retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:17 am
Greetings Circle5,
I know I’ve tried explaining this to you before, but in the past you were too blinkered and adamant in your presuppositions to listen properly to what was said. I’ll try once more here, but cannot promise to stick around to defend any straw-man arguments you try pinning on me.
In the Dhamma, the term “loka” is used to signify two different modes of regarding the world. You can see the difference between these two play out in the
Rohitassa Sutta (AN 4.45).
There is the conventional word of three dimensional space and the objects therein. Also, there is the experiential world of the six-senses and the objects therein. One does not negate the other! For the purposes of transcending "the world", the Buddha recommended regarding “the world” in experiential terms, rather than conventially as a geo-spatial analysis of the existence or non-existence of matter. On these lines, in the
Kaccayanagotta Sutta (SN 12.15), the Buddha states…
SN 12.15 wrote:"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.”
Again taking that sutta and spinning it to make a case for solipsism ? What that sutta is trying to say is: "There is a banana. Those that see the existence of the banana can not say it does not exist. It would be a huge stupidity to say the banana does not exist since it has originated and all of us can see that.
But this banana is impermanent. It will one day disappear without reminder. Not even the memory of it will survive. It would be like it never existed. Therefore it is not proper to say it exists."
What this sutta is trying to say is that things exist but are impermanent. You can't really say about this world that it exists since it's chaning all the time, all that exists disappearing at one point. And neither can you say it doesn't exist since it would take an IQ below room temperature to observe how it has originated but still claim it doesn't exist.
This position is of course identical with what Buddha said in the sutta your most hated sutta, SN 22:94:
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.94
Unfortunately, the commentarial tradition has abandoned the original sutta classification of nama-rupa as "name and form" (see
MN 9: Sammaditthi Sutta), and replaced it with an alternative notion of "mentality and materiality". In doing so, it has inadvertently blurred the Buddha's clear delineation of the two lokas, and contaminated the higher experiential loka with lower notions of materiality, existence and non-existence. All of which makes the naming of the Abhidhmma as the Abhidhamma (lit. "higher dhamma") rather ironic and misleading.
Metta,
Paul.
Out of curiosity where have you seen this used ? In translations from the 70s ? The translation most people are using today is the one by B.Bodhi.
There is the conventional word of three dimensional space and the objects therein. Also, there is the experiential world of the six-senses and the objects therein. One does not negate the other! For the purposes of transcending "the world", the Buddha recommended regarding “the world” in experiential terms, rather than conventially as a geo-spatial analysis of the existence or non-existence of matter. On these lines, in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (SN 12.15), the Buddha states…
Why are you separating them into "material" and "existential" worlds ? Have you ever seen such things done in the suttas ? The material world out there is a field of possibilities, of conditions and posibilities. Just like a virtual computer world is made out of posibilities, of algorithms governing behavior, of certain conditionalities, etc. The same is true for the form aggregate, the same is true for consciousness, peception, volition or feeling aggregate. They all behave according to specific rules and conditionalities.
These rules and conditionalities that exist among them can be known by humans. For example a change in the form aggregate (a brick hitting you) might give rise to a specific feeling arising. Or for example wishing to levitate will not make you levitate, so there is no conditionality, no rule, no algorhitm working like that between those 2 elements.
We already know quite a lot about conditionalities going on between the 5 aggregates, about the algorithms governing the behaviour of them, etc. And the idea that the form aggregate is created by the perception aggregate is wrong. What postmodenism (which includes solipsism) and postmoden buddhist such as Nanananda say is that form is a product of perception. This is simply not so. If you lose half your brain, your perception will change. If a person has a brain tumous, that person can snap and become a mass murderer despite being a normal guy all his life. Form also conditions perception not only perception conditions form. Claiming there is no form aggregate or that form is a product of the perception aggregate is not only contrary to everything Buddha teached in the 600 pag chapter called "Book of aggregates" from SN, but it is also contradicted by what "any wise man in the world would agree upon".
More than this, solipsism was simply refuted by recent findings in quantum physics. As for nothing really existing and stuff like that, maybe you have never noticed the origination of things. For one who has noticed the origination of things, the notion of non-existence in regards to the world can not appear.
And why are you claiming it is me or "normal folk" who keep thinking about existence and non-existence ? I have the same position about this as Buddha had in SN 22:94 and, as he also says in that very sutta,
the same position as "any wise man in the world" would have. . The position that: Things do exist but they are impermanent. Pretty simple stuff, no need to write long books about existence and non-existence like existentialist buddhist do. Buddha only had like 3 suttas out of 10.000 pages about it. It is existentialist that keep thinking about this day and night, why acuse me of doing it ? This is why they are called "existentialist" to begin with, they just can't figure out if things exist or not and some had even given up trying. This was simply not a problem for the Buddha or for any "wise man in the world" as the Buddha said. I am a wise man in the world too. So stop with with the projecting. It's only a problem for existentialist. I wish them all the luck in the world to one day found out if things exist or not.