Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

The appeal to the authority of Bhikkhu Bodhi is not to him as a philosopher. It is to him as one who in his life and teachings shows a consistant degree of Insight into the teachings of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon.
Insight which has been gained through meditation practises, rather than on websites.
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by Shonin »

PeterB wrote:I think that you are answering a question that the Theravada does not ask. And answering it fully to your own satisfaction..and further you are then suggesting that it is because the Theravda does not understand a question that it does not ask or seek an answer to it.
Non-duality is an experience. Not an answer to a question. However, the experience of Non-duality can help to bring ideas of an ultimately real Self to an end.

I am not talking about Vedanta-esque ontology as I think you are obliquely implying. The question that Theravada does not ask is ontology ('what is the ultimate nature of reality?') not 'is there an ultimately real self'?
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

I know no teacher of meditation in the Theravadin tradition who points to an experience of non duality as an end or result of that meditation.
Go to your nearest Theravadin centre and ask about non duality and watch them subtly ( for the most part unless its someone like Ajahn Munindo in which case not so subtly ) move the question towards something that they think is more useful.
There are reasons for this which are not about not knowing about non duality.
It is just possible Shonin that this represents just one real difference between the Theravada and some other Buddhist schools.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by Lazy_eye »

Hi again,

Not to quibble, but I think Non-Duality is tangential to the OP, which was asking about Theravada Buddhism's relation to Western philosophy of mind categories, not to Vedanta, Mahayana or other Indian traditions. The term "dualism' has more than one context and perhaps we are mixing them up?

The OP was asking whether the Theravadin view of consciousness amounts to a form of substance dualism. Not about ultimate oneness, unity of all phenomena, samsara=nirvana or any of those other big questions.

My answer was that no, it is not substance dualism because according to Theravada, consciousness does not come into being on its own, but arises together with the other aggregates. Form and mind are mutually dependent. The last moment of past life consciousness takes place in a body, as does the first moment of present life consciousness. There's no point at which consciousness just "hangs in the air" all by itself.

Theravada does not teach that there is a bardo state (and in any case, such a state would also be dependently originated, and there would be "form" too, in the sense of a subtle body). The only state in which consciousness can exist without form is in the formless realms, which is not a default samsaric state but a special state attainable through meditation.

That's how I understand it -- but if I'd like to know if my understanding is correct according to the Pali Canon and authoritative teachers, including Bhikkhu Bodhi.

LE
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

I think that your understanding is pretty much in line with Bhikkhu Bodhi L.E..but you could always ask him..
A crucial part of the Theravadin understanding is that there is no a priori consciousness , either individual nor collective, no "Buddha Nature". That consciousness arises dependently together with everything else, as you say.
The Buddhadhamma of the Canon is ruthlessly radical.
Last edited by PeterB on Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by Lazy_eye »

Thanks Peter, maybe I'll drop him a line. I see he's on Facebook :)

Namaste,

LE
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

:thumbsup:
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by Shonin »

Lazy_eye wrote:My answer was that no, it is not substance dualism because according to Theravada, consciousness does not come into being on its own, but arises together with the other aggregates. Form and mind are mutually dependent. The last moment of past life consciousness takes place in a body, as does the first moment of present life consciousness. There's no point at which consciousness just "hangs in the air" all by itself.
Sounds about right. It isn't dualism. But beyond that (the ultimate nature of reality: mind, matter, some sort of Cosmic Oneness etc) is ontological speculation, which is 'beyond range' and irrelevant to the project of ending suffering.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by beeblebrox »

Shonin wrote:What you have described is not Non-dualism. You have described Monism.

Here's a rundown:
Dualism: There are two fundamentally different kinds of 'stuff'.
Monism: Fundamentally, there is only one kind of stuff - mind or matter. There are two types:
- Idealism: Everything is Mind - the appearance of physical things is a kind of illusion
- Physicalism: Everything is Physical - the appearance of mental things is a kind of illusion

Non-dualism is a rejection of Dualism without asserting a Monism. Mind and Matter are 'not two' - they arise together in some sense.
Actually, I think you raised some interesting points. :geek: Seems like there are different understandings of what the "non-dualism" really means (also "dualism"). Who defines these words anyway? Who is really the authority on these kind of stuff? This is just like there are different understandings of Buddhism.

Some of these understanding about non-dualism (i.e., as a variety of monism) indeed seems to go against what the Buddha taught. (Unless you're one of these certain Mahayanists who think that it's all mind.)

Some other understanding of non-dualism (i.e., that is not monistic, but still also rejects of the idea of two distinct, separate stuff (which in turn, would be based on some people's own understanding of what dualism is (which other dualists might disagree with, because these people might say that the dualism is really two things relying on each other, not distinctly separate (which would take us back to the square one)))) this kind of non-dualism (or say, mutual dualism) would then seem to agree with some of what the Buddha taught, like the dependence of namarupa and consciousness on each other. (Like a pair of reeds.)

If this kind of non-dualism, though, implies that these two things are always bound together (theoretically according to a yet different understanding)... then I think this would go against what the Buddha taught. The D.O. then is erroneously viewed as being eternally bounded together; there would be no escape, no nibbana, and therefore the Dhamma would be pointless.

Anyway... I think these different types of views about what the non-dualism and the dualism really means, is one of the reasons why the Buddha recommended against adopting any viewpoints (i.e., not is, not not is, not both, not neither, etc.) It leads to papañca, which would undermine one's practice.
Last edited by beeblebrox on Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sobeh
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US
Contact:

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by Sobeh »

As long as it is defined as somehow being Metaphysics, it's to be discarded as irrelevant. Non-dualism, however one details it, is still an ontological claim. If people want to talk meaningful philosophy, let's investigate Buddhist epistemology and metaethics.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by Nyana »

PeterB wrote:The appeal to the authority of Bhikkhu Bodhi is not to him as a philosopher. It is to him as one who in his life and teachings shows a consistant degree of Insight into the teachings of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon.
Insight which has been gained through meditation practises, rather than on websites.
Hi Peter, Sobeh, and all,

Ven. Bodhi's paper Dhamma and Non-duality simply misrepresents Indian Mahāyāna mādhyamaka and then critiques this misrepresentation. It's a straw man argument. It in no way represents the view of the historical Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Buddhapālita, Candrakīrti, or Śāntideva. For example, Ven. Bodhi states:
  • The validity of conventional dualities is denied....
No mādhyamika worth his or her salt would ever deny the soteriological validity of conventional designations or the practices which employ conventional designations. There is no path without such distinctions. Even a superficial perusal of Āryadeva's Catuḥśatikā (2nd-3rd century CE) or Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya (8th century CE) should make clear just how important conventional distinctions are to proper mental development and practice in the eyes of these mādhyamika-s. Just a couple of excerpts from Āryadeva's Catuḥśatikā will suffice to demonstrate the necessity of understanding and employing conventional distinctions:
  • That which cuts craving for reward and honor,
    The best spur to practice with effort in seclusion,
    The excellent secret of all the scriptures,
    Is initially to remember death.
And:
  • Thinking about the impermanence and uncleanness of the body,
    Understand the faults of attachment to it.
    Make effort to achieve unsurpassable enlightenment
    And give up pride in both “I” and “mine.”
PeterB wrote:A crucial part of the Theravadin understanding is that there is no a priori consciousness , either individual nor collective, no "Buddha Nature". That consciousness arises dependently together with everything else, as you say.
The Buddhadhamma of the Canon is ruthlessly radical.
It’s also crucial to the mādhyamaka view of the above mentioned authors that there is “no a priori consciousness , either individual nor collective” and that “consciousness arises dependently together with everything else.”

Mādhyamaka arose as a critique and corrective of Sarvāstivāda tenets. Because the Sarvāstivāda was a Nikāya school which didn’t accept the authority of any non-canonical sūtra-s, the Indian mādhyamika authors cited canonical statements which are common to the discourses of the Sanskrit āgama-s and the Pāḷi nikāya-s as scriptural support for their critiques. As such, the mādhyamaka view of these authors doesn’t deviate from that of the Pāḷi sutta-s and was never intended as a critique of the early Pāḷi Abhidhamma Piṭaka.
Sobeh wrote:As long as it is defined as somehow being Metaphysics, it's to be discarded as irrelevant. Non-dualism, however one details it, is still an ontological claim. If people want to talk meaningful philosophy, let's investigate Buddhist epistemology and metaethics.
Mādhyamaka doesn’t confuse or conflate epistemology and ontology.

All the best,

Geoff
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

Thank you Nana. I will stick with Bhikkhu Bodhi thanks as its rooted in Theravada pragmatism rather abstract surmising. If I set any store by Nagarjuna et al. I wouldnt be on this forum.

:anjali:
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by Shonin »

Choosing not to follow a path is one thing. Spreading misrepresentations of it, is another.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

Am I being accused of something Shonin ?
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Materialism, Dualism, Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

Well ?
Post Reply