khandhas and such

[nibbuti]

[Moderator note: This has been spun off from viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4120 ]

Recall that from the perspective of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali, the ‘All’ {SN IV 15} is composed entirely of phassa, contact between sense base and sense object. We can only directly know phenomena within this ‘world of experience’, so from the Theravadin perspective, we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness, of seeing (the image of a brain), and so on. The discourses of the Pali describe an individual world of experience as composed of various mental and physical factors, nama and rupa. These two are not the separate, independent worlds that Rene Descartes envisioned.

"…the Buddha spoke of the human person as a psychophysical personality (namarupa). Yet the psychic and the physical were never discussed in isolation, nor were they viewed as self-subsistent entities. For him, there was neither a ‘material-stuff’ nor a ‘mental-stuff’, because both are results of reductive analyses that go beyond experience."53

The physical and mental aspects of human experience are continually arising together, intimately dependent on one another.

53 Kalupahana 1976: 73, refers to D.15{II,62}, where the Buddha speaks of both
physicality and mentality mutually dependent forms of contact (phassa).
Physicality is described as contact with resistance (pat.ighasamphassa),
mentality as contact with concepts (adhivacanasamphassa).

STRONG ROOTS by Jake Davis, page 190-1. http://www.dharma.org/bcbs/Pages/docume ... gRoots.pdf

Jake Davis seems to be all entangled in 'namarupa'.

[tiltbillings]

Recall that from the perspective of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali, the ‘All’ {SN IV 15} is composed entirely of phassa, contact between sense base and sense object. We can only directly know phenomena within this ‘world of experience’, so from the Theravadin perspective, we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness, of seeing (the image of a brain), and so on. The discourses of the Pali describe an individual world of experience as composed of various mental and physical factors, nama and rupa. These two are not the separate, independent worlds that Rene Descartes envisioned.

"…the Buddha spoke of the human person as a psychophysical personality (namarupa). Yet the psychic and the physical were never discussed in isolation, nor were they viewed as self-subsistent entities. For him, there was neither a ‘material-stuff’ nor a ‘mental-stuff’, because both are results of reductive analyses that go beyond experience."53

The physical and mental aspects of human experience are continually arising together, intimately dependent on one another.

53 Kalupahana 1976: 73, refers to D.15{II,62}, where the Buddha speaks of both
physicality and mentality mutually dependent forms of contact (phassa).
Physicality is described as contact with resistance (pat.ighasamphassa),
mentality as contact with concepts (adhivacanasamphassa).

STRONG ROOTS by Jake Davis, page 190-1. http://www.dharma.org/bcbs/Pages/docume ... gRoots.pdf

Jake Davis seems to be all entangled in 'namarupa'.

Not at all.

[nibbuti]

Not at all.

[tiltbillings]

Not at all.

Do you actually have anything of any substance to say?

[nibbuti]

Do you actually have anything of any substance to say?

Because you asked nicely, Tilt.

Since there is over-emphasising namarupa ("psychological personality"), there is a misunderstanding Dependent Origination as some kind of creationism of the world, like the Creator God of the Christians except it's the mind, while the Buddha taught DO with an emphasis on the 'Mass of Suffering'.

[tiltbillings]

Do you actually have anything of any substance to say?

Because you asked nicely, Tilt.

Jake Davis draws from quotes of the Buddha, but since he is over-emphasising namarupa, there is a misunderstanding Dependent Origination as some kind of creationism of the world, like the Creator God of the Christians except it's the mind, while the Buddha taught DO with an emphasis on the 'Mass of Suffering'.

And since you replied in a civil manner, I'll reply. Davis is certainly not advocating anything such as "Dependent Origination as some kind of creationism of the world, like the Creator God of the Christians except it's the mind, while the Buddha taught DO with an emphasis on the 'Mass of Suffering'."

[nibbuti]

Davis is certainly not advocating anything such as "Dependent Origination as some kind of creationism of the world, like the Creator God of the Christians except it's the mind, while the Buddha taught DO with an emphasis on the 'Mass of Suffering'."

Thanks for sharing your view. I tend to disagree.

we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness - Jake Davis

[tiltbillings]

Davis is certainly not advocating anything such as "Dependent Origination as some kind of creationism of the world, like the Creator God of the Christians except it's the mind, while the Buddha taught DO with an emphasis on the 'Mass of Suffering'."

Thanks for sharing your view. I tend to disagree.

we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness - Jake Davis

And from a stand point of the Buddha's teachings in the Pali suttas this is wrong how?

[nibbuti]

we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness - Jake Davis

And from a stand point of the Buddha's teachings in the Pali suttas this is wrong how?

It is wrong from a stand point of the Buddha's teachings in the Pali suttas, in that there is a 'body' apart from moments of intellectual consciousness.

Things such as a body are conditioned. But unless they're mental phenomena, such as feelings, perceptions and thoughts, they're not mind-made. Asserting they are mind-made or "cannot exist apart from intellectual consciousness" as Jake Davis claims is 'intellectual creationism' or clinging to intellect.

It is not mind-made but just the way it is. The Buddha's teachings in the Pali suttas point out:

Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

"The ear is empty of a self...

"The nose is empty of a self...

"The tongue is empty of a self...

"The body is empty of a self..

"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty." - SN 35.85

"'The six internal media (ayatana) should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. 'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the first sextet.

"'The six external media (ayatana) should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the mind-objects-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet - MN 148

“When, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is skilled in the elements, skilled in the bases, skilled in dependent origination, skilled in what is possible and what is impossible, in that way he can be called a wise man and an inquirer.”

(THE ELEMENTS)

“But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in the elements?”

“There are, Ānanda, these eighteen elements: the eye element, the form element, the eye-consciousness element; the ear element, the sound element, the ear-consciousness element; the nose element, the odor element, the nose-consciousness element; the tongue element, the flavor element, the tongue-consciousness element; the body element, the tangible element, the body-consciousness element; the mind element, the mind-object element, the mind-consciousness element. When he knows and sees these eighteen elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.” - MN 115

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self." - AN 3.134

[tiltbillings]

we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness - Jake Davis

And from a stand point of the Buddha's teachings in the Pali suttas this is wrong how?

It is wrong from a stand point of the Buddha's teachings in the Pali suttas, in that there is a 'body' apart from moments of intellectual consciousness.

Do you experience this body apart "from moments of intellectual consciousness?"

It is not mind-made but just the way it is.

He is not saying it is mind made. He is talking about experience.

[nibbuti]

Do you experience this body apart "from moments of intellectual consciousness?"

This is not a valid question.

But when asleep, in deep meditation or dead, this body does not vanish magically (or does not become nonexistent) just because no one is intellectualizing and cognizing about it.

He is not saying it is mind made. He is talking about experience.

Sure, but saying "we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness" and saying "it is mind-made" amounts to the same, whether there is experience or not.

[nibbuti]

Upon Tilt's kind request, I am reposting this here:

If there where at this time no awakened individuals, where is nibbana?

So, where is nibbana when there are no arahants?

So, you are saying that nibbana is a self-existant thing that exists independent of awakened individuals.

So, after the arahant dies, where does the nibbana go?

So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?

So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?

Hi Tilt.

In Theravada Buddhism, there are:

rupa dhammas or rupa kaya (physical phenomena)
nama dhammas or nama kaya (mental phenomena)
asankhata dhamma / dhatu (unconditioned element = Nibbana)

If Nibbana was dependent on the human mind, shouldn't it fit into nama dhamma, which it doesn't?

[tiltbillings]

Do you experience this body apart "from moments of intellectual consciousness?"

This is not a valid question, because 'experience' mostly coincides with intellectual consciousness.

Declaring it not valid does not make it not valid. The point of practice is obviously not in the mostly, but, rather, in the non-intellectual experience: In the seen, just the seen, etc.

But when asleep, in deep meditation or dead, this body does not vanish magically (or does not become nonexistent) just because no one is intellectualizing and cognizing about it.

That is all very nice; however, the point of the Dhamma practice is the direct experience of mind/body process in its interdependent rise and fall.

He is not saying it is mind made. He is talking about experience.

Sure, but saying "we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness" or saying "it is mind-made" amounts to the same, whether there is experience or not. [/quote]Amounts to the same thing? Not at all.

[tiltbillings]

In Theravada Buddhism, there are:

rupa dhammas or rupa kaya (physical phenomena)
nama dhammas or nama kaya (mental phenomena)
asankhata dhamma / dhatu (unconditioned element = Nibbana)

If Nibbana was dependent on the human mind, shouldn't it fit into nama dhamma, which it doesn't?

The issue here is what is meant by dhamma.

[nibbuti]

The issue here is what is meant by dhamma.

How so?

You asked "So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?". In return, I'm asking "If Nibbana was dependent on the human mind, shouldn't it fit into nama dhamma (mental phenomena), which it doesn't?"

[nibbuti]

"we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness" - Jake Davis

He is talking about experience.

The point of practice is .. experience

What about this, Tiltbillings?

1. Are you proposing Sariputta engaged in papanca?

When this body lacks these three qualities — vitality, heat & consciousness — it lies discarded & forsaken like a senseless log. - MN 43

2. What about entering & re-emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling. Are you saying this the same as Jesus Christ rising from the dead?

What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?"

In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided, & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling. - MN 43

3. What about this? Is Sariputta engaged in more pananca?

"Friend, there are these five faculties: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty."

"Now, these five faculties — the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty: In dependence on what do they remain standing?"

"These five faculties — the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty — remain standing in dependence on vitality."

"And vitality remains standing in dependence on what?"

"Vitality remains standing in dependence on heat."

"And heat remains standing in dependence on what?"

"Heat remains standing in dependence on vitality."

"I will give you analogy, for there are cases where it is through an analogy that an intelligent person understands the meaning of a statement. Suppose an oil lamp is burning. Its radiance is discerned in dependence on its flame, and its flame is discerned in dependence on its radiance. In the same way, vitality remains standing in dependence on heat, and heat remains standing in dependence on vitality. - MN 43

[tiltbillings]

...

You seem to have this thing about fighting with stuff people did not say or even remotely imply.

"we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness" - Jake Davis

Since "intellectual consciousness" is your locution, so that we are on the same page, please define what you mean by it.

He is talking about experience.

The point of practice is .. experience

What about this, Tiltbillings? ....

Yes, what about it?

[nibbuti]

stuff people did not say or even remotely imply

Didn't you say:

"So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?"

and didn't you say:

And thanks to meditation I fortunately do not have to worry about those pesky dhatu/elements thingies that don't exist

Further, didn't you quote (imply):

"we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness" - Jake Davis

Yes, what about it?

Just answer the questions put forth in that post, if you can.

About the "intellectual consciousness", it was not my locution, but Jake Davis' locution, posted, linked and put into discussion by yourself. Since it came from you, go ahead to define it.

[nibbuti]

You seem to have this thing about fighting with stuff...

Not really. This is a discussion board. You were asked Dhamma-related questions regarding some statements you made. If you are not willing to discuss what you say, you might want to reconsider making such statements.

[tiltbillings]

stuff people did not say or even remotely imply

Didn't you say:

"So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?"

That was a question, not a statement of my position, asked of you in response to and looking for clarication of what you said in that other thread.

and didn't you say:

And thanks to meditation I fortunately do not have to worry about those pesky dhatu/elements thingies that don't exist

And the context for this statement was in response to your saying that nibbana is not an existent thing, though your language seemed to suggest otherwise.

Further, didn't you quote (imply):

"we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness" - Jake Davis

Which you have taken as saying something far differently than what it is, in fact, saying.

Yes, what about it?

Just answer the questions put forth in that post, if you can.

There is nothing to answer. The quotes you gave do not address what I have said, which is why I countered with a question. You seem to be assuming that that I am stating that there is not an "external reality" and that what I am advocating is some sort of radical idealism, which is, of course, not the case.

About the "intellectual consciousness", it was not my locution, but Jake Davis' locution, posted, linked and put into discussion by yourself. Since it came from you, go ahead to define it.

You are correct about that: "We can only directly know phenomena within this ‘world of experience’, so from the Theravadin perspective, we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness, of seeing (the image of a brain), and so on. "And your response: "Asserting they are mind-made or "cannot exist apart from intellectual consciousness" as Jake Davis claims is 'intellectual creationism' or clinging to intellect" is not what Davis is saying. It is what you are reading into what is being said.

You seem to have this thing about fighting with stuff...

Not really. This is a discussion board. You were asked Dhamma-related questions regarding some statements you made. If you are not willing to discuss what you say, you might want to reconsider making such statements.

I have no problem with discussing what is put forth, but you quote a bunch texts, but you do not tell us what you are actually trying to say with them and how they address what you think I am saying. I cannot read your mind, but if you put your words out there explaining what the text are supposed to be saying in response to my position, I will have something to say about them.