals can occur which means no cittas occur at all.
Secondly it follows there is only rupa but karma is mental (AN 6,63). Since the re-emergence according to Abhidhammatta-Sangaha IV,14 is lokuttara-vipaka-phala-citta of Anagami or Arahant this is impossible because
a) The cause for Vipaka is in the past and the past doesnt exist (Kathavatthu I,6 / IX,12)
b) Because there is no present or directly-preceding basis for karma since there is no citta
c) Because lokuttara-cittas are sahetuka / accompanied by Panna (Dhammasangani 292 / 364) which is not existing in Rupa since
Thirdly Rupa is according to Kathavatthu XVI,5 no hetu and is also ahetuka (ibid xvi,6), which means that Rupa does not bring forth citta. This can be shown by showing that all the 121 Cittas are not caused by rupa.
a) The Vipakacittas due to lack of kamma
b) The Kirya-, Kusala- and Akusalacittas cant occur due to lack of hetu.

The time-argument is true for all present-only worldviews and the spacetime argument I've now explained several times to Alex.

[tiltbillings]

There is no problem, because there are no "holes," at least not that you have shown.

Well since Alex has apperently given up on me here u go.

First of all Majjhimanikaya I,43 and Visuddimagga 720 shows that there is no citta in Nirodhasamapati. Additionally its called Sannavedayitanirodha which means two universals (sanna and vedana) are missing, which means only cittas without the universals can occur which means no cittas occur at all.
Secondly it follows there is only rupa but karma is mental (AN 6,63). Since the re-emergence according to Abhidhammatta-Sangaha IV,14 is lokuttara-vipaka-phala-citta of Anagami or Arahant this is impossible because
a) The cause for Vipaka is in the past and the past doesnt exist (Kathavatthu I,6 / IX,12)
b) Because there is no present or directly-preceding basis for karma since there is no citta
c) Because lokuttara-cittas are sahetuka / accompanied by Panna (Dhammasangani 292 / 364) which is not existing in Rupa since
Thirdly Rupa is according to Kathavatthu XVI,5 no hetu and is also ahetuka (ibid xvi,6), which means that Rupa does not bring forth citta. This can be shown by showing that all the 121 Cittas are not caused by rupa.
a) The Vipakacittas due to lack of kamma
b) The Kirya-, Kusala- and Akusalacittas cant occur due to lack of hetu.

The time-argument is true for all present-only worldviews and the spacetime argument I've now explained several times to Alex.

But you still have not shown that they are "holes."

[Akuma]

But you still have not shown that they are "holes."

It can not be what may not be?
So be it then.

[tiltbillings]

But you still have not shown that they are "holes."

It can not be what may not be?
So be it then.

You have pointed to some textual stuff, but you have made no actual argument showintg that what you are pointing constitutes philosophical "holes." It seems you have a great deal more work to do here.

[Akuma]

But you still have not shown that they are "holes."

It can not be what may not be?
So be it then.

You have pointed to some textual stuff, but you have made no actual argument showintg that what you are pointing constitutes philosophical "holes." It seems you have a great deal more work to do here.

The speed of your responses shows that you didnt even make the slightest attempt in understanding what I wrote. I am not your babysitter. If you would have an honest intention of understanding either my intentions or the arguments itself you would've had enough time to do so. Since this intention apparently is completely lacking all I've done is waste my time.

[tiltbillings]

The speed of your responses shows that you didnt even make the slightest attempt in understanding what I wrote.

{{{groan}}} I understand well enough what you have written. It is nothing new.

If you would have an honest intention of understanding either my intentions or the arguments itself you would've had enough time to do so. Since this intention apparently is completely lacking all I've done is waste my time.

You have yet to make an actual argument. When you do, I'll listen to (read) it.

[tiltbillings]

There is no problem, because there are no "holes," at least not that you have shown.

Well since Alex has apperently given up on me here u go.

First of all Majjhimanikaya I,43 and Visuddimagga 720 shows that there is no citta in Nirodhasamapati. Additionally its called Sannavedayitanirodha which means two universals (sanna and vedana) are missing, which means only cittas without the universals can occur which means no cittas occur at all.

MN I,43 (MLD 126-7)? VSM 720 (POP 720)?

Secondly it follows there is only rupa but karma is mental (AN 6,63). Since the re-emergence according to Abhidhammatta-Sangaha IV,14 is lokuttara-vipaka-phala-citta of Anagami or Arahant this is impossible because
a) The cause for Vipaka is in the past and the past doesnt exist (Kathavatthu I,6 / IX,12)
b) Because there is no present or directly-preceding basis for karma since there is no citta
c) Because lokuttara-cittas are sahetuka / accompanied by Panna (Dhammasangani 292 / 364) which is not existing in Rupa since
Thirdly Rupa is according to Kathavatthu XVI,5 no hetu and is also ahetuka (ibid xvi,6), which means that Rupa does not bring forth citta. This can be shown by showing that all the 121 Cittas are not caused by rupa.
a) The Vipakacittas due to lack of kamma
b) The Kirya-, Kusala- and Akusalacittas cant occur due to lack of hetu.

The time-argument is true for all present-only worldviews and the spacetime argument I've now explained several times to Alex.

Actually, the bhavanga-citta takes care of those "holes."