Are there Classical Theravada arguments against Hindu monism/non-dualism and the self that are based on logic? Or...

[zan]

First of all, please only post classical Theravada replies, as per the guidelines of this sub forum, posted below. The Suttanta tradition has many adherents who believe things are non-dual (all is one/monism/etc.), that there is a self, all is consciousness (the counterpart and near, or sometimes literal synonym to Brahman in Hinduism), or that Nibbana is consciousness (nearly identical to Hindu Moksha and other doctrines from that tradition) or views that are identical with these but use different wording. Since these views are largely indistinguishable from Hinduism, replies from these perspectives would be confusing or irrelevant.

Anyway, I'm reading through some Upanishads, some Veda selections, and about to re read one of my favorites: the Bhagavad Gita, and I'm wondering about something: In Hinduism they say that all is Brahman, this is the position that all is god/non-dual/monism/all is consciousness. They also say that every being has a self.

Did the Buddha in the Pali Canon or the classical commentators provide logical arguments against these views that show them as untenable? Or do we just see these views as incorrect because the Buddha stated them as such, without providing reasoning for why they are not reasonable positions? Is there only dogmatic reasoning provided? Or are cold hard logical reasons provided as well?

For example, if someone said "All is one. There is a self. All is consciousness (or Brahman/god)." would there be a counter to that from the Pali Canon or commentaries that relied on logic rather than faith in the word and authority of the Buddha and commentators?

I'm a Buddhist, through and through, but I also have a deep appreciation for other traditions and sometimes they take interesting positions and I wonder where my tradition stands on these positions.

Thanks!

Guidelines for this sub forum:


The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.

Posts should, where appropriate, include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.

[SDC]

MN 60

[cappuccino]

For example, if someone said "All is one. There is a self. All is consciousness…"

would there be a counter to that?

consciousness has dependently arisen


also, it changes, now better, now worse


you can't control it, hence it's not self

[DNS]

Or are cold hard logical reasons provided as well?

I think so. In so many words, to paraphrase, the Buddha says something like (not exact words):

Where is the self? Is it rupa? Is it vinnana? Is it vedana? Is it sanna? Is it sankhara? (the 5 aggregates) How could it be any of those, they are all impermanent?

Is it your eye and sight .... continue with rest of the senses. How could it be any of those, they are all impermanent?

Is it your brain? That's impermanent too.

Try to find it in your body, in your brain, you won't find it. Even memories have been located in some parts of the brain by modern medical researchers (which, like the brain are impermanent).

[zan]

Or are cold hard logical reasons provided as well?

I think so. In so many words, to paraphrase, the Buddha says something like (not exact words):

Where is the self? Is it rupa? Is it vinnana? Is it vedana? Is it sanna? Is it sankhara? (the 5 aggregates) How could it be any of those, they are all impermanent?

Is it your eye and sight .... continue with rest of the senses. How could it be any of those, they are all impermanent?

Is it your brain? That's impermanent too.

Try to find it in your body, in your brain, you won't find it. Even memories have been located in some parts of the brain by modern medical researchers (which, like the brain are impermanent).

Thank you! Sounds like you're maybe paraphrasing the Anatta Lakkhana sutta (SN 22.59)?

I think this makes sense. If someone says "I have discovered the self!" or "I have a self!" Then, logically, they should have control over their aggregates and immortal at the minimum. Especially if this self is god, the most powerful being in the universe! So, since no one seems to be able to have these magical powers, we can say no one has a self.

This still leaves open the retort: "Well, I have a self but until I reach Moksha I will not be able to use my self powers."

To which we may reply: "If you have a self, you should be able to use it at all times. Otherwise we would have to conclude that you do not have a self, but will be given one at a later date."

Does my logic hold up to the Classical Theravada position?

If so, it then leaves us with a possible self appearing at some point.

Is there a logical refutation of this potential self? Or if someone turns up one day who can control their form, feelings, perceptions, volitional formations and consciousness and is immortal, we'd have to say "Yup, that's a self all right!"?

[zan]

MN 60

Thanks you. I just read the sutta and am apparently too unfamiliar with it to understand how it refutes "There is a self." and/or "All is one."

Could you please elaborate?

[unknown]

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[zan]

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Thanks, but, unless I misunderstand, this seems to be not a logical refutation, nor a dogmatic refutation, but rather a suggestion to not think about the problem at all.

