Is there a real world out there?...

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli wrote:For inauthentic man, when he does think about the nature of his experience and the world around him, his views would generally pertain to a common notion of a hidden reality behind the everyday world (either material or mental, depending on the direction his mind takes). What is meant by this is that he simply assumes that there is something more real or fundamental in relation to what he is or can experience. Simply put, if he was to assume a 'mental' type of reality, as something which underlies the present experience, he would fall into (one of the forms of) idealism; alternatively, if the reality was to have a more 'material' basis, he would fall into some form of materialism (or realism). Either way, the puthujjana oscillates between the two.

For example, in present times, a spiritual/mystical view of the hidden 'Reality' (one's 'true Self', or 'universal consciousness') would be a form of idealism, while the very common and prevalent scientific objectification of the experience would most certainly come under materialism. These two can serve as the two prominent poles of the Wrong View spectrum. These views differ from the Right View because as they are focused on developing and providing explanations of the nature of one's experience, while failing to see that fundamentally they are derived from it. No matter how plausible and accurate a theory or an explanation of the origins and nature of the experience is, the fact is that experience, as a phenomenon, will always have to come first. This means that the explanation cannot be applied retrospectively to describe its own origin which is simultaneously present.
Source: http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2014/02/ ... existence/

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by chownah »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli wrote:For inauthentic man, when he does think about the nature of his experience and the world around him, his views would generally pertain to a common notion of a hidden reality behind the everyday world (either material or mental, depending on the direction his mind takes). What is meant by this is that he simply assumes that there is something more real or fundamental in relation to what he is or can experience. Simply put, if he was to assume a 'mental' type of reality, as something which underlies the present experience, he would fall into (one of the forms of) idealism; alternatively, if the reality was to have a more 'material' basis, he would fall into some form of materialism (or realism). Either way, the puthujjana oscillates between the two.

For example, in present times, a spiritual/mystical view of the hidden 'Reality' (one's 'true Self', or 'universal consciousness') would be a form of idealism, while the very common and prevalent scientific objectification of the experience would most certainly come under materialism. These two can serve as the two prominent poles of the Wrong View spectrum. These views differ from the Right View because as they are focused on developing and providing explanations of the nature of one's experience, while failing to see that fundamentally they are derived from it. No matter how plausible and accurate a theory or an explanation of the origins and nature of the experience is, the fact is that experience, as a phenomenon, will always have to come first. This means that the explanation cannot be applied retrospectively to describe its own origin which is simultaneously present.
Source: http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2014/02/ ... existence/

Metta,
Retro. :)
I think I agree with the substance of the excerpt but I have a couple of comments.

The first sentence is great. The rest of the first paragraph seems to be setting up the idea that the putthujanna will oscillate between what is experienced and an assumed hidden reality......seems to me that the putthujanna does not consider experience itself to be a central focus of concern but rather there is an assumption of the existence of the every day world.....so....I would think it more accurate to say that the putthujanna will oscillate between their notion of the everyday world and their notion of a hidden reality behind the everyday world......that is I don't think that they cognize that there is an existence based just on experience or even that experience can constitute a significant base from which existence arises.....I think for the putthujanna ther is the real world and the hidden reality and experience is a result or by product of that duality.
chownah
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by SamKR »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli wrote:For inauthentic man, when he does think about the nature of his experience and the world around him, his views would generally pertain to a common notion of a hidden reality behind the everyday world (either material or mental, depending on the direction his mind takes). What is meant by this is that he simply assumes that there is something more real or fundamental in relation to what he is or can experience. Simply put, if he was to assume a 'mental' type of reality, as something which underlies the present experience, he would fall into (one of the forms of) idealism; alternatively, if the reality was to have a more 'material' basis, he would fall into some form of materialism (or realism). Either way, the puthujjana oscillates between the two.

