Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
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 6:31 pm
But it does not make them external and objective.
The Buddha spoke of external objects which exist. We don’t have any record of him denying their external reality, much less that they are merely mind made. If your claim is that he was an Idealist or some kind of sceptic you will have to demonstrate it.
If the Buddha endorsed external objective world he would have never said that the "world" or "everything" is just subjective experience.
There is a world of difference between teaching that we subjectively create our own internal worlds and external reality not existing. Between the eye and forms we each have different internal subjective experiences, but that doesn’t then mean that the visual form exists only in mind.
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".
Yet he includes the external within that teaching. This is understandable, since external objects are part of our direct experience.
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
This depends on what he meant when he taught the raft simile. Was it to let go of all positions in toto, which would be hard to square with other suttas where he makes definitive statements, or does it mean something else? Interestingly the agama parallel puts it in terms of not taking the Dhamma to be self, much less what isn’t Dhamma.
(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).
I agree that the Buddha sometimes spoke according to convention, and that things like tables and kitchens do not really exist. I would argue that what he accepted as existing instead were the sabhāva 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.”
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by waryoffolly »

Can OP or Ceiswir explain their understanding of Kalaka Sutta?

It’s pretty short, so hopefully people won’t mind reading in full:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I think it is relevant for this discussion of realism in classical theravada, and discussing its interpretation could help structure the conversation.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

waryoffolly wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:25 pm Can OP or Ceiswir explain their understanding of Kalaka Sutta?

It’s pretty short, so hopefully people won’t mind reading in full:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I think it is relevant for this discussion of realism in classical theravada, and discussing its interpretation could help structure the conversation.
My reply would actually have to be a bit more detailed than what I can give right now (but I can tomorrow as it’s the weekend). In short it means not assaulting sabhāva dhammas with craving, conceit and views.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

A better translation:
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāketa, at Kāḷaka’s Park. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: “Bhikkhus!”

“Venerable sir!” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

“Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I know.

“Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I have directly known. It has been known by the Tathāgata, but the Tathāgata did not become subservient to it.

“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I do not know,’ that would be a falsehood on my part.

“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I both know and do not know,’ that too would be just the same.

“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I neither know nor do not know,’ that would be a fault on my part.

(1) “So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees. (2) Having heard what can be heard, he does not misconceive the heard, does not misconceive the unheard, does not misconceive what can be heard, does not misconceive one who hears. (3) Having sensed what can be sensed, he does not misconceive the sensed, does not misconceive the unsensed, does not misconceive what can be sensed, does not misconceive one who senses. (4) Having cognized what can be cognized, he does not misconceive the cognized, does not misconceive the uncognized, does not misconceive what can be cognized, does not misconceive one who cognizes.

“Thus, bhikkhus, being ever stable among things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, the Tathāgata is a stable one. And, I say, there is no stable one more excellent or sublime than that stable one.”

Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One
would not posit as categorically true or false
anything seen, heard, or sensed,
clung to and considered truth by others.

Since they have already seen this dart
to which people cling and adhere,
saying “I know, I see, it is just so,”
the Tathāgatas cling to nothing.
https://suttacentral.net/an4.24/en/bodhi
“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: 968
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 6:46 pm The Buddha spoke of external objects which exist.
No , you are gravely mistaken, he never said anything of the like! He said that there is an eye and sights, ear and sounds. He never said anything about actually existing external objects, and, moreover, he said that the "world" is just eye and sights etc. -- he rejects any "objective reality" of the world thus and replaces it with the subjective reality of personal experience. And there is nothing "external", everything that is happening to a person is subjective, "internal".
sabhāva dhammas.
these are just some artificial mental constructs of late Buddhist scholastics, who already hardly understood what the Buddha taught. ​If i were you I wouldn't even bother about them. But people need time to realize it.
This depends on what he meant when he taught the raft simile.
It is quite clear in general -- his Teaching(s) is to be cast away, like a raft. In MN 74 and other places the Buddha clearly reveals that his teaching is a no-teaching, or at least one without any views. But of course it's much harder to understand and accept than sabhāva dhammas.
Last edited by sphairos on Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by sphairos »

waryoffolly wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:25 pm Can OP or Ceiswir explain their understanding of Kalaka Sutta?

It’s pretty short, so hopefully people won’t mind reading in full:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I think it is relevant for this discussion of realism in classical theravada, and discussing its interpretation could help structure the conversation.
The book ven. Ñāṅānanda wrote on it is extremely terse. I've read it two times and hardly understood completely.
Last edited by sphairos on Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by waryoffolly »

sphairos wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:17 pm
waryoffolly wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:25 pm Can OP or Ceiswir explain their understanding of Kalaka Sutta?

It’s pretty short, so hopefully people won’t mind reading in full:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I think it is relevant for this discussion of realism in classical theravada, and discussing its interpretation could help structure the conversation.
The book ven. Ñānānanda wrote on it is extremely terse. I've read it two times and hardly understood completely.
Read it a third time 😂, it has quite a bit of interesting insight to unpack in my view.

Still, let’s see how Ceisiwr understands this sutta. It will be interesting to compare with Ven Nanananda’s understanding.

Also relevant to the discussion would be the atthakatha for this sutta. I doubt there’s an english translation readily available though. Maybe someone could provide a brief summary of what the pali atthakatha says for kalaka sutta?
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by zan »

The subjective is inextricably bound with "I am". "I am" is a conceit to be uprooted entirely (SN 22.89). There is no such thing as a self in anything whatsoever, including nibbana (SN 22.59, SN 44.10, AN 4.34, SN 5.23), and a self, and "I am" is needed to define the subjective. Therefore there is no such thing as the subjective, as such a thing is nonsense once "I am" and the self are removed. A sentence like "I am experiencing this, but it doesn't exist objectively, outside my mind." is necessarily false, "I am" is a delusion to be uprooted. The sentence would have to read, from an ultimate perspective, "There is this." because the dichotomy of "me" and "my mind" vs "the external/objective" is an illusion, and linguistically nonsense without "I" and "myself", because, in reality, there are just things (dhammas/phenomena) and no such thing as "me," "I," nor "myself" to juxtapose against mere phenomena (subjective vs objective):
...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
Matter does exist though (SN 22.94), so saying "the objective/physical world/matter/etc. doesn't exist" is also necessarily false.


That said, if someone approached you and told you they were trying to convince their imaginary friend that they, the imaginary person, are imaginary, would you engage them? Or let them figure out how asinine that is on their own?
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: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:15 pm

No , you are gravely mistaken, he never said anything of the like! He said that there is an eye and sights, ear and sounds. He never said anything about actually existing external objects,
When we look to the suttas we find the Buddha talking about 6 internal sense bases and 6 external sense objects, both of which are said to exist (atthi). We also find him talking about the signless and meditation on nibbāna, where this is non-attention to external "signs". Signs of course being marks by which we recognise dhammas.
“Could it be, sir, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion such that there’s no ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit for this conscious body; and no ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit for all external stimuli;
“Siyā nu kho, bhante, bhikkhuno tathārūpo samādhipaṭilābho yathā imasmiñca saviññāṇake kāye ahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayā nāssu, bahiddhā ca sabbanimittesu ahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayā nāssu;
https://suttacentral.net/an3.32/en/sujato
and, moreover, he said that the "world" is just eye and sights etc. --
Between the eye and forms (which are external stimuli) we do create our own worlds due to craving, conceit and views.

he rejects any "objective reality" of the world thus and replaces it with the subjective reality of personal experience. And there is nothing "external", everything that is happening to a person is subjective, "internal".
Not that you have shown, and based on the suttas we see him acknowledging an external reality.
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

Consciousness is always conscious of something. It always requires a stimuli. If all we perceive is within mind the Buddha wouldn't have taught the 6 sense bases and the 6 external dhammas. Instead he would have just taught 1 sense base with it's objects. Namely, the mind. There are mind only dhammas, but there are also physical dhammas. This makes sense, since the Buddha was concerned with direct experience. Part of our direct experience is of a physical reality. Different types of physical reality actually.
these are just some artificial mental constructs of late Buddhist scholastics, who already hardly understood what the Buddha taught. ​If i were you I wouldn't even bother about them. But people need time to realize it.
Strange. They appear in the suttas, so it seems the Abhidhammikas of old did understand the Buddha.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold, deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception.

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi

Sabhāva is the own-nature of each dhamma. As the sutta shows above, the sabhāva of consciousness is to cognise. Also interesting to note that the Buddha acknowledges here external objects which interact with form.

It is quite clear in general -- his Teaching(s) is to be cast away, like a raft. In MN 74 and other places the Buddha clearly reveals that his teaching is a no-teaching, or at least one without any views. But of course it's much harder to understand and accept than sabhāva dhammas.
I do understand it. I used to hold a similar view. The question you leave unanswered is what the Buddha actually meant by a view? Seems rather obvious to me they are metaphysical in nature, and deal in things not actually experienced. These are then held dogmatically and argued as being absolute truth, when they are anything but due to their epistemological flaws. What the Buddha was concerned with was knowledge. With direct experience. So we can say the Buddha has given up views, yet has knowledge. This allows him to state things categorically such as certain dhammas which indeed do exist (form that is impermanent, nibbāna etc), certain behaviours which are always unskilful (lying, killing etc) and that certain facts of experience always exist (dependent origination). The Buddha then does not have "views", by which he seems to mean metaphysical and abstract ideas built on shaky epistemological grounds, but he does indeed have a position since he has knowledge. This makes him opposed to both the metaphysician and the sceptic alike. Regarding the raft simile, the message is about not grasping the teachings and using them to win debates, which is quite an egoistical thing to do, rather than the path culminating in the abandoning of all definitive statements and collapsing into some kind of Pyrrhonist ataraxia. That said, even the Pyrrhonists allowed for statements such as "right now pain exists".
"Here, bhikkhus, some clansmen learn the Dhamma—discourses…answers to questions—and having learned the Dhamma, they examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. Examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they gain a reflective acceptance of them. They do not learn the Dhamma for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and they experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dhamma. Those teachings, being rightly grasped by them, conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Why is that? Because of the right grasp of those teachings...

“Bhikkhus, I shall show you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping."
So to conclude sabhāva, at least in it's Theravādin usage, is perfectly in line with the suttas. We can categorically state certain things to be true or not, when we have said knowledge and the Buddha said external dhammas exist and so acknowledged an external reality.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“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: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

waryoffolly wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:27 pm
sphairos wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:17 pm
waryoffolly wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:25 pm Can OP or Ceiswir explain their understanding of Kalaka Sutta?

It’s pretty short, so hopefully people won’t mind reading in full:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I think it is relevant for this discussion of realism in classical theravada, and discussing its interpretation could help structure the conversation.
The book ven. Ñānānanda wrote on it is extremely terse. I've read it two times and hardly understood completely.
Read it a third time 😂, it has quite a bit of interesting insight to unpack in my view.

Still, let’s see how Ceisiwr understands this sutta. It will be interesting to compare with Ven Nanananda’s understanding.

Also relevant to the discussion would be the atthakatha for this sutta. I doubt there’s an english translation readily available though. Maybe someone could provide a brief summary of what the pali atthakatha says for kalaka sutta?
We find a similar teaching in MN1, which is about not grasping ideas or dhammas as self.
“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.”
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by zan »

I had thought I was the odd man out in the world, and that Classical Theravada was in the minority on being realist. I thought that most philosophers of science believed that realism was an incorrect position.

Well, turns out we share the opinion of the vast majority of philosophers of science!
The PhilPapers Survey was a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views, carried out in November 2009. The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.
With the respondents as broad as possible, and narrowed only by philosophy to "General Philosophy of Science," we get the following:
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?
Accept or lean toward: non-skeptical realism 179 / 252 (71.0%)
Accept or lean toward: skepticism 33 / 252 (13.1%)
Other 27 / 252 (10.7%)
Accept or lean toward: idealism 13 / 252 (5.2%)
Now, with no parameters set, allowing for all philosophies, and all respondents, let's see how many are realists:
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?
Accept or lean toward: non-skeptical realism 2305 / 3226 (71.5%)
Other 356 / 3226 (11.0%)
Accept or lean toward: skepticism 310 / 3226 (9.6%)
Accept or lean toward: idealism 255 / 3226 (7.9%)
It actually went up half a percent lol! So the majority of philosophers surveyed, period, are realists.

So, the realist view is the traditional Buddhist view, and the view held by the majority of philosophers of science, and philosophers in general, too. The prevalence of voices promoting the idea that the external world does not exist, and ignoring the flawed logic in trying to convince other people they don't exist, can surely be explained by desire for profit or other motivations. If media outlets pushed the 70% who believe the external world exists, they'd not be saying anything exciting and provocative. They want to make money, hence, they push this stuff so much that I thought this is what the world at large feels.

