Heraclitus said
"The way up is the way down"
Via my understanding, Heraclitus meant that X appears as F to A, and X appears as -F to B
Therefore X is both F and -F
Yet from Sextus, since X appears as F to A and -F to B, we withhold assent to if X is
F
or -F
or both F and -F
So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F
Or do we withhold judgement?
For example, Vodka tastes pleasant to some, yet vile to others.
Is Vodka both pleasant tasting, or vile, or both in its nature?
Or is the nature of Vodka in of itself, not known?
General Philosophy
General Philosophy
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: General Philosophy
Greetings,
If you try to make it objective you commit the referrential fallacy (like that committed by the abhidhammikas)
Metta,
Retro.
The only thing X is "by nature", is subjective.clw_uk wrote:So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F
Or do we withhold judgement?
If you try to make it objective you commit the referrential fallacy (like that committed by the abhidhammikas)
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."
Re: General Philosophy
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
The only thing X is "by nature", is subjective.clw_uk wrote:So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F
Or do we withhold judgement?
If you try to make it objective you commit the referrential fallacy (like that committed by the abhidhammikas)
Metta,
Retro.
I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.
So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: General Philosophy
Greetings,
Metta,
Retro.
I suggest we side with Buddha and acknowledge F as a sankhara, formed by avijja.clw_uk wrote:I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.
So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?
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."
Re: General Philosophy
We could expand this into Buddhadhamma
Craving appears as dukkha to me, yet as Sukha to B
Is craving dukkha, or sukha or is it both?
or do we withhold judgement?
Craving appears as dukkha to me, yet as Sukha to B
Is craving dukkha, or sukha or is it both?
or do we withhold judgement?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: General Philosophy
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
I suggest we side with Buddha and acknowledge F as a sankhara, formed by avijja.clw_uk wrote:I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.
So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?
Metta,
Retro.
Is "round" sankhara?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: General Philosophy
Greetings,
I realise this might be a boring way to look at it in terms of "philosophy", but I believe it is true in relation to the Dhamma. Thus, it is both true and potentially useful.
Metta,
Retro.
The fact it's viewed differently is testimony to its fabricated (and thus, subject-ive) nature.clw_uk wrote:Craving appears as dukkha to me, yet as Sukha to B
Is craving dukkha, or sukha or is it both?
or do we withhold judgement?
Yes.clw_uk wrote:Is "round" sankhara?
I realise this might be a boring way to look at it in terms of "philosophy", but I believe it is true in relation to the Dhamma. Thus, it is both true and potentially useful.
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."
Re: General Philosophy
So is it Dukkha or sukha in its nature, or is it dukkha simply because we see it as dukkha and form an opinion of it (or form a preconceived notion of it as being dukkha)?The fact it's viewed differently is testimony to its fabricated (and thus, subject-ive) nature.
clw_uk wrote:
Is "round" sankhara?
Yes.
I realise this might be a boring way to look at it in terms of "philosophy", but I believe it is true in relation to the Dhamma. Thus, it is both true and potentially useful.
In which case we cant tell if a ball is round in its nature, its an appearance, and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?
How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: General Philosophy
Greetings,
Metta,
Retro.
Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).clw_uk wrote:But is it Dukkha or Sukha, is the fabricated dukkha or sukha?
Yeah I have.clw_uk wrote:You havent answered the question
clw_uk wrote:In which case we dont know if a ball is round, its an illusion and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?
Sabba Sutta wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
As sankharas, hence the Noble Eightfold Path being fabricated, as per the Culavedalla Sutta.clw_uk wrote:How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?
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."
Re: General Philosophy
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).clw_uk wrote:But is it Dukkha or Sukha, is the fabricated dukkha or sukha?
Yeah I have.clw_uk wrote:You havent answered the question
clw_uk wrote:In which case we dont know if a ball is round, its an illusion and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?Sabba Sutta wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."As sankharas, hence the Noble Eightfold Path being fabricated, as per the Culavedalla Sutta.clw_uk wrote:How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?
Metta,
Retro.
Yet all that is sankhara?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: General Philosophy
Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).
So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?
If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: General Philosophy
Greetings,
Metta,
Retro.
Yes.Yet all that is sankhara?
I'll see if I can find the sutta I alluded to earlier.So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?
If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
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."
Re: General Philosophy
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Yes.Yet all that is sankhara?
I'll see if I can find the sutta I alluded to earlier.So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?
If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
Metta,
Retro.
Thanks
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: General Philosophy
Greetings Craig,
I couldn't find the sutta in question, though in my search for it I came across this old topic which is of relevance...
SN 45.165: Dukkhata Sutta — Suffering
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459
In short though.... given that dukkha has multiple and diverse meanings, it is problematic to set it up in direct opposition to sukha.
Metta,
Retro.
I couldn't find the sutta in question, though in my search for it I came across this old topic which is of relevance...
SN 45.165: Dukkhata Sutta — Suffering
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459
In short though.... given that dukkha has multiple and diverse meanings, it is problematic to set it up in direct opposition to sukha.
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."
Re: General Philosophy
Thanksretrofuturist wrote:Greetings Craig,
I couldn't find the sutta in question, though in my search for it I came across this old topic which is of relevance...
SN 45.165: Dukkhata Sutta — Suffering
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459
In short though.... given that dukkha has multiple and diverse meanings, it is problematic to set it up in direct opposition to sukha.
Metta,
Retro.
However, ignoring Sukha, is Dukkha always Dukkha to everyone? Or is it only Dukkha to me (and others, if they exists, who experience it)?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”