For example, in present times, a spiritual/mystical view of the hidden 'Reality' (one's 'true Self', or 'universal consciousness') would be a form of idealism, while the very common and prevalent scientific objectification of the experience would most certainly come under materialism. These two can serve as the two prominent poles of the Wrong View spectrum. These views differ from the Right View because as they are focused on developing and providing explanations of the nature of one's experience, while failing to see that fundamentally they are derived from it. No matter how plausible and accurate a theory or an explanation of the origins and nature of the experience is, the fact is that experience, as a phenomenon, will always have to come first. This means that the explanation cannot be applied retrospectively to describe its own origin which is simultaneously present.
Source: http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2014/02/ ... existence/

Metta,
Retro. :)
+1
The part you have emphasized is a profound statement.

Among these two extreme views, the extreme of materialism is a gross and much worse view than the extreme of idealism (ex: spiritual teachings like neo-advaita).
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10170
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by Spiny Norman »

SamKR wrote: Among these two extreme views, the extreme of materialism is a gross and much worse view than the extreme of idealism (ex: spiritual teachings like neo-advaita).
Do you mean because it leads to more grasping and clinging?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by Dan74 »

Regarding the quote from the Venerable, perhaps it is worth recalling that physics and science in general, even though they originate in the senses, succeed in many way to reach beyond what is immediately perceivable. We could for instance predict the existence of black holes before we could see them, but more importantly they provide insight into how the physical Universe operates. The point I am trying to make is that it is possible in a certain sense to go beyond. Conversely mathematics provides example where we can make statements about ordinary numbers which require assumptions about infinities in order to verify them (eg Goodstein's theorem). These statements implicitly go beyond their domain.

So even though our experience is circumscribed by our senses, not everything we produce using these senses is merely a solipsistic reflection of ourselves.
_/|\_
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by SamKR »

Spiny Norman wrote:
SamKR wrote: Among these two extreme views, the extreme of materialism is a gross and much worse view than the extreme of idealism (ex: spiritual teachings like neo-advaita).
Do you mean because it leads to more grasping and clinging?
The actual degree of clinging or grasping could be similar, or any one of them could be more or less grasped than the other. Both have the view that there is a primary "hidden reality" or a "substance" behind the immediate appearance or experience. In actuality, experience or appearance is the primary out of which hidden reality of "material substance" (materialism) or the hidden reality of "universal consciousness" ("idealism") are derived or imputed or conceived.

But my point is that materialism clings such that it does not take even the first step of subtlety and is far behind "idealism" (in our context, spiritual teachings that teach "universal consciousness", "true self" etc.) regarding the nature of reality. The latter transcends many obstacles of views (like ego, "separate self", subject-object duality, etc.) and then may halt at some level clinging to the experience and idea of "the source of all phenomena", "the unchanging stillness", " the eternal timeless awareness", or "universal consciousness", or the "true Self".
Last edited by SamKR on Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by SamKR »

Dan74 wrote:Regarding the quote from the Venerable, perhaps it is worth recalling that physics and science in general, even though they originate in the senses, succeed in many way to reach beyond what is immediately perceivable. We could for instance predict the existence of black holes before we could see them, but more importantly they provide insight into how the physical Universe operates. The point I am trying to make is that it is possible in a certain sense to go beyond. Conversely mathematics provides example where we can make statements about ordinary numbers which require assumptions about infinities in order to verify them (eg Goodstein's theorem). These statements implicitly go beyond their domain.

So even though our experience is circumscribed by our senses, not everything we produce using these senses is merely a solipsistic reflection of ourselves.
It is not possible to go beyond the immediate experiences. Of course, we can predict the existence of black holes before we could see them. That is, there is undoubtedly the experience or arising of that very scientific reasoning and subsequent prediction. And it is sufficient that the black holes arise in reasonings and thoughts (as cognized, which is another dimension of experience besides seen, heard, and sensed). The black holes need not be seen by eyes, or in other words, the black hole itself need not arise in direct visual consciousness through eyes. Nevertheless, they may arise in visual consciousness as signals through data acquisition system and data visualization (as seen). No way you can go beyond the range of experience.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by mikenz66 »

In my view, the key thing about science is not whether or not it correctly represents "truth" or "reality". The key point is that it gives predictions that are testable, and, in some cases, have a utility. So, for example, Newton's laws of motion give a good enough approximation to the observed motion of objects of various sizes to enable engineering ranging from bicycles to lunar landings. Consequently, it makes sense to work on the provisional assumption that such theories will continue to give correct predictions.