I've also searched other forums and discussion sites and mostly idealism rules them as well. So, what happens is, I imagine, a majority of lay philosophers are idealists, since that's what I see online and in sensationalist articles, but once the lay people become professionally trained philosophers they probably learn the absurdity of promoting the view that the external world doesn't exist via speeches, books, papers, etc. none of which would make any sense for someone who doesn't believe they exist. "I have written a paper that doesn't exist, and published in print books, that don't exist, made sure to get a copyright and a book deal for profit, neither of which exist, and promote my ideas on the internet where I hold domain names and pay companies to maintain them, none of which exist, to explain to people, who don't exist, that they don't exist." Got it. And I'm over here feeling like I was the only one that thinks this is bizarre lol!

Glad that's finally settled. Broadly speaking, most people are probably realists, including philosophers of science. Idealism/objective external world doesn't exist/etc. is a feature of Mahayana Buddhism that has jumped over to Theravada, but I suspect it's a fad, and reason will prevail eventually, thus returning Theravada to its rightful place with the rest of the world and many very smart people, who all agree with the Buddha, broadly speaking, in realism.

The only person who could rightly declare that the objective world doesn't exist, and so everything is imaginary, would be an omnipotent being.

In other words: only a fool would run into a barrier that neither they, nor anyone else can get through, and declare, "This barrier exists strictly in my imagination!" Or "This barrier isn't real!"
Last edited by zan on Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:02 pm, edited 1 time 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
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

zan wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:35 pm
What is it that is being directly perceived in Theravada in your view?
“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.”
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by zan »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:54 pm
zan wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:35 pm
What is it that is being directly perceived in Theravada in your view?
I'm not speaking about the specifics of Theravada. I am speaking only broadly about realism. Classical Theravada holds a realist position, so do many other philosophies. In the broadest of terms we have idealism, like Mahayana and other philosophies, and realism, like Theravada and other philosophies. This is all I'm speaking about. Broad categorization of idealism and realism. And, broadly speaking, classical Theravada is a realist school of thought, and fits in the category with other realist philosophies.
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: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

zan wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:25 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:54 pm
zan wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:35 pm
What is it that is being directly perceived in Theravada in your view?
I'm not speaking about the specifics of Theravada. I am speaking only broadly about realism. Classical Theravada holds a realist position, so do many other philosophies. In the broadest of terms we have idealism, like Mahayana and other philosophies, and realism, like Theravada and other philosophies. This is all I'm speaking about. Broad categorization. And, broadly speaking, classical Theravada is a realist school of thought, and fits in the category with other realist philosophies.
So what is directly perceived in your view?
“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.”
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by zan »

To reiterate, with a few tweaks: The teaching of "All is mind." Or "The objective does not exist (which is another way of saying nothing is real, nothing exists, etc.)" Is a self referential statement and ends up meaning "Mind is mind." Or "Mind mind mind" without anything else, just "mind" has no meaning whatsoever. In other words, it's nonsense. Ditto for "All is unreal." It means "Unreal is unreal." Which, of course, is gibberish. The unreal, without the real, is meaningless. "Nothing exists." Means "The statement 'nothing exists' doesn't exist, and is thus false." And so on. Nonsense.

All of these supposedly wise teachings are mere linguistic tricks that sound deep because we miss, momentarily for some, for longer periods for others, that they are actually nonsense. They all fall under the trap of the problem of absolute generality. And 99.9% of people who preach them live every second of every day as if they do not believe them. Anyone who truly believed that nothing is real, the objective doesn't exist, or that all is mind, or anything similar would be dead within a few days due to dehydration, as they'd not drink water, believing it to be imaginary (so it's a good thing that those who preach this don't believe it!). Even more absurd, typing, and writing about how nothing is real is a constant testament to the fact that one does not believe what they are writing. Thus, every single person who promotes these ideas is dishonest to themselves, others, or both, or at least they are extremely confused.

Now, some will ostensibly redeem these teachings. However, they will do so with word jugglery, eel wriggling, redefining words outside normal use, verbal sleight of hand, twisting and turning. But, in the end, the self evident, unavoidable facts of reality will always be there, and will never need twisting and turning to prove.

The anti realist will need lots of text, logic and juggling to prove their points. The realist has but to wait for the anti realist to get thirsty. Words, logic, convincing, none are needed to prove the self evident points of existence. Existence is, regardless of language. Whereas anti realism, idealism, etc. are found strictly within language.

The realist can argue for their point. The anti-realist or idealist argues against themselves, as every word spoken or written declares that they don't believe their own words, as, if they truly did, they would see that arguing it is profoundly illogical, pointless and asinine. So, in debate, the realist argues for realism, and the anti realist or idealist implicitly argues for 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
Post Reply