If I misunderstand, and this sutta does provide a logical refutation of "There is a self." And/or "All is one." could you please explain?

[unknown]

If Buddha considered this to be an unwise reflection, then there can harldy be found some legit and extensive Buddhist dogmatic and logical refutation.

Suggestion not to think about it is on some level logical refutation. One is not to think about it because of its uselessness and potential harm. It stimulates further useless thinking, and whatever conclusion is reached, nothing was gained with it, just the time and energy was wasted.

Thinking about cessation or eternity of being is included in this.

[Mahabrahma]

Ultimately the goal of the Bhagavad Gita and the teachings of the Buddha are the Same, they are simply teaching the Supreme Absolute Truth in different manners, for different schools of thought. Though there is an Expedient conflict in preaching the different philosophies, if one understands them correctly, they do not interfere with eachother or contradict, but instead give great supplement to the library of Spiritual knowledge for living beings and create a perfect path to full Enlightenment.

[zan]

Ultimately the goal of the Bhagavad Gita and the teachings of the Buddha are the Same, they are simply teaching the Supreme Absolute Truth in different manners, for different schools of thought. Though there is an Expedient conflict in preaching the different philosophies, if one understands them correctly, they do not interfere with eachother or contradict, but instead give great supplement to the library of Spiritual knowledge for living beings and create a perfect path to full Enlightenment.

The ultimate goal of the Bhagavad Gita is to realize god, Self, and, ultimately, non duality of god (Brahman). Are you purporting that the goal of Classical Theravada Buddhism is the same?

[SDC]

MN 60

Thanks you. I just read the sutta and am apparently too unfamiliar with it to understand how it refutes "There is a self." and/or "All is one."

Could you please elaborate?

(To answer your question from the other MN 60 thread, Nicholas looks to be absolutely correct. The dialogue is from the perspective of what "the wise man" is considering from the options given.)

For these Brahmins who were not yet in pursuit of the Dhamma, the Buddha described the benefits of trending towards virtue with respect to the doctrines of nihilism, non-action, and non-causality. That seems to be the key takeaway from the portion of the sutta having to do with these three doctrines: a position that would increase the risk of bad results, both now and in the future, was shown to be an unwise decision, and that the most logical choice is err on the side of caution.

However, when it comes to the view about cessation of Being, the implications are much more direct:

About this a wise man considers thus: ‘These good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there is definitely no cessation of being,” but that has not been seen by me. And these other good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” but that has not been known by me. If, without knowing and seeing, I were to take one side and declare: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong,” that would not be fitting for me. Now as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is certainly still possible that I might reappear after death among the gods of the immaterial realms who consist of perception. But as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is possible that I might here and now attain final Nibbāna. The view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being” is close to lust, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging; but the view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is cessation of being” is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.’ After reflecting thus, he practices the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being.

So again, still the distinction between what is beneficial and what is not beneficial, but also an affirmation that one can practice towards the disenchantment of this notion of Being. I read this as: there is the belief in Self (attavāda), and the notion of its cessation is in the direction close to non-lust, non-bondage, etc.

(Attavāda might be an important word for you in this quest...Buddha unequivocally described that for the ordinary person there is the belief in self. That seems to be why he didn't deny it through saying "no self" nor did he affirm it by saying "there is self". The practice with regards to the aggregates and the like: this is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself. Never do the suttas say: the aggregates are not. Whether or not the aggregates are there is not being called into question in the practice towards cessation of Being. The question is whether or not they are understood to be mine, "I am" or myself. The belief is what gets destroyed. The conceit is what gets uprooted. If the Buddha went along saying that "there is Self" or "there is no Self", that would have simply been taken as a denial or affirmation of Being - because for the ordinary person, no distinction has been developed between their supposed Being and the cessation of it. So they would misunderstood it as being about simply one thing: their notion of their Being.)

[zan]

I just read an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi and one by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, I'm going to stick to the parts of them that are in line with Classical Theravada as that is the point of this thread and sub forum.

Ok, so, Bodhi points out that in the Buddha's teachings we find "critically important dualities with profound implications for the spiritual quest. The Buddha's teaching, as recorded in the Pali Suttas, fixes our attention unflinchingly upon these dualities"and that "At the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the conditioned and the Unconditioned" (Nibbana/Samsara).-https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ay_27.html

Thanissaro points out that non duality can lead to amorality which, of course, is counter to the teachings of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon. So it seems there is certainly a doctrinal refutation of non duality.
-https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ation.html

Thanissaro points out, in another article, that "The first distinction is between the notions of Oneness and interconnectedness. That we live in an interconnected system, dependent on one another, doesn’t mean that we’re One. To be One, in a positive sense, the whole system would have to be working toward the good of every member in the system. But in nature’s grand ecosystem, one member survives only by feeding—physically and mentally—on other members. It’s hard, even heartless, to say that nature works for the common good of all.

The Buddha pointed to this fact in a short series of questions aimed at introducing dharma to newcomers (Khuddaka-patha 4). The questions follow the pattern “What is one? What is two?” all the way to “What is ten?” Most of the answers are unsurprising: four, for example, is the four noble truths; eight, the noble eightfold path. The surprise lies in the answer to “What is one?”—“All beings subsist on food.” The Buddha does not say that all beings are One. Instead, this answer focuses on something that all beings have in common yet which underscores our lack of Oneness: We all need to feed—and we feed on one another. In fact, this is the Buddha’s basic image for introducing the topic of interdependent causality. Causal relationships are feeding relationships. To be interdependent is to “inter-eat.”
-https://tricycle.org/magazine/we-are-not-one/


Finally, those dogmatic positions now pointed out, might we say that the logical reasoning I'm searching for resides within?

For example, dependent origination points out that all facets of existence are temporary and dependent. All experience and all existence is dependent and temporary.

So, if someone were to say "All is one." might we point out that nothing that makes up a being can be said to be independent and immortal, and therefore none of it can be said to be "one" with anything else. If A relies on B for it's existence, it would be nonsense to say that A is B. If a farmer relies on his crops to live, and the crops rely on the rain to grow, it would be utter gibberish to say they are all one. The farmer is the crops is nonsense. If he were the crops, he wouldn't need to eat them to live.

Might we also use the Anatta Lakkhana sutta to do the same? If things were one, they would not be temporary, and if that oneness were god, then they would be something one could say "may my form/feelings/perceptions/etc. be such.". But since each aggregate is temporary, and not under our control, they, all together, nor any one individually, cannot be said to be some kind of monistic reality blob of oneness, and certainly not god.

Finally, the same can be said about the six senses as the All. The six senses are all temporary and all dependent on their objects. If all was one, then you could see something without needing your eyes to meet the object in any way. In fact, seeing wouldn't even exist. And it all spins together, as the six senses, aggregates and dependent origination are all part of the same cycle of temporary, dependent phenomena, none of which fit the bill for non duality nor "oneness" nor god, nor a self. Since these points transcend dogma and can be applied to the secular world, then it may be safe to say that the logical refutation that is beyond dogma, and the Buddha's authority as a religious figure, is built into the very same sources, and that this logic is more than sufficient to refute the Hindu "I have a self, all is one, my self will become active once I reach Moksha, etc."

I'd love it if anyone could elaborate further and/or point out some further refutations using Sutta logic that I have missed (there surely are a lot!).

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Ultimately the goal of the Bhagavad Gita and the teachings of the Buddha are the Same....

Maybe to you, but not to Theravada so please be mindful of what you post.

What you're saying is entirely irrelevant to Classical Theravada, thus your subsequent posts have been removed from this topic. Please voluntarily desist from posting Hindu irrelevance, otherwise staff will need to restrain you from doing so.

If you genuinely believe what you've said, as quoted above, you might be better off at Dharma Paths: A pan-Dharma discussion forum on Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism & others



Metta,
Paul.

[sunnat]

In this sutta : https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn ... .than.html , the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta: The Brahma Invitation,


Lord Buddha talks with Baka the Brahma, also known as MahaBrahma or the great brahma, about impermanence.


He repeatedly states : "'Having directly known..."

and

"'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the all-ness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.'

"'Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around, has not been experienced through the earthiness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the all-ness of the all.'


So, a stated, and restated, instruction is that to come to know the answer the elements need to be experienced. Direct knowing of reality, impermanence, is gained through the (personal) practice of insight meditation, not activities, like thinking, discussing.