General Philosophy

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
chownah
Posts: 7371
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: General Philosophy

Post by chownah » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:15 am

clw_uk wrote:

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"?
Ball has no self so it has no nature.
Round has no self so it has no nature.
Appearance has no self so it has no nature.

Parsing up experience brings about the illusion of a ball, of round, of appearance.

Sorry if I'm disturbing the flow of the conversation and am missing the point.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7371
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: General Philosophy

Post by chownah » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:21 am

clw_uk wrote:
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?
sukha-saññā, -citta, -diṭṭhi: 'the perception (consciousness or view) of happiness' in what is actually suffering (dukkhe sukha-saññā), i.e. any form of existence, it is one of the perversions (vipallāsa, q.v.).
From nayanatiloka's dictionary
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19961
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:28 am

Greetings,
clw_uk wrote:However, ignoring Sukha, is Dukkha always Dukkha to everyone? Or is it only Dukkha to me (and others, if they exists, who experience it)?
Well, first of all, I'm inclined to contain this exploration to loka/sabba. Thus, by doing so you remove the question of whether Person A experiences X in the same way as Person B, because you rule out problems associated with inferring the objective inherent existence of X.

Yet, even when limiting the inquiry to the experiential realm of personal experience, the broad definition of dukkha remains problematic. For example, an arahant may experience dukkha-vedanā (unpleasant sensation) in terms of physical sensation, but they would not experience dukkha, in the sense of suffering and unsatisfactoriness.

That aside, keeping in mind what was said earlier in the Sabba Sutta, I would not bother to ask "is it only Dukkha to me?" as it would be more apt to ask "is it dukkha to me?"... or even better, "is it dukkha?"

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)

SarathW
Posts: 9581
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: General Philosophy

Post by SarathW » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:20 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. :)
Hi Retro
Sorry to go off topic.
I do not think Abhidhamma is referential fallacy.
ie:
Reference ... Fallacies are defined as mistakes in belief based on an unsound argument.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
:)
:focus:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19961
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:40 am

Greetings Sarath,

I was using this definition...

Referential fallacy: assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them. ( Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies )

... especially the bolded sections, in the context of the four paramattha dhammas.

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
mikenz66
Posts: 16281
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: General Philosophy

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:28 am

retrofuturist wrote: ... especially the bolded sections, in the context of the four paramattha dhammas.
Surely that is a matter of some over-interpreting what "paramattha dhammas" means, rather than the Abhidhamma itself.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19961
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:46 am

Greetings Mike,

Perhaps... but I was referring specifically to abhidhammikas, and I'm yet to encounter an abhidhammika who sees them as pointing to fabricated designations.

If they did so, it would kind of defeat the entire purpose of the abhidhammic classification schemes in the sense that they're all sankharas no matter what conceptual overlay the abhidhammika applies, as per Ven. Kumara's comments here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p260871

I agree you could regard the Abhidhamma Pitaka otherwise but abhidhammikas don't.

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)

Dinsdale
Posts: 5767
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: General Philosophy

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:26 am

clw_uk wrote: If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
Briefly sukha, then dukkha.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5767
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: General Philosophy

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:44 am

clw_uk wrote: Or is the nature of Vodka in of itself, not known?
Presumably sanna is subjective, so the resultant vedana will vary according to the individual?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 7371
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: General Philosophy

Post by chownah » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:22 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote: If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
Briefly sukha, then dukkha.
sukha-saññā, -citta, -diṭṭhi: 'the perception (consciousness or view) of happiness' in what is actually suffering (dukkhe sukha-saññā), i.e. any form of existence, it is one of the perversions (vipallāsa, q.v.).
From Nayanatiloka"s dictionary
chownah

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16281
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: General Philosophy

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:36 am

retrofuturist wrote: Perhaps... but I was referring specifically to abhidhammikas, and I'm yet to encounter an abhidhammika who sees them as pointing to fabricated designations.

If they did so, it would kind of defeat the entire purpose of the abhidhammic classification schemes in the sense that they're all sankharas no matter what conceptual overlay the abhidhammika applies, as per Ven. Kumara's comments here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p260871

I agree you could regard the Abhidhamma Pitaka otherwise but abhidhammikas don't.
I think many do, actually. Read Nyanaponika's book on Abhidhamma, for instance. But this has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum, so I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I merely raise my objection to superficial dismissals for the record. See Tiltbilling's quotes here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=20

I particularly liked the talk by Van Aggacitta (who visited us briefly a few years ago) that Ven Kumara linked to here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p258009
Venerable Aggacitta: Abhidhamma origins purpose & limitations
Ven Aggacitta is well versed in both Sutta, Abhidhamma, and commentaries and in my view gives very helpful and practical advice regarding the point and usefulness of the latter two.

But this is now getting way off topic...

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16281
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: General Philosophy

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:37 am

mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: Perhaps... but I was referring specifically to abhidhammikas, and I'm yet to encounter an abhidhammika who sees them as pointing to fabricated designations.

If they did so, it would kind of defeat the entire purpose of the abhidhammic classification schemes in the sense that they're all sankharas no matter what conceptual overlay the abhidhammika applies, as per Ven. Kumara's comments here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p260871

I agree you could regard the Abhidhamma Pitaka otherwise but abhidhammikas don't.
I think most have a much more sophisticated interpretation than you give them credit for. Read Nyanaponika's book on Abhidhamma, for instance. But this has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum, so I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I merely raise my objection to superficial dismissals for the record. See Tiltbilling's quotes here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=20

I particularly liked the talk by Van Aggacitta (who visited us briefly a few years ago) that Ven Kumara linked to here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p258009
Venerable Aggacitta: Abhidhamma origins purpose & limitations
Ven Aggacitta is well versed in both Sutta, Abhidhamma, and commentaries and in my view gives very helpful and practical advice regarding the point and usefulness of the latter two.

But this is now getting way off topic...

:anjali:
Mike

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 8:38 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote: If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
Briefly sukha, then dukkha.

But isn't that your experience? How do you extrapolate your subjective experience to someone else?


In essence, how do we know that X is always dukkha, or dukkha to someone else?
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 8:41 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote: Or is the nature of Vodka in of itself, not known?
Presumably sanna is subjective, so the resultant vedana will vary according to the individual?

That wasn't the point of my post. The perception can be subjective, but the nature of X seems to allude us.


To give an old example, honey appears to be sweet, yet I can only say it appears to be sweet. I cannot affirm if honey is sweet in its nature.
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 8:46 pm

Or to argue from ethics


Murder appears as abhorrent to me, yet good to others. I cannot tell if murder is good or bad, just how it appears to me.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 49 guests