Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21517
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:58 am

Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:32 am
The question remains, why did the Buddha teach duality so extensively if he really intended to teach non-duality?
I'm not seeing a convincing explanation so far.
Oh well, only you can right your views... it's not the task of others who are not your teacher.

Kind regards.

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

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

Dinsdale
Posts: 6629
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:20 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:58 am
Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:32 am
The question remains, why did the Buddha teach duality so extensively if he really intended to teach non-duality?
I'm not seeing a convincing explanation so far.
Oh well, only you can right your views... it's not the task of others who are not your teacher.

Kind regards.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Of course, but then you don't have a monopoly on right view. You are presenting a particular interpretation of the Buddhas teaching, and I am challenging your assumptions.
Maybe non-duality IS the essence of the Buddhas teaching, but I'm not sure how many suttas clearly support that view.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21517
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:41 am

Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:20 am
Of course, but then you don't have a monopoly on right view.
No one does.
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:20 am
You are presenting a particular interpretation of the Buddhas teaching, and I am challenging your assumptions.
By all means, and likewise, do not shield your own from this investigative lens either.
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:20 am
Maybe non-duality IS the essence of the Buddhas teaching, but I'm not sure how many suttas clearly support that view.
And as per another recent topic, find an explanation for the phassanirodha of the arahant, and then you'll have a viable alternative.

Until then.

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

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2260
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Bundokji » Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:46 am

I think the word mind refers to the common sense perception of a self. The act of classifying it as one of the six sense media bases and the six sense media bases (consciousness) and having consciousnesses as one of the five aggregates serves to reveal two things in my opinion:

1- The lack of ultimate nature to the common sense perception
2- The persistence of the common sense perception

If common sense is completely brushed off as "delusional", the likely outcome of the practice would be madness rather than wisdom which is.

Personally, i don't see "transcendence" as a complete departure from common sense. I see it more as using the persisting-common sense perception skillfully.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5515
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:05 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:40 am
I still think it's a convoluted approach. Why teach a dyad if the dyad doesn't actually exist? Why not just say the dyad doesn't exist?
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.92/en/bodhi

Why go to great lengths teaching a system of classification if it's all unreal? Why bother? Why teach a model based on duality in the first place, when there is actually no need to do that?
Why didn't the Buddha just teach non-duality?
The Buddha didn't teach a dyad or duality in this particular case. He took the reified concepts which worldlings like us tend to use, and encouraged us to see that they are fabrications, baseless and lacking the absolute reality that we attribute to them. Our thinking that there is such a "thing" as a sense base is dependent on us thinking in other ways, which in turn...

He didn't encourage us to drop that way of thinking only for us to latch onto another reified idea, which is what "non-duality" is.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6629
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:26 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:05 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:40 am
I still think it's a convoluted approach. Why teach a dyad if the dyad doesn't actually exist? Why not just say the dyad doesn't exist?
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.92/en/bodhi

Why go to great lengths teaching a system of classification if it's all unreal? Why bother? Why teach a model based on duality in the first place, when there is actually no need to do that?
Why didn't the Buddha just teach non-duality?
The Buddha didn't teach a dyad or duality in this particular case. He took the reified concepts which worldlings like us tend to use, and encouraged us to see that they are fabrications, baseless and lacking the absolute reality that we attribute to them. Our thinking that there is such a "thing" as a sense base is dependent on us thinking in other ways, which in turn...

He didn't encourage us to drop that way of thinking only for us to latch onto another reified idea, which is what "non-duality" is.
I don't see how you're reading all this into what SN35.92 actually says, since it simply describes the presence of a dyad, which is a duality. The next sutta in the series stresses the impermanence of the dyad components, but it doesn't describe them as mere fabrications, or deny their existence.
My question is, why describe the presence of the dyad at all, if it's such a misleading view? Why not simply say that there is no dyad?