I really don't see why statements like
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas....
need to be dressed up with complicated philosophical ideas. All we have to work with in a Dhamma context is our senses, and the sense objects. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why working with a provisional model that what we are sensing is "something out there" is in any way contradictory to the Dhamma as presented in the suttas, or a hindrance to progress in the application of the Dhamma.

:anjali:
Mike
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by SamKR »

mikenz66 wrote:In my view, the key thing about science is not whether or not it correctly represents "truth" or "reality". The key point is that it gives predictions that are testable, and, in some cases, have a utility. So, for example, Newton's laws of motion give a good enough approximation to the observed motion of objects of various sizes to enable engineering ranging from bicycles to lunar landings. Consequently, it makes sense to work on the provisional assumption that such theories will continue to give correct predictions.
Sure. Nobody can deny correct predictions and usefulness of science.
mikenz66 wrote: I really don't see why statements like
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas....
need to be dressed up with complicated philosophical ideas. All we have to work with in a Dhamma context is our senses, and the sense objects. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why working with a provisional model that what we are sensing is "something out there" is in any way contradictory to the Dhamma as presented in the suttas, or a hindrance to progress in the application of the Dhamma.

:anjali:
Mike
As long as there is reduction of craving (towards the things) in one's practice, the sensing or having view of "something out there" may not be a hindrance.
But if we are to train ourselves like "in the seen only the seen, in the heard only the heard, in the sensed only the sensed, and in the cognized only the cognized", then it is useful to make distinction between what is purely seen and what is purely conceiving. If we can distinguish conceiving and cognizing from the seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, then we will be able to have pure seen, heard, sensed, and cognized. "Something out there" is a conceiving (that is, the content of the cognized, or the derivation of the seen, heard, and sensed), and it should be regarded as such. This is not a complicated philosophical idea.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sam,

I agree ~ it's not a complicated philosophical idea.

In fact, it's precisely what the Buddha teaches in...

MN 1: Mulapariyaya Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Compare how the putthujana (worldling) sees things...
The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
... with how the sekha (learner/trainee) is encouraged to see things...
"A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
... with how the arahant does see things...
"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.
As ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli pointed out, "These views [i.e. materialism and idealism] differ from the Right View because as they are focused on developing and providing explanations of the nature of one's experience, while failing to see that fundamentally they are derived from it."

In order words, they are examples of how the putthujana sees things, because they simply cannot fathom any other way of seeing things...
Ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli wrote:For a puthujjana the world exists. He can perceive things in that world, see them appear and disappear, he can see them changing. A puthujjana can also affect his surroundings and modify things according to own preferences, pursue the desirable experiences and avoid the undesirable ones—the puthujjana is involved. This 'involvement' with things represents the very core of the puthujjana's 'experience as a whole'. Most people spend the majority of their lives obliviously absorbed in it, taking the course of 'involvement' for granted.
Mike wrote:I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why working with a provisional model that what we are sensing is "something out there" is in any way contradictory to the Dhamma as presented in the suttas, or a hindrance to progress in the application of the Dhamma.
If one's goal is merely to adopt the putthujana way of looking at the Dhamma (i.e. mundane right view) and maybe aim at rebirth in higher realms etc. then sure, there may not be a hindrance.

However, if one is seeking nobility, then holding to a materialist view is very much a hindrance, as suttas such as MN 1 and SN 12.15 clearly demonstrate.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by SamKR »

Thanks, Retro, for the sutta. I had it in mind when writing my post.
From that sutta, about the sekha:
"He directly knows the seen as the seen. Directly knowing seen as the seen, let him not conceive things about the seen, let him not conceive things in the seen, let him not conceive things coming out of the seen, let him not conceive the seen as 'mine,' let him not delight in the seen. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

Pali: Diṭṭhaṃ diṭṭhato abhijānāti. Diṭṭhaṃ diṭṭhato abhiññāya diṭṭhaṃ māmaññi. Diṭṭhasmiṃ māmaññi. Diṭṭhato māmaññi. Diṭṭhaṃ me'ti māmaññi. Diṭṭhaṃ mābhinandi. Taṃ kissa hetu? Pariññeyyaṃ tassā'ti vadāmi.
And a funny thing is that at the end of sutta:
That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
Mike wrote:I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why working with a provisional model that what we are sensing is "something out there" is in any way contradictory to the Dhamma as presented in the suttas, or a hindrance to progress in the application of the Dhamma.
If one's goal is merely to adopt the putthujana way of looking at the Dhamma (i.e. mundane right view) and maybe aim at rebirth in higher realms etc. then sure, there may not be a hindrance.

