Idealism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 5364
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Idealism

Post by SDC » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:46 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:01 am
I think I'm asking about the difference between dissolving the distinction between internal and external (non-dualism), and not regarding either of these as "me" and "mine" (anatta).
Do you see these as the same experience, or as different? Or does one follow from the other?
I’m pretty sure it is the same, though I’m not sure if dissolving the distinction matters as much as avoiding a perspective whereby such distinctions can continue to reinforce self-view (sakkāya-ditthi). I think mindfulness is about imposing limits – by establishing a more encompassing position, the subject can’t leave the confines, or rather, it cannot be assumed outside or beyond. In its simplest form, “While doing [such and such], they know ‘I am doing [such and such]’” (very similar to your concept of “overlay”). The “I” is repeatedly reintroduced, exposed as being on the level of manifestation. With that, the distinction will grow to be less significant. Of course there will always be a particularly valid difference between the body and that which is not the body, but it will no longer imply a boundary between Self and matter, between any one aggregate (or more) and the others. Even for the arahat, it would seem things continue to manifest, but not only is the right order of things known, no aspect can arise with the significance of being mine or me.

That is the critical issue for the non-ariya: things arise with significance in place. The order is established through the repeated assumption that it is inherently “like that”. For someone who has no exposure to Dhamma, there is essentially no option – the significance is accepted (“remains holding”):
”SN 22.5” wrote:… Here, bhikkhus, one seeks delight, one welcomes, one remains holding. And what is it that one seeks delight in, what does one welcome, to what does one remain holding? One seeks delight in form, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises. Delight in form is clinging. With one’s clinging as condition, existence comes to be; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

“One seeks delight in feeling … in perception … in volitional formations … in consciousness, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

binocular
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Idealism

Post by binocular » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:34 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:07 pm
I'm not even sure that the distinction between "internal" and "external" is directly relevant. As MN140 explains, internal form and external form is all just form - the point is to not regard it as "me" and "mine". Not my body, but also not my car, or house, or whatever. And as MN1 explains, things (including the elements of form) are known directly when seen with a view that isnt self-referential, or self-interested.
Doing so will make one dysfunctional, if one is still living in the world.

The I-making and you-making (!) is a matter of life and death. It's not just some idle activity that we do and that we could undo or refrain from doing with neither significant cost or risk to our existence.
Self-identification views (whether they are based in a materialist or an idealist outlook) have a practical purpose: they make samsara possible.

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 946
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Idealism

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:09 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:59 am
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:08 pm
binocular wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:40 pm
...
...
For all practical intents and purposes, it's solipsism, but without the madness.
:goodpost:
They both look a bit mad to me. :tongue:

Philosophical titallation, but of no practical use.




Speaking of philosophy :smile: ,
investigators of nature called themselves "natural philosophers".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

Until the 1840's what we now call science was "natural philosophy," so that even Isaac Newton's great book on motion and gravity, published in 1687, was The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis).
http://www.friesian.com/hist-2.htm

Buddhism can be a religion for those who want a religion, the universal science for those who want the science and the ultimate philosophy for those who want a philosophy."
https://sites.google.com/site/mudithacom/home




Image
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22

Dinsdale
Posts: 6908
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Idealism

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:15 am

binocular wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:34 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:07 pm
I'm not even sure that the distinction between "internal" and "external" is directly relevant. As MN140 explains, internal form and external form is all just form - the point is to not regard it as "me" and "mine". Not my body, but also not my car, or house, or whatever. And as MN1 explains, things (including the elements of form) are known directly when seen with a view that isnt self-referential, or self-interested.
Doing so will make one dysfunctional, if one is still living in the world.

The I-making and you-making (!) is a matter of life and death. It's not just some idle activity that we do and that we could undo or refrain from doing with neither significant cost or risk to our existence.
Self-identification views (whether they are based in a materialist or an idealist outlook) have a practical purpose: they make samsara possible.
How are self-identification views based on materialist or idealist outlooks? Do you mean primarily identifying with the body or the mind, respectively?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

binocular
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Idealism

Post by binocular » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:20 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:15 am
How are self-identification views based on materialist or idealist outlooks? Do you mean primarily identifying with the body or the mind, respectively?
Sure. Just that someone identifying that way wouldn't see it as an act of identifying, but as "how things really are".

binocular
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Idealism

Post by binocular » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:22 am

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:09 am
Speaking of philosophy
Which literally means 'love of wisdom'.
(from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Interesting, how the word got demoted over time ...

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 946
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Idealism

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:39 am

binocular wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:22 am
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:09 am
Speaking of philosophy
Which literally means 'love of wisdom'.
(from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Interesting, how the word got demoted over time ...


Thanks.

On that knowledge, from now on, i can gladly accept those statements which say something like: "Buddhism is a philosophy".
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JohnK, Lankamed, MettaDevPrac, MSN [Bot], nmjojola, Subtle, Talisman25 and 530 guests