Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by zan »

I hope everyone will be very happy about this post! I was working on a comprehensive work full of sutta quotes, science stuff, cross tradition information, etc. etc. to refute the Madhyamaka-Yogacara interpretation of Classical Theravada (For anyone who doesn’t know, the former teaches all is imaginary or non-existent, but in Classical Theravada “Matter is taken for granted as existing” -Narada Thera). Then I realized, none of that is needed, and in fact it is endless when approached from the perspective of using texts to demonstrate something that is self-refuting. You wouldn’t try to disprove someone saying they can fly by flapping their arms by showing them suttas! You’d just explain simply that this is impossible, and that the person making the claim will disprove themselves on their own by failing to fly. So, I’ve decided to end it once and for all by presenting a very simple, relatively short post on it. This will be the last time I create a new thread about this, and I’m sure you’re all tired of me posting about it. The repetitiveness of the posts (sorry, I would add new info and repeat the old to keep things complete and not necessitating reading multiple threads to understand and have all the info for one thread), and their verboseness even made me tired of them!

Without further ado, here it is:
Saṃyutta Nikāya 22
Connected Discourses on the Aggregates
59. The Characteristic of Nonself
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Baraṇasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus: “Bhikkhus!”
“Venerable sir!” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
“Feeling is nonself…. … Perception is nonself…. Volitional formations are nonself…. Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?… Is perception permanent or impermanent?… Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?… Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”
That is what the Blessed One said. Elated, those bhikkhus delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
...the Ancients said:

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.

-Vism XIX.20
Limitations are not self. What is not self is not subjective, but objective. All beings have limitations. Therefore, unless a being has omnipotence, it is impossible that everything could be mind/subjective, or that there could be no such thing as the objective.

That’s it. Nothing else really can be said about it. Unless you’re omnipotent, you do not exist in a world where everything is subjective and all is in your mind. If it were, you wouldn’t need to post a rebuttal to tell me how silly you think this is, you could just wish this post was written differently. And, if you will post a rebuttal, declaring that I am wrong and all is mind/subjective and/or the objective doesn’t exist, you demonstrate that you do not believe what you are typing, because if you truly believed it, you wouldn’t bother typing it out, as it wouldn’t exist, and may entirely change by the time anyone else reads it, and no one else exists anyway, so you'd be talking to yourself, or blathering into nothingness, or random subjectivity for no reason.

Here are a few quotes to demonstrate Classical Theravada realism, for anyone who mistakenly believes, due to lack of information, that "it's all imaginary" or "nothing exists whatsoever" Buddhism is a product of Classical Theravada, rather than the actual case, which is that Classical Theravada is diametrically opposed to these later "all is mind" or "nothing exists whatsoever" schools:
...in order for there to be seeing there must be eye sensitivity, and there must be visible forms that really exist, are realities that genuinely exist, are personally experienced, and are ultimate reality.
-Mahasi Sayadaw, Manual of Insight, page 98
It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…

Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions…

...concretely produced matter...possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.

Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 26, 235, 260

That said, below I elucidate into verboseness and some repetition for further clarification, for those who will surely disagree with the Classical Theravada position of realism:
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by zan »

The subjective is me, mine, I, what is only in my mind etc. The objective is what is not me, nor mine, it is what is independent of my mind etc.
You say you own your house? Okay, but someone else has the deed? And they kick you out sometimes? And then eventually will kick you out and destroy the house, leaving you out in the cold? By what right do you call it your house then? You merely exist in someone else’s house. Essentially, there is no reason to call something yours unless it can be demonstrated that you control it. So, with that understanding of ownership in mind, let us proceed.

If all were in our minds we’d be able to do literally whatever we wanted. This is obviously false, hence, “all is mind” is conclusively false. If this is countered with saying that there’s no selves, and so all is mind, but not our minds, and hence we live in a world of natural rules, with an external and an internal (even if all is supposedly neither internal nor external, yet inexplicably things follow rules identical to the internal/external) the word “mind” becomes nonsense and another word should be used. “Mind” does not denote a world of rules, but a world of freedom and imagination. In the mind, we can make the Earth disappear, we can go back in time, we can be Gotama Buddha, we can become rich and famous, we can be the ruler of the universe, we can be an immortal omnipotent god, we can do anything we can think, at any time, with zero limitations. Denoting an extremely limited world, bound by rules invented by the Yogacara (and similar philosophies) as “mind” is entirely a misuse of the word. The same is true from another angle, in that calling all “mind” which is a word denoting one’s own (or a being’s) mind, cannot be correct if there is no such thing as I. This is because if there is no subjective world of me, I and my, then there is no such thing as “mind” at all in the usual sense, and all would be some kind of objective, selfless illusion, or a flow of phenomena, which is meaningless because “objective subjective” is an oxymoron. No self means no subjective, no subjective means only objective, or nothing at all. We also must notice that there are always limitations, and things out of our control, and these limitations are not mere mind, as, if they were, they’d be changeable, and controllable, and certainly not fixed, eternal rules. Finally, “mind” only serves to delineate from “matter.” If matter doesn’t exist, then “mind” is a meaningless word. Thus “all is mind” is necessarily a false, meaningless statement.

