Are views form? Including the right view?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:27 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:26 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:13 pm

Yes.
What about sotapanna's ignorance?
What about it? Both have the same view, but the Arahant has full knowledge whereas the sotāpanna does not. Both look at the world the same way, but the Arahant also truly knows that it is so. View and knowledge are two different, yet related, things.
Related how?

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by chownah »

I am not sure if this sutta is talking about an arahant.....from the wording I think it applies to someone who is very near to becoming an arahant. This sutta says that this kind of person has views.....it also stresses what things are comprehended through direct knowledge. Here is what I consider to be the part most applicable to the present discussion and other people might see other parts as being just as important so I recommend reading the entire sutta.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-1
An excerpt:
"However, knowing & seeing the eye as it actually is present, knowing & seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present, knowing & seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is not infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain.

"For him — uninfatuated, unattached, unconfused, remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future diminution. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — is abandoned by him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances are abandoned. His bodily torments & mental torments are abandoned. His bodily distresses & mental distresses are abandoned. He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of awareness.

"Any view belonging to one who has come to be like this is his right view. Any resolve, his right resolve. Any effort, his right effort. Any mindfulness, his right mindfulness. Any concentration, his right concentration: just as earlier his actions, speech, & livelihood were already well-purified. Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of their development. The four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for Awakening go to the culmination of their development.[1] [And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.

"He comprehends through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge, abandons through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge, develops through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge, and realizes through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge.

"And what qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' should be the reply. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These are the qualities that are to be comprehended through direct knowledge.

"And what qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge? Ignorance & craving for becoming: these are the qualities that are to be abandoned through direct knowledge.

"And what qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge? Tranquillity & insight: these are the qualities that are to be developed through direct knowledge.

"And what qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge? Clear knowing & release: these are the qualities that are to be realized through direct knowledge.
I don't know for sure but I guess that the things mentioned with respect to direct knowledge are best done with direct knowledge....

The last item in the excerpt above is "clear knowing and release". The next part of the sutta tells what things are to be known and released through direct knowing:
Knowing & seeing the ear... Knowing & seeing the nose... Knowing & seeing the tongue... Knowing & seeing the body...

"Knowing & seeing the intellect as it actually is present, knowing & seeing ideas... consciousness at the intellect... contact at the intellect as they actually are present, knowing & seeing whatever arises conditioned through intellect-contact — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is not infatuated with the intellect... ideas... consciousness at the intellect... contact at the intellect... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the intellect and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain.

"For him — uninfatuated, unattached, unconfused, remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future diminution. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — is abandoned by him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances are abandoned. His bodily torments & mental torments are abandoned. His bodily distresses & mental distresses are abandoned. He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of awareness.
All in all it seems to me to be quite apparant that direct knowledge is the preferred mode for a lot of important stuff.
chownah
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:36 pm
Related how?
Ven. Sujato once said that a diṭṭhi (view) straddles the line between opinion and fact, to paraphrase him somewhat. Essentially it's a theory on how the world is, whereas knowledge relates to how the world actually is. So, there is a difference between having Right View and knowledge and understanding. Right View is true, but it can't be known to be true until one directly see's and understands for themselves.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:36 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:27 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:26 pm

What about sotapanna's ignorance?
What about it? Both have the same view, but the Arahant has full knowledge whereas the sotāpanna does not. Both look at the world the same way, but the Arahant also truly knows that it is so. View and knowledge are two different, yet related, things.
Related how?
This is quite good:
  • Views are theories. They are relatively stable structures of thought and opinion that guide how we think and see the world.
  • Children don’t really have views. Of course the potential is latent in them, but only when they learn to use language and structure their thought is it appropriate to talk about views.
  • We develop views out of an interaction between our own desires and sense of self, and our environment, the experiences and facts we encounter.
  • Views allow us to make sense of the world by fitting diverse experiences into one framework that makes sense to us. Thus they are a kind of cognitive shortcut.
  • Arahants have views, but only the good kind.
  • Views are essential for the mind to work in a sophisticated way. It is possible to live without views: see fish, cows, and birds. But it’s not possible to have an advanced human sentience and culture without views.
  • Like all fundamental features of consciousness, views may be either good or bad. Obviously, Right View is at the start of the eightfold path. Confusion arises because the Pali word diṭṭhi is used in two idiomatic senses. Sometimes it is used in a neutral sense, as I have described. But other times it is used in a bad sense. In this way, it is somewhat similar to the English word “theory”. In science, a theory is, according to the National Academy of Sciences “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” In popular usage it is, however, “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” These two distinct senses are deliberately confused by bad-faith actors, i.e. fundamentalists and denialists. In Buddhism this happens, too, as those who don’t wish to challenge their own views accuse others of being attached to view.
  • Without views, life has no direction or purpose. Do not confuse someone who has achieved their purpose (an arahant) with someone who has not found it. And don’t confuse someone who has a reflective and critical perspective on their views with someone who simply denies that they have views and refuses to critically engage with them.
  • The root is dṛś, “to see”. This becomes dassana in the sense of “vision” and diṭṭhi in the sense of “theory”. The root is more evident in the Sanskrit forms, darśana and dṛṣṭi. The etymology is thus similar to “theory”, although I do not know whether they are related.
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... ew/3927/10
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:17 pm Essentially it's a theory on how the world is, whereas knowledge relates to how the world actually is.
This doesn't exclude that the latter would take the place of the former, and doesn't imply that the former would be the conceptual expression of the latter. It seems obvious to me that the non-conceptual can't be effectively conceptualized. So, in what sense is Right View 'right'? Just in its pragmatic usefulness.

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:01 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:17 pm Essentially it's a theory on how the world is, whereas knowledge relates to how the world actually is.
This doesn't exclude that the latter would take the place of the former, and doesn't imply that the former would be the conceptual expression of the latter. It seems obvious to me that the non-conceptual can't be effectively conceptualized. So, in what sense is Right View 'right'? Just in its pragmatic usefulness.
It’s Right because it corresponds to reality, to how things are.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:06 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:01 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:17 pm Essentially it's a theory on how the world is, whereas knowledge relates to how the world actually is.
This doesn't exclude that the latter would take the place of the former, and doesn't imply that the former would be the conceptual expression of the latter. It seems obvious to me that the non-conceptual can't be effectively conceptualized. So, in what sense is Right View 'right'? Just in its pragmatic usefulness.
It’s Right because it corresponds to reality, to how things are.
No, it's right because it leads to cessation.
"All I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering."

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:18 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:06 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:01 pm
This doesn't exclude that the latter would take the place of the former, and doesn't imply that the former would be the conceptual expression of the latter. It seems obvious to me that the non-conceptual can't be effectively conceptualized. So, in what sense is Right View 'right'? Just in its pragmatic usefulness.
It’s Right because it corresponds to reality, to how things are.
No, it's right because it leads to cessation.
"All I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering."
Right View isn’t just about Nibbana. It’s also about conditioned dhammas too. You are only focusing on one thing. Your own quote refers to both. It leads to Nibbana because you understand and know conditioned dhammas, and concepts.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:25 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:18 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:06 pm

It’s Right because it corresponds to reality, to how things are.
No, it's right because it leads to cessation.
"All I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering."
Right View isn’t just about Nibbana. It’s also about conditioned dhammas too. You are only focusing on one thing. Your own quote refers to both. It leads to Nibbana because you understand and know conditioned dhammas, and concepts.
That quote suggests that the purpose of the Buddha was "just" to solve the subjective problem of suffering, and not to describe the objective reality in ultimate terms.

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:39 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:25 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:18 pm
No, it's right because it leads to cessation.
"All I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering."
Right View isn’t just about Nibbana. It’s also about conditioned dhammas too. You are only focusing on one thing. Your own quote refers to both. It leads to Nibbana because you understand and know conditioned dhammas, and concepts.
That quote suggests that the purpose of the Buddha was "just" to solve the subjective problem of suffering, and not to describe the objective reality in ultimate terms.
Suffering relates to the subjective conditioned actualities of form, feeling and so on and the objective conditioned actualities of sound, taste etc which are all intrinsically dukkha. Right View is that said conditioned dhammas are suffering. Knowledge is knowing that they are. When one knows that, nibbana can be directly experienced and known via the mind base.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:48 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:39 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:25 pm

Right View isn’t just about Nibbana. It’s also about conditioned dhammas too. You are only focusing on one thing. Your own quote refers to both. It leads to Nibbana because you understand and know conditioned dhammas, and concepts.
That quote suggests that the purpose of the Buddha was "just" to solve the subjective problem of suffering, and not to describe the objective reality in ultimate terms.
Suffering relates to the subjective conditioned actualities of form, feeling and so on and the objective conditioned actualities of sound, taste etc which are all intrinsically dukkha. Right View is that said conditioned dhammas are suffering. Knowledge is knowing that they are. When one knows that, nibbana can be directly experienced and known via the mind base.
There's no objectivity in attributing characteristics of empirical nature, since that would be relative to a subject. Therefore suffering is not an objective characteristic, but a subjective one. Being so, there's nothing of absolutely and ultimately intrinsic in that. In direct knowledge there is no suffering as there is no sufferer, the subject has been bypassed. Right view, on the other hand, makes use of concepts that are necessarily relative to a subject. Therefore it's a conventional truth, neither more nor less.

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:29 am
There's no objectivity in attributing characteristics of empirical nature, since that would be relative to a subject. Therefore suffering is not an objective characteristic, but a subjective one. Being so, there's nothing of absolutely and ultimately intrinsic in that. In direct knowledge there is no suffering as there is no sufferer, the subject has been bypassed. Right view, on the other hand, makes use of concepts that are necessarily relative to a subject. Therefore it's a conventional truth, neither more nor less.
Dukkha also means unsatisfactory. Even after awakening the Buddha still experienced dukkha because he still experienced the unsatisfactoriness of conditioned dhammas. He also experienced pain, which is also dukkha. Only at the end of life was he free from all dukkha for good. During life only temporally so when he took Nibbana as the object of meditation. Dukkha is intrinsic to conditioned dhammas.
“Bhikkhus, there are these three kinds of suffering. What three? Suffering due to pain, suffering due to formations, suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering. The Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these three kinds of suffering, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.165/en/bodhi

Whilst “impermanence” and “suffering” are concepts with no sabhava-dhamma of their own, and so are purely conceptual in that regard, the concepts do correspond to the universal characteristics of the conditioned sabhava-dhammas.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:48 am
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:29 am
There's no objectivity in attributing characteristics of empirical nature, since that would be relative to a subject. Therefore suffering is not an objective characteristic, but a subjective one. Being so, there's nothing of absolutely and ultimately intrinsic in that. In direct knowledge there is no suffering as there is no sufferer, the subject has been bypassed. Right view, on the other hand, makes use of concepts that are necessarily relative to a subject. Therefore it's a conventional truth, neither more nor less.
Dukkha also means unsatisfactory. Even after awakening the Buddha still experienced dukkha because he still experienced the unsatisfactoriness of conditioned dhammas. He also experienced pain, which is also dukkha. Only at the end of life was he free from all dukkha for good. During life only temporally so when he took Nibbana as the object of meditation. Dukkha is intrinsic to conditioned dhammas.
“Bhikkhus, there are these three kinds of suffering. What three? Suffering due to pain, suffering due to formations, suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering. The Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these three kinds of suffering, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.165/en/bodhi

Whilst “impermanence” and “suffering” are concepts with no sabhava-dhamma of their own, and so are purely conceptual in that regard, the concepts do correspond to the universal characteristics of the conditioned sabhava-dhammas.
Unsatisfactoriness too is a characteristic that exists only in relation to a subject who experience it. There's no intrinsic dukkha, or colour, or hardness, because in order to be intrinsic it would exist regardless of subjective experience. It's enough to change the point of view to realize this: for an electron, for example, there's no dukkha, no colour, no hardness...

How can you ignore the relativity of any view?

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:08 am

Unsatisfactoriness too is a characteristic that exists only in relation to a subject who experience it.
This is a severe wrong view. Conditioned dhammas are always unable to bring satisfaction. Having this outlook is Right View. Knowing this to be true is Right Knowledge.

There's no intrinsic dukkha
But there is. All conditioned dhammas are intrinsically dukkha, which is why the full escape from dukkha is not under the Bodhi tree but at the end of life.
or colour, or hardness, because in order to be intrinsic it would exist regardless of subjective experience.
Hardness is the intrinsic nature of the earth element, because apart from hardness there is no earth element to speak of. This avoids falling into the trap of substance theory. Regarding the world, when the Buddha awakened the world out there did not disappear. Rather, in nibbāna there is no world.

It's enough to change the point of view to realize this: for an electron, for example, there's no dukkha, no colour, no hardness...
An electron is a conventional truth.
How can you ignore the relativity of any view?
The Buddha did not teach that truth is relative. Rather he taught there is such a thing as The Truth, and such a thing as personal views mistaken for The Truth.

"The truth is one,
there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
Contemplatives promote
their various personal truths,
that's why they don't say
one thing & the same."


- Sn 4.12

Regardless of if there is a Buddha in the world, the 4 Noble Truths are true. This, along with the above, is not the message of someone who accepts a subjective theory of truth. If truth were subjective, then an atta would be true for someone and false for another. The Buddha never argued in this way. Since there is such a thing as knowledge and truth, there is such a thing as Right View since there will be a view which correctly corresponds with said truth. If a view is universally true because it corresponds to how things are, then it is not subjective. It's objective.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Are views form? Including the right view?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:24 am
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:08 am

Unsatisfactoriness too is a characteristic that exists only in relation to a subject who experience it.
This is a severe wrong view. Conditioned dhammas are always unable to bring satisfaction. Having this outlook is Right View. Knowing this to be true is Right Knowledge.

There's no intrinsic dukkha
But there is. All conditioned dhammas are intrinsically dukkha, which is why the full escape from dukkha is not under the Bodhi tree but at the end of life.
or colour, or hardness, because in order to be intrinsic it would exist regardless of subjective experience.
Hardness is the intrinsic nature of the earth element, because apart from hardness there is no earth element to speak of. This avoids falling into the trap of substance theory. Regarding the world, when the Buddha awakened the world out there did not disappear. Rather, in nibbāna there is no world.

It's enough to change the point of view to realize this: for an electron, for example, there's no dukkha, no colour, no hardness...
An electron is a conventional truth.
How can you ignore the relativity of any view?
The Buddha did not teach that truth is relative. Rather he taught there is such a thing as The Truth, and such a thing as personal views mistaken for The Truth.

"The truth is one,
there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
Contemplatives promote
their various personal truths,
that's why they don't say
one thing & the same."


- Sn 4.12

Regardless of if there is a Buddha in the world, the 4 Noble Truths are true. This, along with the above, is not the message of someone who accepts a subjective theory of truth. If truth were subjective, then an atta would be true for someone and false for another. The Buddha never argued in this way. Since there is such a thing as knowledge and truth, there is such a thing as Right View since there will be a view which correctly corresponds with said truth. If a view is universally true because it corresponds to how things are, then it is not subjective. It's objective.
First of all, I didn't affirm that conditioned dhammas can sometimes bring satisfaction. Also satisfaction is something related to a subject who would experience it.

Second, the Buddha never described his truths as absolute or ultimate, too. Think about it: they are truths designed for the human being, they are about the human existential condition. They have no value for a stone.

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
Post Reply