Is there a real world out there?...

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

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

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Sylvester wrote:subject-object duality...
I'm not convinced that it's apt to regard "eye & forms" as a subject-object duality. I would have thought "subject" implies a being ~ an entity, a puggala, an atman, a satta, or at least the perception thereof... thus, in this sense the subject would be asmi-mana (i.e. the "I am" conceit).

Taking my definition (which you're welcome to disagree with), the arahant does transcend the subject-object duality through the eradication of asmi-mana.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Don't worry Retro. It's just a definitional issue. Hamilton defines subject-object in a way that acknowledge your concerns. How she defines the dichotomy, if I understand her correctly, is that there is the object and there is the experience of it, ie the Aggregates. It's an unbridgeable divide.

On the other hand, I'm not too convinced that this duality is such that it does not allow some form of knowledge that is accurate and useful enough for liberation. She has a heavy-duty analysis of DN 15's analysis of the 2 types of contact (like your fav Ven Nanavira and Ven Nanananda) but does not deal with the "sphere of wisdom" promised by that sutta in relation to "designation contact". I wonder why?

It's interesting that Spiny raises Ven T's not-self strategy. Hamilton is also an advocate of such a reading, even going to the extent of challenging Norman's translation of MN 22 on a key term that is traditionally cited as proof that the Buddha did teach No-Self. My Pali is not good enough to comment if her critique is valid.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19926
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

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

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Sylvester,

Could you give us the reference for the Hamilton article?

:anjali:
Mike
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10152
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

mikenz66 wrote:To me, any attempt to confirm or deny that there is a "real world" misses the point. That most of us, in ordinary life, or in more technical areas such as science, use a working model that there is something out there, and that is what we are measuring or experiencing, and use language that builds in that assumption.
I think in everyday life we behave with the assumption that there's a real world out there. But I agree that in terms of Buddhist practice it's a mute point.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10152
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sylvester wrote:The "transcendental" bit is to account for the other limb of experience, ie the external bases (bāhira āyatana) that make up one-third of contact. These are the sense objects. As these things are never known directly, but only through the mediation of contact, she says they are "transcendental". Not in the sense of supramundane or anything mystical as such, but simply in the sense that nobody (not even the Buddha) could transcend the subject-object duality inherent in contact.
Interesting. I've been using the word "external" instead of "transcendental", but the meaning is possibly similar?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

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

Post by Sylvester »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Sylvester,

Could you give us the reference for the Hamilton article?

:anjali:
Mike

Hi Mike

Oops! Should have done that earlier. :embarassed:

There are 2 books by her -

1. Identity and Experience : the Constitution of the Human Being according to Early Buddhism, 1996
2. Early Buddhism : A New Approach - The I of the Beholder, 2000

The first one does a critical reading of the Aggregates from the perspective of the Pali suttas and shows how much of how we understand the Aggregates is actually Abhidhammic. Loads of interesting stuff on Name & Form and Contact as well. The 2nd goes into Subjectivity-Objectivity, Anatta and Dependant Origination.

Not for the faint-hearted, as she has a dense style of writing.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

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

Post by Sylvester »

Spiny Norman wrote:
Sylvester wrote:The "transcendental" bit is to account for the other limb of experience, ie the external bases (bāhira āyatana) that make up one-third of contact. These are the sense objects. As these things are never known directly, but only through the mediation of contact, she says they are "transcendental". Not in the sense of supramundane or anything mystical as such, but simply in the sense that nobody (not even the Buddha) could transcend the subject-object duality inherent in contact.
Interesting. I've been using the word "external" instead of "transcendental", but the meaning is possibly similar?
You'll love Hamilton, as she spends loads of ink on the internal-external dichotomy.

I tried (acting on a post by daverupa) to link "external" with DN 15's concept of bare sensory contact (paṭighasamphassa) and the experiential verbs predicated by kāyena. Not quite there yet. Perhaps you should enlist AncientBuddhism, as he has some very appealing ideas about Form and Name/Naming.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

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

Post by Aloka »

Sylvester wrote:
You'll love Hamilton, as she spends loads of ink on the internal-external dichotomy.
I started reading "Early Buddhism" A New Approach" a couple of years ago but didn't get to finish it.

There was also a thread - "Sue Hamilton -anyone read her work"

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8657

.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

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

Post by kirk5a »

Sylvester wrote: How she defines the dichotomy, if I understand her correctly, is that there is the object and there is the experience of it, ie the Aggregates. It's an unbridgeable divide.
The unbridgeable divide is a figment of the imagination. It happens when philosophers start wondering about "the object in itself." Really that is asking what it would be like if their consciousness could reside in the object. But if that was possible, that would simply be a different experience. That would not be superior knowledge, it would just be different knowledge.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10152
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sylvester wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
Sylvester wrote:The "transcendental" bit is to account for the other limb of experience, ie the external bases (bāhira āyatana) that make up one-third of contact. These are the sense objects. As these things are never known directly, but only through the mediation of contact, she says they are "transcendental". Not in the sense of supramundane or anything mystical as such, but simply in the sense that nobody (not even the Buddha) could transcend the subject-object duality inherent in contact.
Interesting. I've been using the word "external" instead of "transcendental", but the meaning is possibly similar?
You'll love Hamilton, as she spends loads of ink on the internal-external dichotomy.
I read the "I of the beholder" some time ago and found her ideas interesting ( well, at least the ones I understood ;) )
Buddha save me from new-agers!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

