Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?

Do you agree with the test ?

Yes
3
19%
No
13
81%
 
Total votes: 16

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:02 pm

After all this talk these last 3 days, you never said a thing about what Nanananda actually believes about existence of things or existence of other people. You've only denied things as usual. Even in the past in 20+ pag topics when you've been criticized on many grounds, you always just say "nope, he doesn't say this" and do your best to avoing saying what he really says. Why all this shyness ? Why can't you say clearly what Nanananda or what you believe about things ? Why are you only capable of saying "nope, I do not say this".

It is similar to the postmodernist of buddha times attitude. Always saying "nope, I do not say this, neither do I say this, and neigher do I say this and this": viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29724 Buddha called them "a philosophy of eer-wrigglers"

Is Nanananda philosophy "a philosophy of eer-wriggling" as Buddha said, or is it just you that is so shy ? Why don't you tell me right now what does Nanananda say about the existence of things or the existence of other people and stop with the "he doesn't say this or that" ? Say it out clearly, why the shiness ?

Does nanananda say things exist or not ? Does he say it is impossible to say weather things exist or not ? etc. etc. What exactly does he say ? Or at least what exactly do you, Retrofuturinst, say ?
Last edited by Circle5 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18645
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:07 pm

Greetings Circle5,

It is not shyness to have a preference not to waste time repeatedly responding to delusional strawman arguments.

Nor is it shyness to refer you back to posts made earlier when responding to your inane accusations.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:11 pm

Again, shyness and eer-wriggeling. Always the "I do not say this" and "neither do I say this". It is never that you really say something. Now that you have been asked point blank what you have to say, you say that "I do not respond to your innacurate accusations".

Have you ever seen me or other people be so shy ? This is just like eer-wrigglers from Buddha time, never saying anything. Even in 20+ pag topics in the past when many people debated you on many grounds, you always eer-wriggled and never said anything, only the "I do not say this, neither do I say this".
If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not. If you asked me if there isn't another world... both is and isn't... neither is nor isn't... if there are beings who transmigrate... if there aren't... both are and aren't... neither are nor aren't... if the Tathagata exists after death... doesn't... both... neither exists nor exists after death, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.'
In the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1), Sanjaya's views are deemed to be amaravikkhepavad, "a theory of eel-wrigglers."
Ok, my accusations are wrong, you are not a solipsist. If you say you are not, then I believe you. But only with one condition:

Tell me what you do actually say, not what you do not say. Tell me weather you believe things exist or not exist, weather you believe it is impossible to tell if things exist or not, etc. Tell me what do you believe about the existence of other people, both in the present and in the future. Tell me something you do say, not things you do not say. That is called eer-wriggling.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18645
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:14 pm

Greetings Circle5,

My perspective on the polarity of existence and non-existence has been explained many times across the forum over the years, including in recent topics.

Whether or not people agree with it, they are generally able to at least comprehend it.

What do you expect me to do about your failure to comprehend it?

:shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:18 pm

Always you answer like that, or give links to topics. Always you claim "I have explained it before" or give links to topics where you don't explaint it at all. Please give me a quote from a topic where you do explain your position. I want a quote, not a link.

Do things exist ? Do they not exist ? Is it impossible to tell weather they exist or not ? Do other beings exist ? Do they not exist ? Do they exist now but will not exist in the future ? Do they not exist now and neither in the future ? Or is it impossible to tell weather other people exist ?

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:25 pm

I am telling you will all my honesty that after so much time of reading about Nanananda on DW or STC, after so many long topics, 20+ in the past on both forums, I still have no idea what he believes. I still don't know how it is different than Nanavira. It is always people criticizing him and other defending with "he does not say this". It is never that someone actually says "Nanananda says things are like this".

And if one ever asks such a question, he is always told to go watch the nibbana sermons or read a 600pag book. Never will you see anyone saying point blank what Nanananda opinions are. I still do not know how exactly he is different from Nanavira despite such long topics about it. I am told that "he is not like Nanavira" yet nobody call tell how is him different. Just the usual "he is not like this, he does not say that".

