General Philosophy

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:35 am

Heraclitus said

"The way up is the way down"

Via my understanding, Heraclitus meant that X appears as F to A, and X appears as -F to B


Therefore X is both F and -F


Yet from Sextus, since X appears as F to A and -F to B, we withhold assent to if X is

F

or -F

or both F and -F

So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F

Or do we withhold judgement?


For example, Vodka tastes pleasant to some, yet vile to others.

Is Vodka both pleasant tasting, or vile, or both in its nature?

Or is the nature of Vodka in of itself, not known?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19886
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:15 am

Greetings,
clw_uk wrote:So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F

Or do we withhold judgement?
The only thing X is "by nature", is subjective.

If you try to make it objective you commit the referrential fallacy (like that committed by the abhidhammikas)

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:21 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
clw_uk wrote:So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F

Or do we withhold judgement?
The only thing X is "by nature", is subjective.

If you try to make it objective you commit the referrential fallacy (like that committed by the abhidhammikas)

Metta,
Retro. :)

I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.


So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19886
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:23 am

Greetings,
clw_uk wrote:I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.

So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?
I suggest we side with Buddha and acknowledge F as a sankhara, formed by avijja.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:24 am

We could expand this into Buddhadhamma


Craving appears as dukkha to me, yet as Sukha to B

Is craving dukkha, or sukha or is it both?

or do we withhold judgement?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:25 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
clw_uk wrote:I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.

So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?
I suggest we side with Buddha and acknowledge F as a sankhara, formed by avijja.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Is "round" sankhara?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19886
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:32 am

Greetings,
clw_uk wrote:Craving appears as dukkha to me, yet as Sukha to B

Is craving dukkha, or sukha or is it both?

or do we withhold judgement?
The fact it's viewed differently is testimony to its fabricated (and thus, subject-ive) nature.
clw_uk wrote:Is "round" sankhara?
Yes.

I realise this might be a boring way to look at it in terms of "philosophy", but I believe it is true in relation to the Dhamma. Thus, it is both true and potentially useful.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:36 am

The fact it's viewed differently is testimony to its fabricated (and thus, subject-ive) nature.
So is it Dukkha or sukha in its nature, or is it dukkha simply because we see it as dukkha and form an opinion of it (or form a preconceived notion of it as being dukkha)?
clw_uk wrote:
Is "round" sankhara?

Yes.

I realise this might be a boring way to look at it in terms of "philosophy", but I believe it is true in relation to the Dhamma. Thus, it is both true and potentially useful.

In which case we cant tell if a ball is round in its nature, its an appearance, and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?

How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19886
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:44 am

Greetings,
clw_uk wrote:But is it Dukkha or Sukha, is the fabricated dukkha or sukha?
Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).
clw_uk wrote:You havent answered the question
Yeah I have. :D
clw_uk wrote:In which case we dont know if a ball is round, its an illusion and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?
Sabba Sutta wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
clw_uk wrote:How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?
As sankharas, hence the Noble Eightfold Path being fabricated, as per the Culavedalla Sutta.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:54 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
clw_uk wrote:But is it Dukkha or Sukha, is the fabricated dukkha or sukha?
Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).
clw_uk wrote:You havent answered the question
Yeah I have. :D
clw_uk wrote:In which case we dont know if a ball is round, its an illusion and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?
Sabba Sutta wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
clw_uk wrote:How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?
As sankharas, hence the Noble Eightfold Path being fabricated, as per the Culavedalla Sutta.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Yet all that is sankhara?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:59 am

Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).

So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?


If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19886
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:01 am

Greetings,
Yet all that is sankhara?
Yes.
So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?

If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
I'll see if I can find the sutta I alluded to earlier.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:04 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Yet all that is sankhara?
Yes.
So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?

If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
I'll see if I can find the sutta I alluded to earlier.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Thanks :)
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19886
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:17 am

Greetings Craig,

I couldn't find the sutta in question, though in my search for it I came across this old topic which is of relevance...

SN 45.165: Dukkhata Sutta — Suffering
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459

In short though.... given that dukkha has multiple and diverse meanings, it is problematic to set it up in direct opposition to sukha.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:26 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Craig,

I couldn't find the sutta in question, though in my search for it I came across this old topic which is of relevance...

SN 45.165: Dukkhata Sutta — Suffering
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459

In short though.... given that dukkha has multiple and diverse meanings, it is problematic to set it up in direct opposition to sukha.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Thanks :)

However, ignoring Sukha, is Dukkha always Dukkha to everyone? Or is it only Dukkha to me (and others, if they exists, who experience it)?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests