mikenz66 wrote:Here you seem to be insisting that we must regard kamma in a certain way. As an illusion.
Well, maybe it is, but I think that insisting that it is would be going too far.
I'm not sure how I feel about the word "illusion" in this context on account of the fact one might take it to be the opposite of "existing" and thereby equate "illusion" with "non-existence"... because on the contrary, it's avijja and sankharas themselves which are the reason for false perceptions of existence and non-existence. (Note, no statement there affirming or denying existence).
mikenz66 wrote:What I find problematical in these threads is your insistence that anyone who disagree with your view is necessarily taking a realist position, and you put a lot of effort painting any disagreement as "realist" and then arguing against that position.
If there is any assertion that things "exist" made that ignores the fact experienced phenomenon (dhammas) only come into being dependent upon consciousness/cognition of them then I believe it is "realist".
To quote from Bhikkhu Samahita's Daily Dhamma Drops... viewtopic.php?f=13&t=110&start=760#p122292
A crucial core question is: What is actually an experienced phenomenon?
See the equally vital answer here! If mind is directly involved in creating
the very "thing" or "state" it perceives, as an active participatory observer,
then there cannot ever be any "objective observation" or "world out-there",
which is independent of the mind that intends, selects, and manifests it...!
It entails that 'mind' is inseparable from 'matter'. They are Siamese-Twins!
In early Buddhism, the Buddha coined this subtle yet dual Unity: Nama-Rupa!
Name-&-Form or Naming-&-Forming, since these are dynamic processes, that
in mutual dependence creates each other like 2 creepers, that only can grow
up, if growing up twisted & rotated around the other's stem like a DNA-helix.
Scroll a little further down for his delightfully cheeky...
If you feel slightly weird or dizzy after reading this, you are right on track!
Hihihi Keep on observing, studying, reflecting. Never give up Examination!
It is not "reality" that seems to be evaporating under your feet, but rather
the unseen, hidden, habitual and utterly false assumptions you had about it!
(Those bolded sentences might be a useful reminder to those who establish themselves in vipassana practice to ensure their practice leads to vipassana)
By way of comparison, here's definitions of "realism"....
4. philosophy theory that things exist objectively: the theory that things such as universals, moral facts, and theoretical scientific entities exist independently of people's thoughts and perceptions
5. philosophy theory of objectively existing world: the theory that there is an objectively existing world, not dependent on our minds, and that people are able to understand aspects of that world through perception
Source: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18617 ... alism.html
mikenz66 wrote:Whereas I think that Tilt and I would rather talk about the phenomenology of experience, and how it may be analysed.
I think that's what we'd all like to be talking about - you just don't see the connection between what I'm saying and that. So be it.
mikenz66 wrote:Since we only know what we experience, I don't see how it is possible to make definitive statements about some external world of clods, or whatever, only our experience of clods.
Where is the definitive statement? Again, I think you're just inferring meaning about existence and non-existence into what I say on account of the absence of any categorical positive assertions about these things.
Anyway, as you and Tilt say, we are hardly likely to agree, after dozens of similar threads...
Indeed... and that's fine.