As for "non-duality", that does seem to be what some are proposing here. The idea that's it's all just an internal bifurcation or fabrication, there is really no internal or external, no sense-base or sense-object, etc. If you don't want to describe this as a type of "non-duality", then how else would you describe it, in a nutshell?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21517
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:41 am

Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:26 am
If you don't want to describe this as a type of "non-duality", then how else would you describe it, in a nutshell?
Nippapañca.

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

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

Srilankaputra
Posts: 673
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Srilankaputra » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:23 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:26 am
If you don't want to describe this as a type of "non-duality", then how else would you describe it, in a nutshell?
Suñña (Empty)
Always mindful, Mogharaja,
regard the world as
empty,
having removed any view
in terms of self.
This way
one is above and beyond death.
One who regards the world
in this way
isn't seen by Death's King.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Suñña Sutta: Empty

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

"The ear is empty...

"The nose is empty...

"The tongue is empty...

"The body is empty...

"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!

Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati

“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5515
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:40 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:26 am

I don't see how you're reading all this into what SN35.92 actually says, since it simply describes the presence of a dyad, which is a duality. The next sutta in the series stresses the impermanence of the dyad components, but it doesn't describe them as mere fabrications, or deny their existence.
My question is, why describe the presence of the dyad at all, if it's such a misleading view? Why not simply say that there is no dyad?
I'm talking about the thread as a whole, not just that one sutta. It helps to see suttas and ideas as relating to other teachings. As a stand-alone teaching or a way into Dhamma, SN 35.92 is not all that useful.

My guess is that had the Buddha based his teaching on the statement "dyads don't exist", listeners would have interpreted it to mean "there is but one thing", which is a further reification which merely kicks the can further along the road of samsara.
As for "non-duality", that does seem to be what some are proposing here. The idea that's it's all just an internal bifurcation or fabrication, there is really no internal or external, no sense-base or sense-object, etc
I don't think I'm proposing that. To swap one ontology for another would be like saying that because the Buddha isn't talking about cats, he must be talking about dogs. As Retro points out, both would be a form of proliferation.

sentinel
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by sentinel » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:53 pm

Can one equate non existence and sunna ?
Saying things doesn't exist is one extreme .
:buddha1:

ToVincent
Posts: 670
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by ToVincent » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:10 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:32 am
The question remains, why did the Buddha teach duality so extensively if he really intended to teach non-duality?
I'm not seeing a convincing explanation so far.
I agree with you.
This monism (non-dualism) is so "second period Buddhism".
https://justpaste.it/1uxpg

Early Buddhism never intended to make one out of two.
Buddhism is about transcendence (samatikkamma) - https://justpaste.it/1c78w

One should definitely know what a sense-experience is in early Buddhism - https://justpaste.it/1ac3r
So they can understand what the emptiness of the internal ayatanas is all about. How they are "attacked" by the external (why would one want to make that "one"!?!?)
Also, why make "one" something that is "not ours".

Once one has gotten rid (transcended) somewhat of the external (the "mine"), one has also to get rid somewhat of the internal (the "I").
In the paramount sutta of the "simile of the city" (https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sn35.245/14-15), Buddha says that sati (the gatekeeper) should prevent keep out strangers and admits acquaintances.
This is exactly what seclusion (viveka) means.
Getting secluded in the internal so that one keep out the external stranger out and the internal stranger in.
The khandhas then come directly from arrow 2 - not from arrow 1 anymore. https://justpaste.it/1n1ii
There is no non-dualism (monism) in that.
The idea is to allow the citta to better perceive the "internal dhamma" - viz. the "sankharazing" of the khandhas directly from nāmarūpa nidāna. This is what is called "turning the mano towards the beginning/origin" (yoniso manasikara) - so as to avoid papañca (https://justpaste.it/3f6gs)
Breathing (anapanasati), or walking (as in walking meditation), that are the internal seclusion par excellence are the perfect practices for that purpose.
That is to say: the obtention (sati) of the establishment (samādhi) of citta, thanks to mano.
______