The claim that objective, mind independent reality does not exist, or that everything is in your mind, is a significant claim if, and only if, there is a self with significant power. If you believe all is in your mind, the question that needs to be asked is: do you have control over everything? Are there any limitations? Unwritten rules that for no apparent reason you cannot break and must follow, whether you know about them or not? Assuming the answer is ‘no, I don’t have control over everything, yes there are limitations, and yes I must follow rules.’ then you’ve no right to call it your mind, nor claim that these rules are anything but independent of your mind. Thus, whatever isn’t under your control is something other than, and therefore outside of yourself. If you have zero control over a rule or limitation, and you didn’t make the rule, it is certainly not dependent on your mind, and there’s no reason to think it isn’t mind independent. If your mind is bound by a rule, there’s no reason to think it is purely inside your mind, created by your mind. For, if it were purely inside your mind, you could overcome it. Hence, rules that you cannot break with your mind are mind independent. For example you can only see certain colors of the spectrum, so the inability to see the other colors is a mind independent rule. If it weren’t mind independent, you could say “I now can see them all.” And be successful. Ditto for everything else. Any weird science experiment that seems to call subject object issues into question fall under this category, too. Can you make the experiment go a certain way using your mind? Can you make the particle always a wave? Can you make the quantum weirdness go away and make quantums behave in a more orderly fashion? No? Okay, so then, rather than weirdness demonstrating subjective power and proving that particles are imaginary, mind created, they, instead demonstrate subjective limitation, and objective laws that cannot be altered: regardless of how we’d like to create them with our minds, they follow certain laws and limitations we have zero control over, and so, while they may be reacting to mind, they are not created purely by mind. If they were, we’d be able to do a lot more neat stuff with quantums. We’d be able to do literally anything we can think of. But, instead, quantums follow mind independent laws, regardless of how they behave when interacted with, observed, not observed, etc. Regardless of how we understand quantums existence (or even non-existence), the laws dictating how we are allowed to work with them, and the experiments, and everything else cannot be said to be merely imaginary, as they are firmly bound by limitations beyond the control of anyone’s imagination. And so we prove that there are physical laws that are mind independent, even if we are demonstrating control over those very minds, the laws are independent. If they weren’t, we’d be able to imagine whatever we pleased, because non-independent, purely mind created things have no such boring limits. So, we constantly demonstrate that there is an unseen, immutable, external and independent world of laws, even in the supposedly subjective idealist friendly world of quantum mechanics. We may be imagining a lot of the details, but we constantly find the objective frame works of the universe and prove them via limitations.

The words “I,” “me,” and “mine,” are conceits, there is no such thing as the self, therefore the subjective is an illusion, and all there is is the objective. You will never be able to demonstrate the existence of the subjective, yet the objective, in the form of rules and limitations proves itself. The idea that all is in your mind is a multilayered delusion. Ditto for the idea that there is no such thing as the objective. Unless there are no limitations on what you can do, there is something outside of what you could rightly call “yourself”, and certainly what you could call your mind, so “all is mind” and “the objective does not exist” are nonsense for all but the omnipotent or at least the near omnipotent. Even if everything is randomness, unless you can control it and make it otherwise, it’s not you nor yours, and therefore it is an objective reality. Our limitations set us free from the delusion of self. Believing that everything is in your mind/there is no objective reality is a prison built out of self-views. Admitting your limitations, and that because of these limitations there is no self, and therefore statements like “everything is mind/objective reality does not exist” are false is the path to freedom.