And then, you are the one to get angry that "you do not understand Nanananda, he doesn't say this or that". Well what am I supposed to know if it's a philosophy of eer-wriggling where nobody actually says anything and only denies things ? I am forced to understand what he believes through the opinions he denies having.
Last edited by Circle5 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 3770
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by SDC » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:28 pm

samseva wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:58 pm
DhammaWheel TOS wrote: 2.
d. Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions - including psychoanalyzing other members, and predictions or threats of kammic retribution
e. Disruptive meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about discussion)
f. Ad-hominem attacks, including the vilification of individuals based on any attributes - whether related to their personal attributes (e.g. gender, nationality, sexuality, race, age) or their approach to the Dhamma (e.g. their practices, level of experience, or chosen tradition)
Doesn't this whole charade go against multiple points of the TOS?
Then report me and I'll suspend myself

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 3770
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by SDC » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:37 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:25 pm
I am telling you will all my honesty that after so much time of reading about Nanananda on DW or STC, after so many long topics, 20+ in the past on both forums, I still have no idea what he believes. I still don't know how it is different than Nanavira. It is always people criticizing him and other defending with "he does not say this". It is never that someone actually says "Nanananda says things are like this".

And if one ever asks such a question, he is always told to go watch the nibbana sermons or read a 600pag book. Never will you see anyone saying point blank what Nanananda opinions are. I still do not know how exactly he is different from Nanavira despite such long topics about it. I am told that "he is not like Nanavira" yet nobody call tell how is him different. Just the usual "he is not like this, he does not say that".

And then, you are the one to get angry that "you do not understand Nanananda, he doesn't say this or that". Well what am I supposed to know if it's a philosophy of eer-wriggling where nobody actually says anything and only denies things ? I am forced to understand what he believes through the opinions he denies having.
I actually respect you when you admit this sort of thing. You usually go around claiming to know and then critique your own summaries, but I prefer when you admit you don't actually know about it.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18645
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:39 pm

Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:18 pm
Always you answer like that, or give links to topics. Always you claim "I have explained it before" or give links to topics where you don't explaint it at all. Please give me a quote from a topic where you do explain your position. I want a quote, not a link.
I have given you multiple links of relevance in this topic alone. Your accusations are lame, disingenuous and false.
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:18 pm
Do things exist ? Do they not exist ? Is it impossible to tell weather they exist or not ? Do other beings exist ? Do they not exist ? Do they exist now but will not exist in the future ? Do they not exist now and neither in the future ? Or is it impossible to tell weather other people exist ?
For someone who claims to have "read the suttas", you ask some odd questions that have nothing to do about the Dhamma. Have you forgotten the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta? Normally when quoting from the suttas, I only quote the section which appears relevant, but I can find little in this sutta that is not relevant to your interrogation, so I present the sutta to you in full...
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then, as Ven. Malunkyaputta was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life."

Then, when it was evening, Ven. Malunkyaputta arose from seclusion and went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, just now, as I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One... I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist," then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist," then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life.'

"Lord, if the Blessed One knows that 'The cosmos is eternal,' then may he declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal.' If he knows that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' then may he declare to me that 'The cosmos is not eternal.' But if he doesn't know or see whether the cosmos is eternal or not eternal, then, in one who is unknowing & unseeing, the straightforward thing is to admit, 'I don't know. I don't see.'... If he doesn't know or see whether after death a Tathagata exists... does not exist... both exists & does not exist... neither exists nor does not exist,' then, in one who is unknowing & unseeing, the straightforward thing is to admit, 'I don't know. I don't see.'"

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"

"No, lord."

"And did you ever say to me, 'Lord, I will live the holy life under the Blessed One and [in return] he will declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"

"No, lord."

"Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances/making demands of anyone?

"Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,"' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

"Malunkyaputta, it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

"It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

"It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The soul & the body are the same,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The soul & the body are the same,' and when there is the view, 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

"It's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata exists,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared."

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Malunkyaputta delighted in the Blessed One's words.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"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)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Of course it is wrong to ask such things about the Tathagata. It may be correct to ask it about the aggregates that make up the Tathagata but not about the tathagata. I have not asked you one of the "inconjurable questions", I have asked you these questions:
Do things exist ? Do they not exist ? Is it impossible to tell weather they exist or not ? Do other beings exist ? Do they not exist ? Do they exist now but will not exist in the future ? Do they not exist now and neither in the future ? Or is it impossible to tell weather other people exist ?
Buddha was not afraid to answer such questions, as shown in SN 22:94. These are not inconjurable questions.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18645
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:25 pm
I am telling you will all my honesty that after so much time of reading about Nanananda on DW or STC, after so many long topics, 20+ in the past on both forums, I still have no idea what he believes. I still don't know how it is different than Nanavira.
Maybe the problem is that you're "reading about" these people, rather than reading what they actually have to say? Their primary works are freely available on the Internet, you know...