Beware Dindsdale - one might even call you a "bipolar", because you only see the good.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

chownah
Posts: 8145
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by chownah » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:50 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:40 am
I still think it's a convoluted approach. Why teach a dyad if the dyad doesn't actually exist? Why not just say the dyad doesn't exist?
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.92/en/bodhi

Why go to great lengths teaching a system of classification if it's all unreal? Why bother? Why teach a model based on duality in the first place, when there is actually no need to do that?
Why didn't the Buddha just teach non-duality?
I'm wondering what you are really asking about. Are you actually wanting to know what pedagogical technique the buddha is using which gives the answers to your questions?....or are you wanting to show that there is no reason why the buddha would teach that way so it must therefore be that he did not teach non-duality but he did teach duality?

I'm asking because if you really are asking about pedagogical techniques the discussion would be about one thing and if you are doubting that he taught non-duality then the discussion would be something else entirely.
chownah

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5750
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by DooDoot » Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:29 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:50 am
Then how do you explain:
Its you that need to explain your ramblings, about nothing. For example, the purified intellect-consciousness (manoviññāṇena) divorced from the five faculties (eye, ear, nose, ...,) is one of the six sense consciousness mentioned in the 3rd nidana of dependent origination. Also, the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness is not merely consciousness. It is the perception of infinite consciousness, thus includes perception, as follows:
Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness — the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity & attention — he ferreted them out one after another.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Since the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness is something that can be clung to, it is also an ayatana. In fact, that is what it is actually called, namely, an "ayatana" ("viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ"). Yet you keep saying it is not a sense-ayatana. :roll:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

form
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by form » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:36 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:52 am
form wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:36 am
Cos he doesn't know there is an organ called brain and he doesn't know how the nervous system functions.
Because you know?
I thought the crucial questions had not been yet answered - as qualia, for instance.
Modern science has some advancement that ancient medical science do not in the areas of physiology. Some of their concepts are obviously wrong, for example their humor concept.

ToVincent
Posts: 670
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by ToVincent » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:12 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:29 pm
...
O, now I understand why you think I am "rambling about nothing".
You still believe that all āyatanāni are about "senses"; and therefore subject to be "clung to".
Whow!

Āyatanāni are just "fields of experience".
They are just abodes (places, supports, grounds).
Their nature is not to be "clung to" (I suppose you mean upādāna by that - that is something you appropriate as yours). "Lexicographically" speaking, one doesn't want to appropriate an āyatana. One just wants to tend towards that abode; to join (and know) that place (for a while, as in the case of the abode of infinite consciousness, etc.). It should also be the case with the sense-āyatanāni - but we have a tendency to clung to them.
It is only in the case of sense-āyatanāni (eye, ear,... mano) that one wants to "upadanize" them.
But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance that body does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally; that speech does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally; that mano does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally. That field (khetta) does not exist, that site (vatthu) does not exist, that āyatana does not exist, that foundation (adhikaraṇa) does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally.”
Avijjāya tveva, ānanda, asesavirāganirodhā so kāyo na hoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Sā vācā na hoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. So mano na hoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Khettaṃ taṃ na hoti … pe … vatthu taṃ na hoti … pe … āyatanaṃ taṃ na hoti … pe … adhikaraṇaṃ taṃ na hoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhan”ti.
SN 12.25
It is only when concerned with the internal āyatanāni (sense-āyatanāni: ear, eye,... mano) that there is manoviññāṇa.
Manoviññāṇa is definitely not part of the 3rd link of paṭiccasamuppāda. It is purely a sense-consciousness. And it has to be "purified" through the restraint of its indriya.
There is no mano in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and (even) in the 4th links of paṭiccasamuppāda
.
I think you are limited to making early Buddhism fit your own philosophy; instead of looking at facts. So I don't know if I am rambling or "salivating" ; but I am definitely sticking to such facts.

Āyatana: https://justpaste.it/18u12 (mostly concerned with sense-āyatanāni) - See lexicographic notes at the bottom.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 135 guests