This also applies to extreme nihilism (some interpretations of, though probably not the correct understanding of Madhyamaka). Nothing whatsoever exists? Okay, are there rules and limitations? Okay, well, why are there rules if nothing exists? And of course, this applies directly to Yogacara, where all is mind, yet there is a huge amount of rules about how this endless stream of vinnanas works, and we are not allowed to break these rules, nor are we allowed to make things more than mind, hence we cannot call these things self, as we have zero control over these rules and must abide by them, and these rules certainly are not merely mind, as no such hard and fast rules would exist in a purely mind scenario. In the Yogacara world, we are essentially bodies in the Matrix, all the freedoms and external realities we think exist are false, illusions only. Can we say of our minds, in this mind only system “Let my mind be thus!” Not at all! We must follow the Yogacara rules. We do not own our minds. Our minds are not self. Hence, the Yogacara world is one of inanimate dominoes, falling in a void, but called vinnanas instead of dominoes. The Yogacara may say we have the ability to escape into Nirvana and become Buddhas or something, but if there is no self, who escapes? And, once we become a Buddha, might we destroy this system and free everyone from the Matrix into a world where things are real, and not merely mind? No, of course not, hence, there is some kind of invisible, objective mind prison, wherein vinnanas float, until they escape and become Buddhas, who still don’t have the ability to control the invisible rules, and so even Buddhas are still inside the larger Yogacara prison. So, even within the Yogacara, all is mind system, there is an objective, invisible framework. In that world, dominoes float in an eternal prison, endlessly falling and generating new dominoes, while thinking “We are in control of our minds.”

We could make the case that nothing but objective rules exist, and that the subjective doesn’t ultimately exist and is merely an illusion or a misunderstanding a lot easier than we could make the case that all is subjective. Proving that limitations exist is very easy, in fact they prove themselves whether we like it or not. Ditto for randomness or any other uncontrollable thing; it will prove itself. Whereas the subjective cannot be proven, but only inferred and explained via the objective limitations of the world. All subjective explanations depend on the objective, and can never be explained independently. No matter what you say, you will fail to explain the subjective without relying on the objective. It is impossible to explain mind without referencing matter. If you say there is no matter, you also destroy any argument for the existence of mind. If neither mind nor matter exist, then “all is mind” is a nonsense position.

The same logic applies even if, hypothetically, there is a weak, not very in control self. Maybe that self runs the small amount of things in your own mind that you can control, and a few things in your immediate space externally, but any limitations there, and the huge amount of limitations outside of that mind are not self and if you can’t control it, it’s not you. So there may be a tiny little self inside you somewhere, but saying all things are in your mind, that all things are part of that self will be self-refuting in exactly the same way.

Some may say you have to gain these powers, but don’t have them now. This fixes nothing. Until you gain the powers, you are bound by objective rules or randomness. So long as something outside your control dictates things in your life, you cannot claim that all is your mind, nor that the objective doesn’t exist. And, obviously, calling external reality that is bound by rules that you do not control “mind” is truly bizarre. Any rational person would have to admit that saying “all is mind” should wait until one gains their super powers over all of reality, at which point it could be called “mind” or “your mind.” Until then, the sun at midday will not instantaneously set because you want it to, and so is starkly contrasted against your mind, within where you can imagine it setting. So, the sun is not “mind” by any stretch of the imagination, until you can make it set instantaneously, both the sun of your own imagination, and the sun in the sky, with a thought.

If this is wrong, then prove it, don’t follow the rules of nature, make two plus two be a million (you’ll be rich!), make yourself super strong, fly like a bird by flapping your arms. If not, then my point is proven: limitations bind you, they are self-evident, self-proving, inescapable.
Even if it’s all “mind” it’s not all your mind, because you didn’t make up the rules, and are bound by them, in which case, the word “mind” becomes nonsense as it has no connection to its original meaning. Just like “up” loses all meaning if we have to state that all is one blob and so directions don’t exist. “Up” only serves to delineate from “down.” If “up” doesn’t exist, “down” is a meaningless term. Likewise, “mind” is used to delineate from “matter” and if “matter” doesn’t exist, then “mind” is meaningless, especially some kind of mind that inexplicably still is bound by rules that normally only apply to the physical. Where you have your inner “mind” which you largely control, and your outer “mind” which follows laws of nature and are out of your control. These rules, being independent of this self, or mind or whatever you want to call it, are objective and cannot be said to be non-existent, nor anything related to the normal understanding of the word “mind.”

And again, if this is wrong, and all is mind: tired of being poor and needing to buy food? If it’s in your mind, make money appear, if objective reality doesn’t exist, you don’t need food and can live without it. You can’t do either of these things, so this position is silliness. If believing and professing that it’s all in your head doesn’t greatly change anything about your life, and you’re still bound by rules, or randomness, then you’re not believing nor professing anything significant, and you will fail to prove it. So whatever tiny self might supposedly exist would do nothing to promote these ideas. And the rules and limitations that are beyond you, beyond your mind, beyond anything you could ever hope to control or understand, these limitations are self-evident and proven at all times. If it’s beyond the power of your mind, calling it your mind makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Ditto for claiming there is no objective. If it’s beyond your mind, it is certainly not subjective, and it can’t be said to be non-existent, either.

Further, if all were mind or purely subjective, then so would the idea that all is mind or purely subjective be mere mind and purely subjective, in which case, there’s no reason to believe it, as it is necessarily, by its own definition, unproven flight of fancy, and anyone that teaches, claims to hold this view or otherwise professes it self-refutes. If it is true, it’s false. If all is mind/not objective then the statement itself becomes unreliable and must be seen as false. They also automatically prove that they do not believe it in many other ways. If you really believed it, you wouldn’t bother professing it any more than an atheist could justify talking to god. Atheists don’t believe in god, so one who talks to god exposes their hypocrisy. Likewise, one who doesn’t believe in the objective world and/or thinks all is mind doesn’t believe that anyone exists outside their own mind, or doesn’t exist at all, so when they talk to anyone, especially trying to convince anyone of their philosophy, or do anything, they expose their hypocrisy. Like trying to convince your imaginary friend that they’re imaginary. And, of course, they prove their disbelief in these ideas when they pay their bills, eat, avoid danger, etc. Someone who truly believed these things would be running wild in the streets, starving, and ignoring all social conventions. Anyone who drives to work every day, eats, drinks, buys groceries, etc. and says they don’t believe the objective world exists or that it’s all in their head self-refutes by these actions and demonstrates that they do not believe their own position. If there is no objective, then there’s nothing to use to prove that, and the idea flops, and is obviously false.

Not to mention that every single person who has ever promoted “all is mind” or “the objective world doesn’t exist” and similar things has used language to do so. This idea cannot be expressed without words. Yet, objectivity is demonstrated by everyone and everything, at all times. The river is there, everyone sees it, no one can cross it without getting wet, using a boat or a bridge. If someone doesn’t see it they may fall in. There are two apples, you take one, someone else takes the second, no one thinks new apples will magically appear. You have two houses, people with one house will envy you because two is bigger than one. If someone wants to visit you and can’t find you in the first house, they’ll check the second. All of the objective things about the world just are regardless of language. You could teach a person objective facts without language. For example one could teach someone that stoves are hot when they glow red and to not touch them. Yet, a person or group without language would have zero people promoting the idea that all is mind or objective reality doesn’t exist, and it would be impossible for them to learn these things. These things do not exist outside of language. They are language games and have no more truth to them than word games, riddles and fictional stories. Rules exist, or maybe randomness exists, and that’s all there is to it unless you are omnipotent or otherwise significantly powerful.
It could be someone else’s mind maybe? But then what’s their mind would be objective to your mind, and further delineation would be needed, and new terms more specific than just “mind” would be required. Even then, there would still be an objective, and everything wouldn’t be in your mind, just a mind that is outside of your own, and who’s rules bind you. So saying “all is mind” would be foolish in such a world and hopelessly non-specific. This is clearly not what people generally mean when they say “it’s all in your mind” or “objective reality doesn’t exist.” So this position must be considered irrelevant here.

If all were in your mind, and, or, objective reality didn’t exist, you wouldn’t need to preach it, it would be self-evident, and we’d all be very happy with all of our super powers. This is not the case, and every being must admit the limitations of their abilities as not self, as not subjective, and therefore as objective.

Not having a self, living in a universe of rules and limitations or even randomness is true freedom. The path to nibbana lies in understanding that nothing, not even your own mind is your mind, and that denying objective reality, or claiming everything is in your mind, is the path to further self-bondage.

