no (khandhas)aggregates?

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:02 am

robertk wrote:I will explain more about concepts in order to clarify
Pannati, concepts, can be classified in many ways . So things like a unicorn can be considered as different types of pannati from trees.

Trees, computers, humans, Robert, Tilt, sarah, are the shadows of what is really there - and what is really there are only namas and rupas, mentality and matter, the aggregates: insignificant dhammas that pass away instantly.

These concepts- human, Robert, are more deluding than concepts like unicorns (which we know have no reality).

Because of accumulated avijja, ignorance, these type of concepts (pannatti) delude and instead of being given their correct status - as necessary designations* - they are assumed to be actual. And that is where all problems begin and end.

*[i]Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic labels. What is called a thought in conventional language is comprised of billions of momentary arisings which repeatedly take a concept as object and may include mentally naming it. Because of this repetition - and the lack of insight into the actual dhammas - the illusion of permanence is solidified[/i].
This is the overly complicated later Abhidhamma stuff. Curious as to the source for the claim that: "Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic labels." It would seem that no dhamma is insigicant, if we take the Buddha's teachings seriously. As for concepts, they all share the same nature. It is not the concept that deluding; it is how the concept is related to that is deluding.

The commentary to the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield from PTS) (p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter)

"
it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist [i.e. men, women] and since it does not dart among those things that do exist [i.e. it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas].
Sure. When there is concentration and mindfulness, "" ... [there is] ... only the seen in the seen, only the heard in the heard, only the sensed in the sensed, only the cognized in the cognized" ignorance does not find a foothold.

Which is why I believe vipassana is not a matter of doing something to get something ; instead it is simply the developing of insight into what is real and what is not.
That is what I have been taught and practice.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:58 am

My impression is that many of these discussions seem to revolve around how one translates paramattha. Does the translation "real", with all of it's overtones really capture the meaning? Would a term such as "irreducible" be better?
The Abhidhamma appears to be a detailed description of how to analyse experience. Whether the irreducible dhammas are "real" (whatever that means) or not, seems to me to be beside the point. That concepts such as "person" is fundamentally different from those irreducible dhammas of experience is.

My point is that pondering over the "reality" of paramattha dhammas seems to me to be a side-show to what is actually important to the application of Abhidhamma.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:14 am

mikenz66 wrote:My impression is that many of these discussions seem to revolve around how one translates paramattha. Does the translation "real", with all of it's overtones really capture the meaning? Would a term such as "irreducible" be better?
The Abhidhamma appears to be a detailed description of how to analyse experience. Whether the irreducible dhammas are "real" (whatever that means) or not, seems to me to be beside the point. That concepts such as "person" is fundamentally different from those irreducible dhammas of experience is.
Irreducible would be considerably better than the highly problematic "real." Also, "person" as a concept shares the same nature as an "irreducible" dhamma.

My point is that pondering over the "reality" of paramattha dhammas seems to me to be a side-show to what is actually important to the application of Abhidhamma.
Agreed.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:36 am

Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:Irreducible would be considerably better than the highly problematic "real." Also, "person" as a concept shares the same nature as an "irreducible" dhamma.

Even worse if it's irreducible and "real"? ;)

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14651
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:03 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:Irreducible would be considerably better than the highly problematic "real." Also, "person" as a concept shares the same nature as an "irreducible" dhamma.

Even worse if it's irreducible and "real"? ;)
It would then likely be unchanging.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:34 am

Greetings Tilt,

...or binary (i.e. doesn't exist, exists, doesn't exist).

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14651
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:38 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

...or binary (i.e. doesn't exist, exists, doesn't exist).

Metta,
Retro. :)
Two things: is that how you experince sensory input? And what does "exist" mean?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:49 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Two things: is that how you experince sensory input?

Not at all. Hence, no interest in atomic dhammas.

tiltbillings wrote:And what does "exist" mean?

Duration, independent of personal observation. Hence, the irrelevance of it to dukkha/nirodha.

SN 12.15 wrote:Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) 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.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications....

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14651
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:07 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Two things: is that how you experince sensory input?

Not at all. Hence, no interest in atomic dhammas.

tiltbillings wrote:And what does "exist" mean?

Duration, independent of personal observation. Hence, the irrelevance of it to dukkha/nirodha.

SN 12.15 wrote:Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) 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.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications....

