What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Post by vinasp »

Hi chownah,
chownah wrote:All we have to actually experience are the six sense doors, their object, and their associated consciousnesses.....with these tools it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of an external world.....the external world is therefore a conjecture or construel on our part.
The six sense spheres, their objects, and their associated consciousnesses, are all said to cease. This is why I do not think that the actual senses are what is meant by these teachings. How does the actual eye cease when ignorance ceases?

I understand the philosophical point that you are making. With regard to the actual senses, we can not have absolute proof of an external world ( Descartes demon). However, most of us do not demand absolute proof.

Best wishes, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Post by vinasp »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:The Buddha defined the world by the six senses.
And yet the sutta which you quote, and provide a link to, does not actually mention the six senses. Did you mean to refer to S.N. IV. 95 [ SN 35. 116] or S.N. IV. 39-40 [ SN 35. 65] ?

Best wishes, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The Samiddhi Sutta (1) at SN 35.65 is interesting. So are the following three suttas SN 35.66, 35.67, and 35.68 which use the same template.

In the first sutta the question is asked "... how is there Mara ...", and the answer is given - "When there are the six sense spheres, their objects, and the respective consciousnesses, there Mara exists ..." But where there are not these things, there Mara does not exist ..." [ I have tried to compress it without changing the meaning].

The next sutta SN 35.66 says exactly the same thing, but with 'a being' replacing Mara.
The next SN 35.67 is the same, but 'suffering' replaces Mara. In the last of the four SN 35.68 'the world' replaces Mara.

So, where there are the six spheres, objects, and consciousnesses, there exists Mara, a being, suffering and the world.
But where there is not the six spheres, objects, and consciousnesses, there does not exist Mara, a being, suffering and the world.

Does this mean that 'Mara', 'a being', 'suffering' and 'the world', are all just different ways of speaking about the same thing?

Also, the first noble truth ends by saying: "... in short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering". But these are also called 'sakaya', so can we add that to the list?

So Mara, a being, suffering, sakaya and the world, are all the same thing?

What do you think?

Best wishes, Vincent.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Vincent,

I think it's a good demonstration of how and why dependent origination should be understood as a non-time-delineated process.

Think about the following quotation we sometimes make reference to...

(Extract from) SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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: From ignorance as a requisite condition come......
In moments where there is ignorance (wrong view), there is the experience of those things you list above. They are perceived to exist.

In moments where perception is not based on ignorance (i.e. there is wisdom - right view), there is no "existence" of anything conditioned by ignorance.

Eventually...

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

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: What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Post by chownah »

vinasp wrote:Hi chownah,
chownah wrote:All we have to actually experience are the six sense doors, their object, and their associated consciousnesses.....with these tools it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of an external world.....the external world is therefore a conjecture or construel on our part.
The six sense spheres, their objects, and their associated consciousnesses, are all said to cease. This is why I do not think that the actual senses are what is meant by these teachings. How does the actual eye cease when ignorance ceases?

I understand the philosophical point that you are making. With regard to the actual senses, we can not have absolute proof of an external world ( Descartes demon). However, most of us do not demand absolute proof.

Best wishes, Vincent.
Sounds to me like the "acutal eye" is part of some external world....and from the point of view I have been providing this means that it is something that is construed. The Buddha advises against construing I think...after all the Thatagata does not construe...I think. From this point of view, when construing stops the eye no longer exists...I think. Afterall, the eye has no self so the eye as we conceive of it does not really exist and if it has any existence at all of its own it is something that we are not able to experience with our limited ability...I think...but not sure.

Maybe I am making a philosophical point or maybe not. To me it is incontrovertible fact that the existence of an external world can not be proven nor disproven with our experience..... which is derived solely through the six sense doors...and...once again if anyone can even in theory show a way that the existence of the external world can be proven or disproven then PLEASE post it as I would be very interested in seeing it. I don't think anyone will post this because frankly it can't be done....the external world is strictly a conjecture or construal.......I guess. And just to hedge my bet a bit; if there is something out there its real existence will have very little to do with the myopic and distorted view of the universe that we have....modern physics hints at this already.

You are absolutely correct in saying that most of us do not demand absolute proof.....in my view this is because most of us do not bother to guard the truth...we gladly accept our construal as absolute fact...this is called ignorance I think. Most people don't want to accept that the way they see the world is a fabrication...merely a self made story shared with friends and foes alike!!!!

chownah
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Post by vinasp »

Hi chownah,

Quote:
"Sounds to me like the "actual eye" is part of some external world....and from the point of view I have been providing this means that it is something that is construed. The Buddha advises against construing I think...after all the Thatagata does not construe...I think. From this point of view, when construing stops the eye no longer exists...I think. Afterall, the eye has no self so the eye as we conceive of it does not really exist and if it has any existence at all of its own it is something that we are not able to experience with our limited ability...I think...but not sure."

An interesting interpretation. But I think you go too far. It is the 'eye' construed or conceived as 'mine' or 'belonging to self', that must cease. That is all that is required for enlightenment. The Buddha says that the eye exists, see for example the Kotthita Sutta SN 35.191 [ PTS S iv 162 ]:


"There is an eye in the Blessed One. The Blessed One sees forms with the eye. There is
no desire or passion in the Blessed One. The Blessed One is well-released in mind.
"There is an ear in the Blessed One...
"There is a nose in the Blessed One...
"There is a tongue in the Blessed One...
"There is a body in the Blessed One...
"There is an intellect in the Blessed One. The Blessed One knows ideas with the
intellect. There is no desire or passion in the Blessed One. The Blessed One is well-released in mind."

Link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bhikkhu Bodhi [ Connected Discourses, 35.232, page 1231] Translates as:

"There exists in the Blessed One the eye, the Blessed One sees a form with the eye, yet
there is no desire and lust in the Blessed One; the Blessed One is well liberated in mind."

Note the use of the word 'see' in these passages. When they speak of 'eye', 'forms' and 'seeing', that refers to actual things. When they speak of 'eye', 'forms' and 'visual consciousness', that refers to the mis-conception of these things as being related to self.

Best wishes, Vincent.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Post by chownah »

Vinasp,
OK...seems like you want to think that the eye is "an actual thing"....and I guess that by this you mean that it exists in some "external" world....so can you prove the existence of some "external" world?...I think not......is it necessary to ascribe things to some "external" world for us to carry on our lives?....I think not.....does the Buddha ever talk about this "external" world....I think not.

If you have no doctrine of self then the "eye" has no self....or does it?....seems like you are postiting a self for the "eye". If there is "an actual eye" is it nourished by "actual blood" and is this circulated by an "actual heart"...and does the "actual blood" flow through an "actual pair of lungs" where "actual oxygen" goes in and "actual carbon dioxide" goes out....and can the....etc. Seems to me like a whole lot of selfing goin' on...........

The "external" world.....external to what?....where is the boundary seperating what is external and what is internal...the skin?...is it "actual" skin?.....and what shall we call the internal....should we call it "the self"....the "actual eye" is external to the "actual self"?

To me this seems like just a bunch of self doctrine and is totally unnecessary...I really can't see how it is necessary much less helpful....on the other hand seeing that the "external" world is just a construal or social convention helps us to see how we are really constructing our experience...resulting in some kind of wisdom I guess...

And finally.....people might feel like they need to defend their views about some "external" world (although I don't really see why) but this does not eliminate the question.....How can one prove or disprove the existence of the "external world" given that we only have the six sense doors with which to construct our experience......doesn't it seem correct that our experience is all that we have and while we might like to believe that it refers to some "external world" there is no way to prove it and that the concept of "the external world" is not necessary? The Buddha advises to not construe I think...so when it comes to the question of an "external world" I guess he would advise to not contrue it....I think he never confirmed the existence of "the external world"....on the other hand in his talks about "The All" he seems to suggest strongly that we not go there.

chownah
pegembara
Posts: 3454
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: What is meant by existence (atthi)?

Post by pegembara »

chownah wrote:
All we have to actually experience are the six sense doors, their object, and their associated consciousnesses.....with these tools it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of an external world.....the external world is therefore a conjecture or construel on our part.
I am with chownah on this.

Sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch are received through the 5 sense organs. No matter how much we know about this cosmos, our solar system and earth including everything that exist on the surface of this planet comes under rupa (material world). Rupa pertains to the tangible, so it refers to material forms (the four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements).

Once these vast diversities of sense objects walk over the bridges of perception and enter your inner world (immaterial world), the 5 sense objects have no choice but to abandon their material forms and turn into non-material entity (energy): perception, mental formations and feelings. Sights, sounds, smells, tastes and tangible sensations carry exactly the same information and details but in different forms.

By seeing, smelling and or tasting one knows an orange. To one born blind, colors and shapes doesn't exist. To one born deaf music doesn't exist. Planes,space-craft, cars and cities do not exist naturally but are brought into existence by the mind. Gravity doesn't really exist either but are mental constructs.

You see yourself as the centre of the universe. Without your 5 senses, the material world does not exist. This is what happens in the jhanas during meditation when the material realm is abandoned. The various realms may well be mind states. When you are in any of those events, sleeping, unconscious, in a coma, all your senses(incl the 6th) cease to function. At that moment, your very own private universe disappears too although it very much exists for other people who are fully conscious.

Sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch, feelings, memories, thoughts and consciousness don't persist and are constantly arising and ceasing moment by moment. Each moment of arising potentially causing a new round of self identification (I see, hear ...feel, think and I am) unless the phenomena are seen as what they really are. The last fetter of conceit "I am" is identification with consciousness itself.


Views are relinquished by one who has gone beyond Vaccha, for it is seen as it really is;
this is the body, this is it's origin, this it's cessation,
these are feelings, this is their origin, this their cessation,
these are memories, this is their origin, this their cessation,
this is the will, this is it's origin, this it's cessation,
this are experiences, this is their origin, this their cessation.

I say one who has gone beyond has completely relinquished and abandoned
all views and theories, all agitation and worry, all fluctuation of opinion,
all 'this is my view', all 'this is my opinion', all egotism,
for he is passionless, selfless, detached, liberated, calm.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Post Reply