Anyone who practices insight meditation, and Classical Theravada practices in general properly will have the exact opposite opinion of those who believe everything is subjective, imaginary, etc. as they will see through the illusion of their own subjectivity, and realize selflessness.
The end. There is no further discussion needed. Though I’m sure there will be many replies declaring that I’m wrong and that all is in fact imaginary and/or the objective doesn’t exist, and that all of my definitions and logic and etc. etc. is wrong. But, one thing that will never be gotten around is that arguing that all is mind or that the objective doesn’t exist is necessarily a self-contradictory endeavor that makes one into a hypocrite who clearly doesn’t believe what they’re saying.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

I think you might be confusing Solipsism with Representationalism and Idealism. They aren’t synonyms. For example, someone can be a Representationalist without being an Idealist or Solipsistic. Likewise someone can be an Idealist whilst accepting the existence of other minds. Berkeley did. He even argued for direct realism to, it’s just what we directly perceive are mental phenomena in the mind of God.

Regarding Theravāda it’s outlook is a form of Phenomenalism. The dhammas are always qualities of experience rather than substances. Phenomenalism gets you to Representationalism. From there some quite easily move to vijñapti-mātra (representation only) and Yogācāra.
“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.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

zan wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:39 pm
And again, if this is wrong, and all is mind: tired of being poor and needing to buy food? If it’s in your mind, make money appear, if objective reality doesn’t exist, you don’t need food and can live without it. You can’t do either of these things, so this position is silliness. If believing and professing that it’s all in your head doesn’t greatly change anything about your life, and you’re still bound by rules, or randomness, then you’re not believing nor professing anything significant, and you will fail to prove it.
It might be worthwhile reading some Yogācāra texts so you can better understand the arguments of Vasubandhu & Asaṅga.
“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.”
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by sphairos »

You didn't answer why the Buddha advised to relinquish both dhammas and adhammas, and how the classical Theravāda / Buddhist worldview, a reality consisting in kāma-dhātu, rūpa-dhātu and arūpa-dhatu, is any close to a "realist" one in Western sense.

viewtopic.php?p=629101#p629101
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by zan »

I just saw this. Dootdoot, a much more articulate and brilliant user than I, and one of the very few other Buddhists on this forum who holds the Theravada position of realism, posted this in reply to one of my other threads, and it fits here perfectly. If we all aspired to, and even got near his level of scholarship, the idealists/objective doesn't exist/all is imaginary/unreal/crypto Yogacara-Madhyamaka users would mostly change their views and become Theravada. Study like Dootdoot, and you will see the truth of Theravada.
Dootdoot wrote:
Mendicants, these four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise.
“Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, tathāni avitathāni anaññathāni.

What four?
Katamāni cattāri?

This is suffering’ …
‘Idaṃ dukkhan’ti, bhikkhave, tathametaṃ avitathametaṃ anaññathametaṃ;

‘This is the origin of suffering’ …
‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti tathametaṃ avitathametaṃ anaññathametaṃ;

‘This is the cessation of suffering’ …
‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti tathametaṃ avitathametaṃ anaññathametaṃ;

‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’ …
‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti tathametaṃ avitathametaṃ anaññathametaṃ—

These four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise.
imāni kho, bhikkhave, cattāri tathāni avitathāni anaññathāni.
-SN 56.20

...Buddha-Dhamma is about objective reality or ultimate truth, it appears to ultimately side with "ontology". For example, in AN 3.136 and SN 12.20, it is said the Dhamma is a fixed law that exists whether or not Buddhas arise to perceive and reveal these fixed laws.

Whether or not the 4NTs are known, all people suffer in the exact same way and all people can overcome suffering in the exact same way. In Buddha-Dhamma, there is no scope for "person-centredness". ...
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

zan wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:10 pm
Those are terrible arguments.
“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.”
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by asahi »

zan wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:39 pm to refute the Madhyamaka-Yogacara interpretation of Classical Theravada (For anyone who doesn’t know, the former teaches all is imaginary or non-existent, but in Classical Theravada “Matter is taken for granted as existing” -Narada Thera).
I doubt that Madhyamaka teaches all dharma are imaginary (existing only in the imagination or fictional) or non existent . Rather it is a kind of reification .

「諸法畢竟空」
all dharma are ultimately empty
「戲論滅盡」
cessation of all papanca
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:08 pm
zan wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:10 pm
Those are terrible arguments.
Agreed. Battling strawmen seems a strange way to advance in the Dhamma but each to their own, I guess.