However, if one is seeking the nobility, holding to a materialist view is very much a hindrance, as suttas such as MN 1 and SN 12.15 clearly demonstrate.
Sure. If one was promoting a pure materialism that would be a problem. Who is advocating that?

Can you specifically point out and explain where the Buddha says that it's a hindrance to be open-minded about whether or not the external world exists, and that some of what we perceive may be due to an external world and some not? It seems to me that this is approach entirely consistent with the quotes you have given above. Are you suggesting that we should, instead, veer in the direction of idealism?

To me, Ven N's article does seem to incline in the direction of idealism, despite his claims to the contrary.
As ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli pointed out, "These views [i.e. materialism and idealism] differ from the Right View because as they are focused on developing and providing explanations of the nature of one's experience, while failing to see that fundamentally they are derived from it."
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding this rather convoluted sentence (and the rest of the article)...

For me, the problem with such arguments is that they assume that the task being pursued (in science, Dhamma, or whatever) is "providing explanations", or "discovering truth" and proceed to criticise such straw man that was never the point of the exercise in the first place.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Can you specifically point out and explain where the Buddha says that it's a hindrance to be open-minded about whether or not the external world exists, and that some of what we perceive may be due to an external world and some not?
It's a problem only to the extent that it is perceived as such...
MN 1 wrote:The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
SN 12.15 wrote:Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"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.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle....
Ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli wrote:Either way, the puthujjana oscillates between the two
mikenz66 wrote:Are you suggesting that we should, instead, veer in the direction of idealism?
Erm, no...
Ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli wrote:For example, in present times, a spiritual/mystical view of the hidden 'Reality' (one's 'true Self', or 'universal consciousness') would be a form of idealism, while the very common and prevalent scientific objectification of the experience would most certainly come under materialism. These two can serve as the two prominent poles of the Wrong View spectrum.
Ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli wrote:Either way, the puthujjana oscillates between the two
SN 12.15 wrote:Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle
mikenz66 wrote:But perhaps I'm misunderstanding this rather convoluted sentence (and the rest of the article)...

Quite probably, if you think it is promoting idealism rather than the Dhamma that the Tathagata taught via the middle...
mikenz66 wrote:For me, the problem with such arguments is that they assume that the task being pursued (in science, Dhamma, or whatever) is "providing explanations", or "discovering truth" and proceed to criticise such straw man that was never the point of the exercise in the first place.

Right. The "point of the exercise" is the pursuit of the Noble Eightfold Path, of which Right View is the forerunner... it's not to dismiss your beloved physical sciences.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,

As I said, my impression from his article (which isn't particularly clear to me) is that he inclines to a denial an external world (which I think we agree would be an error). Re-quoting all those suttas and a few of his sentences does not make it any clearer to me. It's clear that I am probably misunderstanding him. If you'd care to put in simple terms what he is actually trying to get at (no need to quote any more suttas) that would be helpful.

:anjali:
Mike
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by SamKR »

Hi Mike,

Not answering your question to Retro, but expressing my opinions: The external world is not denied. What is denied is the idea of independent and inherent existence of the external world. We cannot say the external world does not exist when we see how the "external" world originates due to dependent origination (based on ignorance, etc.). And, we cannot say the external world exists when we see the "external" world ceases due to dependent cessation (based on cessation of ignorance, etc.).

So, there is external world or more accurately the sense-of-external world (and other conceivings like 'self') as long as there is ignorance, and there is not external world (and 'self') when ignorance and subsequent sankhara cease.

The statement "there is no real external world" is analogous to "there is no self".
The statement "there is a sense of world which is dependent upon ignorance" is analogous to "there is a sense of self which is dependent upon ignorance"
:anjali:
Last edited by SamKR on Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply