Is there a real world out there?...

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

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

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:06 pm

binocular wrote:How can one practice metta if one believes that others don't really exist or don't matter??


Yes indeed, and why would one bother if one was operating with those assumptions?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:37 am

To answer my original question, yes, I'm sure there is a real world out there. I'm also convinced that "The All" is basically just a strategy for practice, and is in no way intended as an ontological statement.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Postby acinteyyo » Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:09 am

acinteyyo wrote:
Is there a real world out there?...

out where?

I just repeat my question one time. Maybe anyone intends to answer this time.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

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

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:24 pm

acinteyyo wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:
Is there a real world out there?...

out where?

I just repeat my question one time. Maybe anyone intends to answer this time.


Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Postby chownah » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:57 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.

There is absolutely no way to know.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2849
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Postby reflection » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:04 pm

Earlier I said I think it doesn't matter what's real. But one thing I think is worth saying is I think the distinction "world out there" versus "us in here" is strange. We are part of the world, so if anything the world is not just "out there", but just as much "in here". And in another way, all there is can only come into reality if it is experienced, so if there is no six senses, it makes no sense to speak about the world. So that's why:
the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

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

Postby kirk5a » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:15 pm

chownah wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.

There is absolutely no way to know.
chownah

Sure there is. Just reject the skeptic's warped view of 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
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

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

Postby acinteyyo » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:15 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:out where?

Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.

It's inappropriate to think this way. To say that sense objects only exist when perceived or to say sense objects don't exist when not perceived and so on are a trap and confuse the nature of "things" how they arise and cease. It's thinking in extremes of existence and non-existence. Dependent Origination is the end of confusion about this.
SN12.15 Kaccayanagotta Sutta wrote:By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by
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.

Dependent on sense base and sense object there arises the corresponding consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact leads to feeling.... and so on
Loka Sutta SN12.44 wrote:Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

When sense base and sense objects don't meet in the way that consciousness arises, there is no contact and the chain doesn't follow. Then the four great elements don't get a footing.
DN11 Kevatta Sutta wrote:Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing?
Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:
Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.
Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"

check out the note to consciousness without feature
When the four great elements don't have a footing and one still tries to tell what exists or doesn't exist, one tries to objectify non-objectification.
Kotthita Sutta: AN4.174 wrote:[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Last edited by acinteyyo on Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

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

Postby acinteyyo » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:20 pm

reflection wrote:But one thing I think is worth saying is I think the distinction "world out there" versus "us in here" is strange. We are part of the world, so if anything the world is not just "out there", but just as much "in here". And in another way, all there is can only come into reality if it is experienced, so if there is no six senses, it makes no sense to speak about the world.
This is what I was trying to indicate with my question above. :goodpost:

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

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

Postby chownah » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:06 am

Spiny Norman:
Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.
chownah:
There is absolutely no way to know.
kirk5a:
Sure there is. Just reject the skeptic's warped view of knowledge.
.....................
kirk5a,
Let's discuss light as being the sense object associated with the eye. A photon (particle) of light which acts as a sense object enters the eye and interacts with the sensitive part of the eye and along with eye consciousness produces contact. It seems that you are saying that the photon continues to exist after the perception it took part in has ceased....but what is happening from a worldly view is that the photon has been absorbed by an electron causing the electron's energy level to increase and the photon just disappears and no longer exists....in other words the photon of light actually ceases to exist after it is perceived.....seems to disagree with your view.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2849
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Postby Sylvester » Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:32 am

Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.

Likewise for the other 5 bases - MN 28


How much more existential can one ask of the Buddha?

I propose a more critical reading of the "existence" (atthita) and "non-existence" (natthita) dichotomy criticised in SN 12.15. Elsewhere, the Buddha is recorded as enjoining the knowledge of the existential status of things, eg AN 10.22 where the knowledges are framed in terms of "atthī" (it exists) or "natthī" (it does not exist) as appropriate. A similar injunction to know correctly the existential status of the Aggregates is also enjoined in SN 22.62 where one is supposed to correctly describe the temporal-existential status of the Aggregates in terms of "atthī" and its counterparts.

Looking at the Indic literature of that time, the only ontological battle that was raging in the Buddha's time was the debate recorded in the Chandogya Upanisad on whether the source/zeroth premise of the cosmos (Sarvam) was Existence or Non-Existence. That debate was about cosmogony, not ontology.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

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

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:36 am

Sylvester wrote:
Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.

Likewise for the other 5 bases - MN 28


How much more existential can one ask of the Buddha?



Yes, and as I've previously observed this distinction between internal and external is made repeatedly in the suttas.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Postby chownah » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:42 am

How much more existential can one ask of the Buddha?

Well, I would say that if he had said that there is an external real world which is the base for our internal experiential world then I think that would go along way to convince me. If the Buddha would either retract his Loka sutras and The All Sutta that would help too......or if he added some clarification in the Loka suttas and The All Sutta to the effect that he was not talking about the real world but just the experiential world that would help too.

Sometimes I think the Buddha left things ambiguous for a reason.....or was he just a poor communicator...or did he really not understand how his teachings would cause such a wide variety of views to arise? Seems like clarification would not have been difficult but who am I to say?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2849
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Postby Sylvester » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:47 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
Sylvester wrote:
Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.

Likewise for the other 5 bases - MN 28


How much more existential can one ask of the Buddha?



Yes, and as I've previously observed this distinction between internal and external is made repeatedly in the suttas.


Indeed, and MN 28 goes on to talk about dhammas being external as possible. It does make me wonder if the standard interpretation of MN 10 is correct, insofar as that interpretation concludes that the "external" frames are other people's.

Of course, it is equally possible that MN 28 is doing nothing more than expanding on the standard analysis of the āyatanas as being internal and external.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

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

Postby Sylvester » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:52 am

chownah wrote:How much more existential can one ask of the Buddha?

Well, I would say that if he had said that there is an external real world which is the base for our internal experiential world then I think that would go along way to convince me. If the Buddha would either retract his Loka sutras and The All Sutta that would help too......or if he added some clarification in the Loka suttas and The All Sutta to the effect that he was not talking about the real world but just the experiential world that would help too.

Sometimes I think the Buddha left things ambiguous for a reason.....or was he just a poor communicator...or did he really not understand how his teachings would cause such a wide variety of views to arise? Seems like clarification would not have been difficult but who am I to say?
chownah


Not only the external world, but if you look at SN 22.62, it seems that the Buddha was also prepared to make ontic commitments about the interior world. The subject of SN 22.62 is the Aggregates.

If I had to say what the Buddha's position was, I'd probably say that He was a practical realist. I am using the term "realist" in the sense that an existential proposition about something is amenable to the True/False judgment.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

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

Postby acinteyyo » Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:10 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
Sylvester wrote:
Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.

Likewise for the other 5 bases - MN 28

How much more existential can one ask of the Buddha?

Yes, and as I've previously observed this distinction between internal and external is made repeatedly in the suttas.

The part which bothers me is the "out there". Internal and external can easily be confused when comparing it to vague terms like "in here" and "out there". Internal are the sense bases the faculties; whereas external are the corresponding sense objects. This I guess, is clear for most of us, but I'm quite sure that one who thinks in terms of "in here" (inside of me or myself) and "out there" (outside of me or myself) would consider thoughts and ideas as internal, "in here" BUT according to the way the suttas describe the six sense media only the faculty of mind or intellect is considered internal, thoughts and ideas are external because they are the corresponding sense objects and not faculties. Thus a thought or an idea would have to be "out there" in the same way as any form, smell, taste and so on is "out there".

So for one who says there is a real world out there in the same time has to accept that this real world out there not only consists of what is sensible via the five senses but also includes ideas and thoughts.

To view things like that is odd and in some way distorted to common sense, isn't it?
reflection wrote:But one thing I think is worth saying is I think the distinction "world out there" versus "us in here" is strange. We are part of the world, so if anything the world is not just "out there", but just as much "in here". And in another way, all there is can only come into reality if it is experienced, so if there is no six senses, it makes no sense to speak about the world.

I prefer "internal and external" opposed to "in here, out there" but not understood in the way that my body or the skin is the border which separates what is internal and external but in the way the suttas define internal and external, namely internal are the sense bases, external the corresponding objects.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

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

Postby kirk5a » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:55 pm

chownah wrote:Spiny Norman:
Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.
chownah:
There is absolutely no way to know.
kirk5a:
Sure there is. Just reject the skeptic's warped view of knowledge.
.....................
kirk5a,
Let's discuss light as being the sense object associated with the eye. A photon (particle) of light which acts as a sense object enters the eye and interacts with the sensitive part of the eye and along with eye consciousness produces contact. It seems that you are saying that the photon continues to exist after the perception it took part in has ceased....but what is happening from a worldly view is that the photon has been absorbed by an electron causing the electron's energy level to increase and the photon just disappears and no longer exists....in other words the photon of light actually ceases to exist after it is perceived.....seems to disagree with your view.
chownah

Your answer accepts that photons and eyeballs are real. I didn't say anything about permanence.
"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
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

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

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:00 pm

acinteyyo wrote:1......the skin is the border which separates what is internal and external...
2......the way the suttas define internal and external, namely internal are the sense bases, external the corresponding objects.


I'm not sure I see the difference between 1 and 2.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Postby chownah » Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:16 pm

kirk5a wrote:
chownah wrote:Spiny Norman:
Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.
chownah:
There is absolutely no way to know.
kirk5a:
Sure there is. Just reject the skeptic's warped view of knowledge.
.....................
kirk5a,
Let's discuss light as being the sense object associated with the eye. A photon (particle) of light which acts as a sense object enters the eye and interacts with the sensitive part of the eye and along with eye consciousness produces contact. It seems that you are saying that the photon continues to exist after the perception it took part in has ceased....but what is happening from a worldly view is that the photon has been absorbed by an electron causing the electron's energy level to increase and the photon just disappears and no longer exists....in other words the photon of light actually ceases to exist after it is perceived.....seems to disagree with your view.
chownah

Your answer accepts that photons and eyeballs are real. I didn't say anything about permanence.

You are quite right....I really should have addressed this last post of mine to Spiny Norman since he is actually the one who asked if sense objects continue to exist while we are not perceiving them....and I should not have said it disagrees with his views, I should have said that I think that this answers his question at least for the sense objects associated with the eye.

Spiny Norman,
What do you say, does my description of the photon help to answer your question about sense objects and whether they persist when we are not perceiving them?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2849
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Postby binocular » Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:02 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
binocular wrote:How can one practice metta if one believes that others don't really exist or don't matter??

Yes indeed, and why would one bother if one was operating with those assumptions?

Several possible factors:
- Taking pride in one's spiritual practice.
- Emotional blackmail, attempt to control others by declaring one has metta or karuna for them.
- Genuinely not noticing that there may be a contradiction between the belief that beings don't "really" exist, and the belief that one ought to practice the brahmaviharas.
- Pathological or traumatic tendencies.


I know of one religious doctrine (that of Gaudya Vaishanvism, which is a branch of Hindu theism and they declare the existence of atta) where they specifically point out that there is such a thing as "fear of being a person," "fear of being an individual" (and that this fear is one of the obstacles that a person must overcome in the course of realizing proper God consciousness).
I think they have a good point. How many people who embrace the no-ontological-self doctrine do so because they are afraid of being persons?
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Crazy cloud, dhammapal and 5 guests