:strawman:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by zan »

I decided to look it up, and, yes, the Buddha confirms the objective underpinning of dhamma. Even if he, himself, the Tathagata (or another Tathagata) doesn't exist at any given time, the dhamma is mind independent, and even Buddha independent. It is a law that exists outside of our perceptions, outside of existence of an individual even, as an objective reality. This utterly destroys any ideas that the Buddha supposedly taught that nothing exists outside of individual perception (not that it didn't already cancel itself out right out the gate: "All is imaginary/unreal/objective doesn't exist." including that statement, thus it is false, or at least worthless and hopelessly flawed by casting irrevocable, irreparable doubt on itself.).
whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. A Tathagata awakens to this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. And he says: ‘See! With ignorance as condition, bhikkhus, volitional formations.’
-SN 12.20
So, the Tathagata shows the way, and we follow to discover the objective underpinning of existence which leads to nibbana. Even if we should die, and be reborn as a Brahma, existing for eons, we will be subject to the objective, mind independent truth of the dhamma; even Brahmas die (one dhamma truth among many). No matter what humans or Brahmas think with their minds, there are mind independent, ultimate truths that are impossible for them to overcome.

Even if everyone in existence has forgotten about the dhamma, it still exists as an objective, mind independent reality. Just like a city that has been lost to jungle growth and is forgotten still exists, even though no one is aware of it, so, too, does the dhamma.
“Suppose, bhikkhus, a man wandering through a forest would see an ancient path, an ancient road travelled upon by people in the past. He would follow it and would see an ancient city, an ancient capital that had been inhabited by people in the past, with parks, groves, ponds, and ramparts, a delightful place. Then the man would inform the king or a royal minister: ‘Sire, know that while wandering through the forest I saw an ancient path, an ancient road travelled upon by people in the past. I followed it and saw an ancient city, an ancient capital that had been inhabited by people in the past, with parks, groves, ponds, and ramparts, a delightful place. Renovate that city, sire!’ Then the king or the royal minister would renovate the city, and some time later that city would become successful and prosperous, well populated, filled with people, attained to growth and expansion.

“So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation. I have directly known birth … existence … clinging … .craving … feeling … contact … the six sense bases …. name-and-form … consciousness … volitional formations, their origin, their cessation, and the way leading to their cessation. Having directly known them, I have explained them to the bhikkhus, the bhikkhunīs, the male lay followers, and the female lay followers. This holy life, bhikkhus, has become successful and prosperous, extended, popular, widespread, well proclaimed among devas and humans.”
-SN 12.65
This sutta also, yet again, confirms that the Buddha did not see the world as a purely subjective experience. He speaks of a city that exists despite being so out of mind as to have been forgotten and unknown, and likens it to the dhamma, which can be even more unknown, so difficult to find that only the arising of a Tathagata can uncover it, but it's always there, because it is entirely independent of our minds. Reading these two suttas side by side makes it quite unambiguous; The Buddha taught that the dhamma is a mind independent reality. He likened it to finding a forgotten ancient city, therefore, confirming that ancient cities are also mind independent realities. Otherwise the simile would make no sense and would rather demonstrate that the dhamma is not true, nor independent of mere subjectivity and flight of fancy, and would contradict SN 12.20 above.

The dhamma is like a forgotten ancient city, an ancient forgotten city is like the dhamma: both exist regardless of perceptual awareness and are objective, mind independent realities.

To argue for pure subjectivity (all is imaginary/unreal/objective doesn't exist/etc.) is to undercut the Buddha and the hundreds of times he uses objectivity to explain the dhamma.

Further, the only philosophies which understand the implications of total denial of the objective are extreme skeptics like the Ajnanas*. If one denies the objective, they also deny any ability to prove their claim, and also declare their own claim purely subjective and something they made up, and even themselves as merely made up, unreliable, no claim to existence and therefore they strip themselves of literally all authority. Once that is understood, the only possible position is pure skepticism, refusing to take any position whatsoever, because admitting anything once all objectivity has been denied will cause self-refutation. There is objective reasoning, and then there is nothing to discuss whatsoever but skepticism or maybe some form of philosophical quietism. There is no such thing as a valid philosophy that denies the objective exists, as, by their own definition, they do not exist. To throw out the objective is to throw out all frame of reference, to throw out all frame of reference is to cease to have a philosophy at all, and to be quiet, because we can share and discuss the same objective, but never, by the innate meaning of what subjectivity is, can we share and discuss the same subjective, thus making discussion asinine, as there would be zero reason to believe anyone else can even understand what you're saying, let alone that they exist at all, that you exist at all, that your words are even coming out as sound, etc. on into silliness. May as well hook a laptop up for a mirage of an oasis in the desert and post replies to it to disprove that it exists. If you truly didn't believe it existed, you wouldn't bother refuting it in conversation with the very thing that you claim doesn't exist. Subjective idealism/all is imaginary/unreal/objective doesn't exist is just a starting point for a demonstration of an ad absurdum argument.