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

Post by binocular »

mikenz66 wrote:I agree with Chownah and Reflection that all we have to work with is our experience
But this is just a step away from solipsism!
To me, any attempt to confirm or deny that there is a "real world" misses the point. That most of us, in ordinary life, or in more technical areas such as science, use a working model that there is something out there, and that is what we are measuring or experiencing, and use language that builds in that assumption. We don't necessarily take it seriously, but we don't waste time thinking:
"I will go into the laboratory and measure the wavelength of this light that may or may not be real with this apparatus that also may or may not be real. And, by the way, my very concept of wavelength is built on the assumption of ..."
It's not a "waste of time." It's acknowledging the assumptions one works with. It is sometimes indeed counterproductive to do so, but the solution isn't to take them for granted. It's by taking things for granted that we can get into all kinds of problems.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19926
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

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

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Binocular,
binocular wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I agree with Chownah and Reflection that all we have to work with is our experience
But this is just a step away from solipsism!
It's not a philosophical statement, it's a practical statement. What do you propose to work with (in a Dhamma sense), if not your experiences?
binocular wrote:
To me, any attempt to confirm or deny that there is a "real world" misses the point. That most of us, in ordinary life, or in more technical areas such as science, use a working model that there is something out there, and that is what we are measuring or experiencing, and use language that builds in that assumption. We don't necessarily take it seriously, but we don't waste time thinking:
"I will go into the laboratory and measure the wavelength of this light that may or may not be real with this apparatus that also may or may not be real. And, by the way, my very concept of wavelength is built on the assumption of ..."
It's not a "waste of time." It's acknowledging the assumptions one works with. It is sometimes indeed counterproductive to do so, but the solution isn't to take them for granted. It's by taking things for granted that we can get into all kinds of problems.
These questions of reality might not be a waste of time in some cases, but I think they are very often a waste of time in the contexts I specified (e.g. making measurements in a lab). They are a waste of time when they take time and effort away from useful action. And I don't think that such philosophical analysis is central to the point of the Buddha's teachings.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by m0rl0ck »

Its a moot point imo. What important is that we continue to pretend there is so that science doesnt stop working.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

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

Post by reflection »

kirk5a wrote:Or heck, going by the logic presented here, there is no way to prove the existence of my own brain. When's the last time anyone saw their own pancreas? Anyone want to deny they have a brain or a pancreas?
From a logical point of view perhaps so. But the case with the Dhamma is, I think we should investigate things in terms of experience more than we use logical analysis. As said before by mike, if this logical/philosophical analysis takes you from investigating experience, it is a probably a good reason to leave it aside. But in my experience this topic is not just a philosophical issue. In some states of mind resulting from meditation the world can seem to be like (in lack of better words) a mirage, like unreal, or perhaps it's best to say it seems very mind made. Those experiences are what got me investigating if there is a 'real world', not the logical or philosophical approach. I'm sure a lot of other Buddhists have had similar experiences and came to the same questions. But I decided that I don't think it's possible to ever know for sure either way. But it doesn't really matter because one thing is sure; and that's our experiences exist.

Another interesting thing is perceptions. Usually we have the perception of walls being solid for example, but it's not unusual that after meditation people see walls bending, and other strange perceptual phenomena. Or maybe the more common one feeling like a body is rising or expanding into space. Things as these at the very least shows how much our view of the world is shaped by our perceptions. What we see is not necessarily what is true. And that could also raise the question; if those very ordinary perceptions are so unreliable, how about the rest? Are they based on anything?
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

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

Post by manas »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Binocular,
binocular wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I agree with Chownah and Reflection that all we have to work with is our experience
But this is just a step away from solipsism!
It's not a philosophical statement, it's a practical statement. What do you propose to work with (in a Dhamma sense), if not your experiences?
binocular wrote:
To me, any attempt to confirm or deny that there is a "real world" misses the point. That most of us, in ordinary life, or in more technical areas such as science, use a working model that there is something out there, and that is what we are measuring or experiencing, and use language that builds in that assumption. We don't necessarily take it seriously, but we don't waste time thinking:
"I will go into the laboratory and measure the wavelength of this light that may or may not be real with this apparatus that also may or may not be real. And, by the way, my very concept of wavelength is built on the assumption of ..."
It's not a "waste of time." It's acknowledging the assumptions one works with. It is sometimes indeed counterproductive to do so, but the solution isn't to take them for granted. It's by taking things for granted that we can get into all kinds of problems.
These questions of reality might not be a waste of time in some cases, but I think they are very often a waste of time in the contexts I specified (e.g. making measurements in a lab). They are a waste of time when they take time and effort away from useful action. And I don't think that such philosophical analysis is central to the point of the Buddha's teachings.

:anjali:
Mike
:goodpost:

We can't prove beyond a doubt whether there really is a world 'out there', or not. But every one of us can prove beyond a doubt, the reality of dukkha in our lives, and the solution to that problem is more important and pressing than the former.

:anjali:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10152
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

m0rl0ck wrote:Its a moot point imo. What important is that we continue to pretend there is so that science doesnt stop working.
I used to work in the building trade, and the assumption of a real world was very helpful in terms of not falling off roofs, not getting electrocuted, not chopping off fingers etc. :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply