The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by pt1 »

Dexing wrote: I've already said to make sense of it would take an understanding of the Eight Consciousnesses [of Orindary Beings] and Four Wisdoms [of Buddhas], teachings not found in Theravada to my knowledge.

But in this teaching, consciousness always belongs to Ordinary Beings who function from a Subject-Object position, their perception is slow and dull. But when fully awakened, an Ordinary Being becomes a Buddha by a transformation of Eight types of Consciousness into Four types of Wisdom, which is spontaneous liberating action which doesn't rely on Subject-Object perception, deduction, contemplation.
Thanks for replying in more detail on this issue. I think you're right that it's hard to make sense of what you're saying without being familiar with that particular system/teaching and the way terminology is used in it. E.g. I can't make sense of how consciousness can be transformed into wisdom - in the system I'm familiar with, citta (consciousness) is one sort of dhamma, and cetasika (like wisdom) is another. They might condition each other, but one can't become the other. Moreover, both are conditioned and their arising is dukkha, and they completely cease (to arise) only with parinibbana.

Perhaps you could suggest a book (in English) where the particular system you are talking about (8 consciousnesses and their transformation into 4 kinds of wisdom) is explained succinctly? Thanks.

Best wishes
Dexing
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Dexing »

Been busy folks!

Looking back to see where I left off, I read again:
Shonin wrote:It isn't just the non-existence of 'individual things' which is a mistaken view, but the non-existence of 'everything' ie. that there is any such non-existence at all. It is another form of self-view: reality has an essential/inherent/objective nature and that nature is nothingness.
Wow, you have really gone off the deep end with this. This is actually nothing like what I've been saying. If the nature of reality is "nothing" then there would be no reality to speak of.

Shonin wrote:Where does this 3-step method come from? Did you invent it or is it part of your lineage?
I didn't mean it was three steps taught separately in different traditions. It's just a sequence of practice and realization.
Buddha too rejected this view that nothing exists (sabbaa natthii ti) along with other extreme theories.
I disagree with it too. What I've said to be illusory is what "ordinary beings take as reality". Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are a different story.
To believe that 'objects of consciousness are unreal' is metaphysical/ontological dogma. If direct experience unmediated by perception is the criterion for something being real then to experience the non-existence of objects of consciousness (rather than simply believe it an an intellectual position) one would have to be directly experienced. However this is impossible, we cannot transcend our subjectivity to meet the world 'as-it-is-in-itself' and find the non-existence of external objects. This would actually make the very mistake that this kind of argument is criticising - namely making a claim about an objective, absolute world outside of what is actually experienced.
This will likely be my last attempt to explain it a bit more clearly for you, briefly.

These "objects of consciousness" are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, flavors, tactile sensations and concepts based upon them. Therefore, the so-called "external objects" we refer to are interpretations of our sensations, not actual objects. It's very plain to see.

Based on a feeling of hardness, smoothness, a color of brown, etc. we say there is a table here. But all we are experiencing are sensations.

There is no way to speak of an "actual" external object. The only "external objects" we speak of are compounds of various sensations. So those so-called external objects actually do not exist as such.

I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.
Note the interesting comment about Yogacara:
Early Buddhism was not subjective idealistic. Some have misinterpreted the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism that developed the consciousness-only approach as a form of metaphysical idealism, but this is incorrect. Yogācāra thinkers did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is only conventionally real since it arises from moment to moment due to fluctuating causes and conditions), but rather because it is the cause of the karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate.
I find it interesting you share this quote, when it's actually saying what I've been saying.

I never said consciousness is ultimately real, but is a cause of the karmic problem of creating falseness, conceptualizing the unreal, which keeps us from seeing reality, etc..

Using the Buddha's teachings we can break through the illusion, at which point consciousness is transformed into wisdom and true reality is perceived and correct function happens spontaneously.

:namaste:
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Goofaholix »

Dexing wrote:This will likely be my last attempt to explain it a bit more clearly for you, briefly.

These "objects of consciousness" are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, flavors, tactile sensations and concepts based upon them. Therefore, the so-called "external objects" we refer to are interpretations of our sensations, not actual objects. It's very plain to see.

Based on a feeling of hardness, smoothness, a color of brown, etc. we say there is a table here. But all we are experiencing are sensations.

There is no way to speak of an "actual" external object. The only "external objects" we speak of are compounds of various sensations. So those so-called external objects actually do not exist as such.

I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.
This is no different from the Theravadin view of it as far as I understand it.

So where did the "everything is an illusion" notion go? What has 20+ pages of argument been about?
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Dexing
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Dexing »

pt1 wrote:I can't make sense of how consciousness can be transformed into wisdom - in the system I'm familiar with, citta (consciousness) is one sort of dhamma, and cetasika (like wisdom) is another. They might condition each other, but one can't become the other. Moreover, both are conditioned and their arising is dukkha, and they completely cease (to arise) only with parinibbana.
These are like "right view" and "wrong view", both are ordinary consciousness. Consciousness only works in dual terms.

So the Heart Sutra says "neither pure nor impure", meaning no "right view" no "wrong view", no "Dhamma" and no "non-Dhamma".

Dhamma is only set up to confront non-Dhamma, but both rely on ordinary consciousness.

So "no wisdom and no attainment", but then Sutra turns around and says "All Buddhas of the three periods of time attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi through reliance on Prajna Paramita."

Prajna Paramita is again wisdom, and Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi is again attainment.

How can this not be contradictory? It means there is no "wisdom and attainment" that ordinary beings conceptualize. The pure vs impure.

When one becomes a Buddha, that type of consciousness is transformed into true Wisdom.
Perhaps you could suggest a book (in English) where the particular system you are talking about (8 consciousnesses and their transformation into 4 kinds of wisdom) is explained succinctly? Thanks.
I don't read books. Learned from my master and Sutras, such as the Yogacara texts and Shurangama Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, etc..

But here is something: http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Y ... USNESS.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't read through it in detail yet, but it seems accurate from what I have seen so far.

:namaste:
Dexing
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Dexing »

Goofaholix wrote:This is no different from the Theravadin view of it as far as I understand it.

So where did the "everything is an illusion" notion go? What has 20+ pages of argument been about?
I don't think it went anywhere. That "everything" always referred to "what ordinary beings hold has reality"... which is an illusion. Reality is perceived by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

This point has been disagreed upon for over 20 pages. People have been saying it is totally wrong to say that external objects don't exist when you can obviously see, touch, hear, smell, and taste them.... which is the fundamental mistake- thinking you can see, hear, smell, and so on, external objects. But attachment to false views that have been held since time without beginning is very very strong.

I've also been asking for someone to share Theravada teachings that either say what I've been saying, or say it is wrong. No one has been able to do that. They just keep saying to the effect of "you're wrong"....

Maybe you can help share some Pali texts to this point then?

:namaste:
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Goofaholix »

Dexing wrote: This point has been disagreed upon for over 20 pages. People have been saying it is totally wrong to say that external objects don't exist when you can obviously see, touch, hear, smell, and taste them.... which is the fundamental mistake- thinking you can see, hear, smell, and so on, external objects.
And so we are back full circle.

As your previous post explained very well...
"These "objects of consciousness" are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, flavors, tactile sensations and concepts based upon them. Therefore, the so-called "external objects" we refer to are interpretations of our sensations, not actual objects. It's very plain to see."
Nobody would dispute that what we conceptualise as "table" is not the reality of it, the concept contains a collection of characteristics, and components, and assumptions about it's uses that we roll up into the concept "table".

But to then say, as you appear to be in the above quote, that because of the above there is nothing there at all, there is just illusion, there is just figment of our imagination, the componants of the table don't exist, the characteristics don't exist, the matter doesn't exist, the conditions that cause our senses to perceive don't exist. Then yes, that would be a mistake.

At the end of the day "table" isn't the best example, one doesn't gain insight through understanding the nature of "table", one gains insight through understanding the nature of mind.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by alan »

Dex,
If your point of view is not to be found in the Pali texts, it may be because such ideas did not exist at the time.
Dexing
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Dexing »

Goofaholix wrote:But to then say, as you appear to be in the above quote, that because of the above there is nothing there at all, there is just illusion, there is just figment of our imagination, the componants of the table don't exist, the characteristics don't exist, the matter doesn't exist, the conditions that cause our senses to perceive don't exist. Then yes, that would be a mistake.
I'm saying the components of the table don't exist "out there", but are subjective creations within the mind only. Characteristics can't be applied to an actual "table". The characteristics and components are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, etc. which are only created in the mind. These characteristics create the illusion of matter when attached to out of ignorance. In Chinese it is called 名言, name and speech- a concept and a few words to describe it. That's the totality of this so called external reality attached to by ordinary beings.

The condition that causes our senses to perceive as ordinary beings and attach to perceptions as real external reality is fundamental ignorance. It's not a thing to exist or not exist.

:namaste:
Dexing
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Dexing »

alan wrote:Dex,
If your point of view is not to be found in the Pali texts, it may be because such ideas did not exist at the time.
I have found some places in Theravada where it seems implicit, whereas later Mahayana teachings are more explicit. Which strengthens the idea of teaching in a purposely sequential manner according to the audience.

:namaste:
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by pt1 »

Dexing wrote: But here is something: http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Y ... USNESS.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks for that.

Best wishes
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by alan »

Hi Dexing
Well now I guess you're going to have to show us where these ideas are implicit.
Take care not to slander! :smile:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

Dexing wrote:
I've also been asking for someone to share Theravada teachings that either say what I've been saying, or say it is wrong. No one has been able to do that. They just keep saying to the effect of "you're wrong"....

Maybe you can help share some Pali texts to this point then?
I'd be happy to show you that you are quite wrong about the Pali suttas, but I'd like you to address the issues I have been puting to you and you have been ignoring.

tiltbillings wrote:
Dexing wrote:
As for your first question, perhaps you are more familiar with the Pali Suttas than I. Are external objects or the Form Aggregate for example ever refuted in Theravada as not being objective existence?
Interestingly, you have criticized and characterized the Theravada and the Pali suttas in terms of the Mahayana polemic against what the Mahayana calls the hinayana, but you seem not to have a real handle on what is found in the Pali suttas. In terms of realization, in terms of practice, show us where in the Pali suttas the Buddha talks about “objectively existing” khandhas?
As for your second question, it is only related to the overall question of this thread if Tathagata has the same meaning between Theravada and Mahayana, as Arahant. I think Arahant has the same meaning and same level of attainment in both, it is just that the attainment and level of a Buddha is expanded in Mahayana, leaving the Arahant with a little more left to accomplish, while their accomplishment is still equal to a Buddha's accomplishment in that respect.
And this nicely makes my point. The Mahayana - based upon what? - has, to use your word, “expanded” - that is, redefined - the definition of what it is to be a Buddha, putting, within their system, the arahant in a lesser position, which is itself a redefining of what it is to be an arahant. In other words, the words “Buddha” and “arahant” may be cognate between the two traditions, but that hardly means they carry the same meaning. And even within the Mahayana as a whole these terms carry differing meanings as differing Mahayanists “expanded” what they mean by these things.

So, the point is, given that the Mahayana has “expanded” the meanings of these terms, they are no longer talking about what the Pali suttas are talking about, which is to say that Mahayana critique has no bearing upon the Pali suttas, which means it cannot meaningfully critique or even talk about in any objective way the Theravada - apples and watermelons.

tiltbillings wrote:
Dexing wrote:
This is the very problem I'm trying to address. You think you can see, hear, smell, taste and touch external objects.

Your eyes only see color. Your ears only hear sound. Your nose only smells fragrances. Your tongue only tastes flavors. Your body only feels tactile sensations.

Color is not an external object. Sound is not an external object. Fragrance is not an external object. Flavor is not an external object. Sensation is not an external object.
But is there color, etc to be seen, etc? In what way is there color, etc? If this is all a product of the mind, then what need would there be for the other sensory organs?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

pt1 wrote:
Dexing wrote: But here is something: http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Y ... USNESS.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks for that.

Best wishes
Far better articles on Yogacara: What is and isn't Yogācāra and The Crux of the Yogåcåra Project
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Goofaholix »

Dexing wrote:I'm saying the components of the table don't exist "out there", but are subjective creations within the mind only. Characteristics can't be applied to an actual "table". The characteristics and components are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, etc. which are only created in the mind. These characteristics create the illusion of matter when attached to out of ignorance. In Chinese it is called 名言, name and speech- a concept and a few words to describe it. That's the totality of this so called external reality attached to by ordinary beings.
If the characteristics are created by mind, and 1,000,000 people perceive a table and 99% of them (excepting those who are colour blind) perceive it as blue, why is it that they perceive the same characteristic each with their own minds?

Now if you you were to say they each have a different subjective experience of blue, some like blue some don't for example, I'd agree. But to say they all created the characteristic blue in their minds and that there was no stimulus for this and nothing that caused them to perceive much the same characteristic is just silly.
Dexing wrote: The condition that causes our senses to perceive as ordinary beings and attach to perceptions as real external reality is fundamental ignorance. It's not a thing to exist or not exist.
Agreed, attachment to perceptions is fundamental ignorance, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to be perceived.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

Goofaholix wrote:
Dexing wrote:I'm saying the components of the table don't exist "out there", but are subjective creations within the mind only. Characteristics can't be applied to an actual "table". The characteristics and components are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, etc. which are only created in the mind. These characteristics create the illusion of matter when attached to out of ignorance. In Chinese it is called 名言, name and speech- a concept and a few words to describe it. That's the totality of this so called external reality attached to by ordinary beings.
If the characteristics are created by mind, and 1,000,000 people perceive a table and 99% of them (excepting those who are colour blind) perceive it as blue, why is it that they perceive the same characteristic each with their own minds?
But 999,999 people are the product of one person's mind. All there ever is, is one's own mind. There is no one "out there."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Locked