As it is, you latch onto a snippet and run a mile with it, without once pausing to reflect on whether you have correctly understood what is said. This has been your modus operandi for years. Is it any wonder that there is disinclination from myself and the membership at large to respond to your papañca-saññā-sankhā?

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

perkele
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by perkele » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:07 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:07 am
Other than this, 2 pages of trolling and a post from Perkele that was about him having troubles about solipsism that I will respond to but in the topic about solipsism not in this one, which is about something else.
I am still waiting for that. But you seem to be entrenched in senseless battles here.

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:14 am

I am still waiting for that. But you seem to be entrenched in senseless battles here.
Sorry for that. I agree

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3781
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Dhammanando » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:20 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:27 pm
In my opinion, it does not take a Bobbi Fisher IQ to understand what Buddha mean by that sutta. What I have wrote in this message is also consisted with Retrofuturist most hated sutta, SN 22:94, a sutta he has twisted in 4-5 different ways in this topic : viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29724&p=439781#p439804
Read all pages till the end to see what Retrofuturist had to say about that sutta.
The question of whether Ñāṇavīra and Ñāṇānanda are reading the Kaccāna Sutta correctly is logically distinct from the question of whether their reading of it would entail solipsism. It seems to me that only the second question is really relevant to the current topic, namely, whether your proposed test for ferreting out solipsists is a sound one.

Is there any particular post in your link (or anywhere else) where you think that you've demonstrated beyond doubt that solipsism is a necessary consequence of their reading of this sutta?

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:41 am

Dhammanando wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:20 am
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:27 pm
In my opinion, it does not take a Bobbi Fisher IQ to understand what Buddha mean by that sutta. What I have wrote in this message is also consisted with Retrofuturist most hated sutta, SN 22:94, a sutta he has twisted in 4-5 different ways in this topic : viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29724&p=439781#p439804
Read all pages till the end to see what Retrofuturist had to say about that sutta.
The question of whether Ñāṇavīra and Ñāṇānanda are reading the Kaccāna Sutta correctly is logically distinct from the question of whether their reading of it would entail solipsism. It seems to me that only the second question is really relevant to the current topic, namely, whether your proposed test for ferreting out solipsists is a sound one.

Is there any particular post in your link (or anywhere else) where you think that you've demonstrated beyond doubt that solipsism is a necessary consequence of their reading of this sutta?
I know you do not agree with their interpretation of buddhism or of their interpretation of that sutta, and indeed that is a distinct question. Yet, the fact that you quoted that sutta might have implied that you do agree with that interpretation of the sutta to people who do not know your opinions too well.

Regarding the second question, such an argument indeed does not require Metaphysical solipsism. It is basically saying "I do not know weather anything exists or not, not even my own mind and I can never know that for sure so I will abandon the question" - but that would quality as Methodological solipsist.

The second possibility is for the person to mean something like "there is no such thing as existence or non-existence" - therefore simply denying the current use of the terms "existence" and "non-existence", simply claiming "the pathways of language" are not good in this situation and that these words are not good for describing the world. Buddha never had a problem with such pathways of language and he also had a bad opinion of people who do not respect pathways of language, but that is another problem. The big problem here is that even in this second case, they do not escape the derrogatory label, they even get a more derogatory one: postmodernist.

I honestly do not know 100% sure in which of these 2 ways that argument is mean since they are so shy in expressing themselves. But in my opinion it is 99% the first, therefore qualifying them as Methodological solipsist. As you too have said, this does not make them hardcore metaphysical solipsist, but how can they escape the methodological solipsist label ?
Last edited by Circle5 on Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:47 am, edited 3 times in total.

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:42 am

perkele wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:07 am
I am still waiting for that. But you seem to be entrenched in senseless battles here.
I've answered here : viewtopic.php?f=45&p=442533#p442533

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by L.N. » Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:00 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:13 pm
L.N. wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:19 pm
You may be able to persuade me otherwise if you respond in a meaningful way to the following request, which so far you have ignored:.
I think you have missed this post of mine: viewtopic.php?f=16&p=442437#p442391

If you see other arguments that I have not responded to in this topic, please quote that specific argument.
I did not miss the post. You have never offered a substantive response to the following:
L.N. wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:19 pm
L.N. wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:58 am
I would be interested to know if you believe anybody has contributed any thoughts which have offered you any idea of what might make this not quite so simple as you present it.
I am less interested now.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

pulga
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by pulga » Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:13 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:25 pm
I still don't know how it is different than Nanavira.
Ven. Ñanavira has an interpretation of rūpa that I believe differs from that of Ven. Ñanananda. As I understand him, Ñanavira takes the six sense-based body and its surroundings as "matter" that imposes itself on experience and is independent from our perception (and all of the other aspects of nāma that goes along with it). The subtlety lies in that such rūpa simpliciter being more primitive than its appearance is unintelligible, and since existence lies on the side of intelligibility it cannot be said to exist. Confer the passage from Being and Time that he refers to in his SN Rūpa:
Of course only as long as Dasein is (that is, only as long as an understanding of Being is ontically possible), ‘is there’ Being.(1) When Dasein does not exist, ‘independence’ ‘is’ not either, nor ‘is’ the ‘in-itself’. In such a case this sort of thing can be neither understood nor not understood. In such a case even entities within-the-world can neither be discovered nor lie hidden. In such a case it cannot be said that entities are, nor can it be said that they are not. But now, as long as there is an understanding of Being and therefore an understanding of presence-at-hand, it can indeed be said that in this case entities will still continue to be. -- Being and Time pg. 255
This accounts for the facticity that undermines our mastery of things, and constitutes the very essence of dukkha. The best analogy that I can think of -- off the top of my head -- is that of reading a book. While imagination enables us to interpret the plot in any number of ways (giving us a sense of mastery), it's the words that we encounter (or even more precisely the physical markings on the pages) that force themselves upon us as we read that limit that interpretation -- words not of our own making. The sense of agency is one of the most difficult conundrums of the Buddha's Teaching, cf. SN 12.17:
"If one asserts: 'He who makes (suffering) feels (it): being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts: 'One makes (suffering), another feels (it): being one existent crushed out by feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either of these extremes, a Perfect One expounds the Dhamma by the middle way: ... (that is, by dependent arising and cessation)."
I may be wrong, but I believe Ñanananda holds nāma and rūpa to be mutually dependent which seems to be a sort of phenomenalism. I suppose one might think of Ven. Ñanavira as being a qualified realist. To the extent that Ñanavira isn't putting forth the view that rūpa "exists" independent of nāma, the two views really aren't that far apart. Rūpa is only conceivable through abstracting it from its appearance as nāma-rūpa. Though the facticity that Ñanavira hones in on is of importance in that it undermines the very notion of self, cf. Anatta-lakkhana Sutta.

(As for escaping the dilemma of solipsism I believe Ven. Ñanavira's maxim that we infer the negative can be helpful. Our immediate, pre-reflective experience is essentially a third-person public world from which we infer through the imagination the views of other people, the only real view is the first-person view we have before us. Nonetheless though the views we ascribe to others are imaginary, both first-person and third-person experiences reflect reality in the same way that a cube is just as real as the single visible face that presents it.)

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 606
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by aflatun » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:23 pm

pulga wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:13 am
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:25 pm
I still don't know how it is different than Nanavira.
I agree with pugla's lucid summary of the main differences with respect to the ideas you're asking about. It will be a great start for you to chew on what he wrote.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:40 am

pulga wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:13 am
...
Thanks for the explanations Pulga. If what you say is true, then I don't see that much of a problem with it in terms of keeping one from understanding the dhamma regarding the accusations of solipsism. It's mostly philosophical talk about useless things, looking from wrong angles at the problem. Many stuff in western philosophy are like:

2+2=4 - and now you have a philosophy develop that says left numbers have priority because we read from left to right. Then you have a philosophy believing in "centrism episemology" saying that all number have equal priority and significance and bla bla bla because they all have the same power in the equation and matter the same. And you have a bunch of people not realizing these ways of looking at the problem are totally useless and stupid. And then they start fighting for small details about these theories.

The big problem I find with this is what do they say about the existence of a self ? Both Nanavira and Nanananda believe in a self. How do they explain this and how does this fit in their overall view ?

This is the big problem that I find with them, since clinging to a theory about a self is what is keeing one from attaing stream entry. It's impossible to understand no-self if one is clinging to some views that say a self exist. So for the sake of understanding them better: How do they argue for the existence of a self ? How does this fit in their philosophy ? How do they differ from one another regarding this aspect ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lostitude and 46 guests