* For how the Buddha thought about this kind of extreme skepticism, see DN 1.

Side note: Nagarjuna has been called a quietist and a skeptic, and some of his statements were indeed seemingly quietist, however he relied heavily on dhamma teachings and laws to explain his positions, and obviously held many positions very firmly, so, denying that he held a position at all, like his forebears, the Ajnanas, is not accurate. For comparison, the Ajnana's wouldn't have accepted his teachings on dependent origination that are critical to his philosophy, as they were truly quietist/skeptic and accepted nothing whatsoever. It might be said that Nagarjuna was quietist when asked certain questions, or that he fell back on Ajnana type philosophy at times, but his overall teachings and philosophy are far from quietism and extreme skepticism. Further, per Jay Garfield, Nagarjuna was a "robust realist," and so none of this applies to him anyway.
Last edited by zan on Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by sphairos »

Even if everyone in existence has forgotten about the dhamma, it still exists as an objective, mind independent reality.
Why then the Buddha shrinks the whole world to size of individuals senses, if he is so hell-bent on the "objective reality"?
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. [1]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:54 pm
Even if everyone in existence has forgotten about the dhamma, it still exists as an objective, mind independent reality.
Why then the Buddha shrinks the whole world to size of individuals senses, if he is so hell-bent on the "objective reality"?
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. [1]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Your quote includes both internal and external dhammas.
“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.”
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:58 pm
sphairos wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:54 pm
Even if everyone in existence has forgotten about the dhamma, it still exists as an objective, mind independent reality.
Why then the Buddha shrinks the whole world to size of individuals senses, if he is so hell-bent on the "objective reality"?
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. [1]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Your quote includes both internal and external dhammas.
So-called "external dhammas" are perceived internally by the mind. So how are they "external"?

If the Buddha was into "objective reality" he would not say that the world and everything is just your subjective experience (6 senses).
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:18 pm

So-called "external dhammas" are perceived internally by the mind. So how are they "external"?
Being perceived by mental dhammas does not then mean they have no objective status. You need to make further arguments to establish that perception is perception only.
If the Buddha was into "objective reality" he would not say that the world and everything is just your subjective experience (6 senses).
The sutta seems to be saying that the senses are the epistemological limit of what can be known, with experience being examined from both the internal and external side. Understanding how we experience external dhammas is part of the practice. How to not grasp their signs and features and so on.
So too, bhikkhus, in regard to forms cognizable by the eye … even trifling forms that enter into range of the eye obsess the mind, not to speak of those that are prominent. For what reason? Because lust still exists and has not been abandoned, hatred still exists and has not been abandoned, delusion still exists and has not been abandoned. The same in regard to sounds cognizable by the ear … mental phenomena cognizable by the mind.
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.231/en/bodhi
there is this body and external name-and-form: thus this dyad. Dependent on the dyad there is contact. There are just six sense bases, contacted through which—or through a certain one among them—the fool experiences pleasure and pain.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.19/en/bodhi

The Sautrāntikas did tend towards such idealism, partly because of their version of radical momentariness.
“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.”
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:54 pm Being perceived by mental dhammas does not then mean they have no objective status. You need to make further arguments to establish that perception is perception only.
But it does not make them external and objective.
The sutta seems to be saying that the senses are the epistemological limit of what can be known, with experience being examined from both the internal and external side. Understanding how we experience external dhammas is part of the practice. How to not grasp their signs and features and so on.
If the Buddha endorsed external objective world he would have never said that the "world" or "everything" is just subjective experience. He would say that the world objectively exists and we perceive it in our subjective experience, but he cut the "objective world" out and left only the subjective experience. Does not look like endorsement of "objective reality" at all. "External dhammas" are also subjective experience, so they are in reality "internal".

Of course one needs to modify their stream of experience in different ways in Buddhism, but hardly there is a place for an "objective world".

Dhamma in general is a raft, and when you have crossed the flood you cast it away, dhammas as well as adhammas. The Buddha uses the language of the world (for instance, "there is (objectively) a table in the kitchen"), but is not attached to it (because it is not based/does not correspond to reality).
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
Post Reply