Metta,
Retro. :)

Robertk quotes:
    SN 22.94 reads, in part:
    “Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.
    ...
    [agree that form that is permanent, etc, does not exist ...]
    ...
    “And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists....[BB comments: "The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being."
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:29 pm

retrofuturist wrote:"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) 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.

Do you think that this passage has anything to do with "reality"?

Personally I don't think so. See the various translations and commentaries here:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 69#p170101

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:45 pm

Greetings,

tiltbillings wrote:Robertk quotes (Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of SN 22.94)...

Tilt ~ Either here or at Dhamma Study Group, I saw one of the local Pali experts give a good breakdown of precisely what the Pali behind BB's rendering of "exists" actually indicates. Alas, I don't know where that analysis is now, but I do recall that it certainly didn't mean "exists" in some kind of absolutist "Exists with a capital-E" sense (i.e. as it is commonly presented by Sujin & co.).

It's been well established in forum discussions previously through a variety of quotations (particularly from ACMA) that Bhikkhu Bodhi embraces philosophical realism in relation to the material world but I won't present them again as Bhikkhu Bodhi fans might be inclined to get upset about it again. Either way, his philosophical realism does flavour his translations...

Mike wrote:Do you think that this passage has anything to do with "reality"?

Mike ~ Depends on what you mean by "reality"... I've not been using the term, so it would be best left for Robert to define before I address the question, especially as I see you too have opted not to define it either. I sense that this link might be of interest to you in this context, but bear in mind it is not "Classical Theravada" so I'd rather not discuss it in this section - http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/Open% ... ndoor2.htm

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14651
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby SarathW » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:26 am

Some info: Please note the difference between ultimate sense and absolute sense

40. Six kinds of Pa¤¤atti—
1. Matter, feeling, etc. exist in an ultimate sense.
2. Land, mountain, etc. are terms given to things
that do not exist in an ultimate sense.
3. ‘Possessor of sixfold supernormal vision’.
Here the former does not exist in an ultimate
sense, but the latter does.
4. Woman’s voice. Here the voice exists in an ultimate
sense, but not the woman.
5. Eye-consciousness. Here the sensitive eye exists
in an ultimate sense, and so does the consciousness
dependent on it.
6. King’s son. Here neither the son nor the king
exists in an ultimate sense

Page 429
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf
SarathW
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:14 am

SarathW wrote:Some info: Please note the difference between ultimate sense and absolute sense

40. Six kinds of Pa¤¤atti—
1. Matter, feeling, etc. exist in an ultimate sense.
2. Land, mountain, etc. are terms given to things
that do not exist in an ultimate sense.
3. ‘Possessor of sixfold supernormal vision’.
Here the former does not exist in an ultimate
sense, but the latter does.
4. Woman’s voice. Here the voice exists in an ultimate
sense, but not the woman.
5. Eye-consciousness. Here the sensitive eye exists
in an ultimate sense, and so does the consciousness
dependent on it.
6. King’s son. Here neither the son nor the king
exists in an ultimate sense

Page 429
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf
This a very late Abhidhamma text that is not part of the Tipitaka. What "ultimate" mean here? If you are going to use the word, you need to be able to define it.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:34 am

Greetings,

SN 22.63 wrote: "Lord, if one appropriates the body, one is in bondage to Mara. If one does not appropriate the body, one is free of the Evil One. (Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness.') That, Lord, is how I understand in full the sense of what the Blessed One has stated in brief."

"Good, good, monk! You have well understood in full the sense of what I stated in brief. If you appropriate the body,... feelings,... perceptions,... mental formations,... consciousness, you are in bondage to Maara. If you do not appropriate, you are free of the Evil One. That is how the sense of what I have stated in brief is to be understood in full."

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14651
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby SarathW » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:43 am

SarathW
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:45 am

Greetings,

MN 109: Maha-punnama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation* of the aggregate of form? What is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness?"

"Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."


* - Delineation (paññapana) literally means, "making discernible." This apparently refers to the intentional aspect of perception, which takes the objective side of experience and fabricates it into discernible objects. In the case of the aggregates, the four great existents, contact, and name-&-form provide the objective basis for discerning them, while the process of fabrication takes the raw material provided by the objective basis and turns it into discernible instances of the aggregates. This process is described in slightly different terms in SN 22.79.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14651
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby SarathW » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:03 am

mn109 All good to me except notes:
viññanam anidassanam !!!!!!!!!!!!
SarathW
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:10 am

retrofuturist wrote:....
Tilt ~ Either here or at Dhamma Study Group, I saw one of the local Pali experts give a good breakdown of precisely what the Pali behind BB's rendering of "exists" actually indicates. Alas, I don't know where that analysis is now, but I do recall that it certainly didn't mean "exists" in some kind of absolutist "Exists with a capital-E" sense (i.e. as it is commonly presented by Sujin & co.).

It's been well established in forum discussions previously through a variety of quotations (particularly from ACMA) that Bhikkhu Bodhi embraces philosophical realism in relation to the material world but I won't present them again as Bhikkhu Bodhi fans might be inclined to get upset about it again. Either way, his philosophical realism does flavour his translations...

Mike wrote:Do you think that this passage has anything to do with "reality"?

Mike ~ Depends on what you mean by "reality"... I've not been using the term, so it would be best left for Robert to define before I address the question, especially as I see you too have opted not to define it either. ...

Well, it's quite legitimate to discuss here what the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Commentaries actually mean by terms translated into English as "exists" or "real". My impression, supported by your statement above about the meaning of "exists", is that the suttas and Abhidhamma (I'm excluding later commentaries here) neither support nor oppose philosophical realism. Therefore, I don't see why anyone should be upset if you label Bhikkhu Bodhi a philosophical realist, since it would hardly be grounds for criticising his understanding of the Dhamma. (Of course, they might be philosophically opposed to philosophical realism, but that's a different issue.) My question was whether you thought that the sutta you quoted had any bearing on the matter of realism. My reading would be no, based on the translations and commentaries I linked to above.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby SarathW » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:36 am

tiltbillings wrote:
SarathW wrote:Some info: Please note the difference between ultimate sense and absolute sense

40. Six kinds of Pa¤¤atti—
1. Matter, feeling, etc. exist in an ultimate sense.
2. Land, mountain, etc. are terms given to things
that do not exist in an ultimate sense.
3. ‘Possessor of sixfold supernormal vision’.
Here the former does not exist in an ultimate
sense, but the latter does.
4. Woman’s voice. Here the voice exists in an ultimate
sense, but not the woman.
5. Eye-consciousness. Here the sensitive eye exists
in an ultimate sense, and so does the consciousness
dependent on it.
6. King’s son. Here neither the son nor the king
exists in an ultimate sense

Page 429
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf
This a very late Abhidhamma text that is not part of the Tipitaka. What "ultimate" mean here? If you are going to use the word, you need to be able to define it.


Hi Tilt
Do you have a link (English translation) for earlier Abhidhamma which is part of Tipitaka?
SarathW
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:45 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:My question was whether you thought that the sutta you quoted had any bearing on the matter of realism. My reading would be no, based on the translations and commentaries I linked to above.

To the extent that one sides with either realism or idealism, is the extent to which one sides with "a polarity, that of existence & non-existence".

The Buddha exhorts that we should "not get involved with or appropriate these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions", because they are, as he goes to point out, merely products of paticcasamuppada.

Therefore, your question of whether I thought that SN 12.15 had any bearing on the matter of realism, it does to the extent that it makes clear that one should not get involved with it. Sujin-style Abhidhammic presentations certainly "get involved" with realism and allow it to become "clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions".

The realism/idealism polarity extends to anything which one might potentially appropriate as self, I or mine... i.e. not just to the wholly realised perception of self as atman that underpins the self-views of eternalism/annihilationism, but of any constituent components (dhammas) that might potentially be aggregated together to compose that erroneous perception of self.

mikenz66 wrote:Therefore, I don't see why anyone should be upset if you label Bhikkhu Bodhi a philosophical realist, since it would hardly be grounds for criticising his understanding of the Dhamma.

Given that the sutta is about the extent to which there is Right View, and Bhikkhu Bodhi presents a philosophical realism that takes sides in the aforementioned polarity of existence/non-existence despite what the Buddha is actually endorsing, people may get upset about the implications of that and what is being said about his View (or as you call it, "his understanding of the Dhamma") when assessed via the Buddha's criteria for the extent to which there is Right View. (Further reading: http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... %2C_Part_2 )

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14651
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Classical Theravāda

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests