All Exists

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: All Exists

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:29 am
It may be "perfectly acceptable" to say that suffering exists, but not "ultimately true" by your earlier metrics...

"I've bolded for emphasis," he said, redundantly. This intersects with here in another thread.

In that other thread, you claim, unless I'm mistaken, that each noble truth is a distinct dhamma. How is that consonant with the material from this thread?

Like I said before, the quatrain from Ven Buddhaghosa doesn't have to be "ultimately true." He doesn't need to only write verse in the modalities of ultimate reality to write usefully. But I do suspect that the quatrain might be treated as "ultimately true" in some circles of Theravāda. That would problematize the way you've been framing "ultimate truth" here.

I don't see an issue. There is no singular abstract sabhāva-dhamma called "suffering", but as a by-word for all conditioned dhammas we can say that suffering exists ultimately. This is, I feel, the sense in which Ven. Buddhaghosa is writing here.
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: All Exists

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:48 pmI don't see an issue. There is no singular abstract sabhāva-dhamma called "suffering", but as a by-word for all conditioned dhammas we can say that suffering exists ultimately. This is, I feel, the sense in which Ven. Buddhaghosa is writing here.
Therefore, certain composite entities can "be said" to exist ultimately so long as they are "a byword" for something else that does? Is that your stance? Ven Buddhaghosa's?

We may not share a definition of "ultimate" versus "conventional" here, because my definition of "conventional" has things like "ultimately exists as a byword," to paraphrase, under its purview. This isn't ultimate truth, or "what exists ultimately." What you've labelled as "existing ultimately" only as a byword for something else that exists ultimately is relational, provisional, conventional, as I see things, not ultimate. Nor is it ultimate by your previous reckoning.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: All Exists

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 4:20 pm
Therefore, certain composite entities can "be said" to exist ultimately so long as they are "a byword" for something else that does? Is that your stance? Ven Buddhaghosa's?
I wouldn't say so. Suffering is not a composite entity.
We may not share a definition of "ultimate" versus "conventional" here,


Naturally.
because my definition of "conventional" has things like "ultimately exists as a byword," to paraphrase, under its purview. This isn't ultimate truth, or "what exists ultimately." What you've labelled as "existing ultimately" only as a byword for something else that exists ultimately is relational, provisional, conventional, as I see things, not ultimate. Nor is it ultimate by your previous reckoning.
Elsewhere I argued that the Buddha held a correspondence theory of truth. Whilst all words are conventional, what matters is if they correspond to ultimate reality or not. A house is a composite thing. The concept does not relate to anything except the parts which make it up. The concepts used to describe these parts are conventional, but they relate to that which is real (unlike "the house"). The word "suffering" does not refer to a composite thing like "a house". It is a description or characteristic. So, whilst suffering is a concept it is a concept which corresponds with the conditioned ultimate realities.
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: All Exists

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:18 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 4:20 pm
Therefore, certain composite entities can "be said" to exist ultimately so long as they are "a byword" for something else that does? Is that your stance? Ven Buddhaghosa's?
I wouldn't say so. Suffering is not a composite entity.
If suffering is not a composite, a saṁskṛta, then it must be an incomposite, an uncompounded, namely an asaṁskṛta. You've already committed to suffering constituting "a dhamma." You rejected that suffering is a dhamma in and of itself, and say "suffering means all or any conditioned dhammas" (paraphrase, if you don't agree with this, say so). Well, if suffering refers to all dhammas save Nibbāna, it must necessarily be a composite entity.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: All Exists

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 10:11 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:18 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 4:20 pm
Therefore, certain composite entities can "be said" to exist ultimately so long as they are "a byword" for something else that does? Is that your stance? Ven Buddhaghosa's?
I wouldn't say so. Suffering is not a composite entity.
If suffering is not a composite, a saṁskṛta, then it must be an incomposite, an uncompounded, namely an asaṁskṛta. You've already committed to suffering constituting "a dhamma." You rejected that suffering is a dhamma in and of itself, and say "suffering means all or any conditioned dhammas" (paraphrase, if you don't agree with this, say so). Well, if suffering refers to all dhammas save Nibbāna, it must necessarily be a composite entity.
Does language really work that way, composite entity or an incomposite one? Pleasant vedanā is an ultimate reality. It can also be called dukkha. Under the category heading of Dukkha you will find a whole range of conditioned dhammas. Whilst there is no abstract "Suffering", it is a label for all conditioned phenomena. The same with Vedanā. There is no abstract Vedanā, but there are many different instances and types of vedanā. The Vaibhāṣika did teach that category headings are also ultimately real, but I see no logic which forces me to that conclusion?
“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: All Exists

Post by waryoffolly »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:49 pm The Theravādin reply to how kamma functions across time and how we can be aware of past events is the Bhavaṅga. Yogācāra and the Sautrāntikas proposed something similar with their "store-house consciousness" and "seed" theories. My intention of this post was to hear how Suttavādins here address this problem, and what their reply would be to both the Vaibhāṣikas and Theravāda/Yogācāra/Sautrāntikas? It seems to me that these are the only options available to answer the problem, but what do others think?
I don't think these specific questions need to be answered in detail in order to practice correctly and eliminate the conditions of dukkha. So in my opinion these aren't serious problems at all. IMO, becoming too concerned about these questions is itself a problem and can make progress more difficult. So my response is to set these questions aside.

I know that certain actions of mine lead to an increase in dukkha, while others lead to a decrease. I don't need to know the exact mechanisms of kamma, but instead just need a 'working knowledge'.

I don't think dhamma needs to be a 'fully squared' intellectual belief system. We only need an excellent map, and a good set of directions. Do you really think it makes a difference to know how kamma functions across time in this level of mechanistic detail? You need not know classical mechanics (physics) in order to ride a bike.

I will reply one more time if you have specific points you want responses on. (This is because I don't like getting involved in long debates.)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: All Exists

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:47 amDoes language really work that way, composite entity or an incomposite one?
"Language" often doesn't work that way, with clear-cut right-and-wrong, true-and-false, dichotomies, because language is often being used to describe murky and poorly-understood situations with multiple valid or invalid solutions, or situations for which a solution is unknown. The thing with a metaphysic that introduces notions like "ultimate truth" versus "the conventional" or "ultimately real entities" versus "mere concepts" is that it purports to cut through the ambiguity of language. The metaphysic still must use language, yet claims to shed ambiguity inherent to it. This is done through clear true-and-false two-sided logic. There's no room for "truthy," "falsish," or "five-cornered tetralemmata" in ultimate truth. The ambiguities of language go to there to die, rhetorically.

As you've stated it, I think there's a significant scandal in:
There is no singular abstract sabhāva-dhamma called "suffering", but as a by-word for all conditioned dhammas we can say that suffering exists ultimately.
You're mixing up your conventional and ultimate. "Ultimately existing as a by-word for something else that ultimately exists" is not a claim concerning the parāmaṭṭha. It is a claim concerning the conventional.

When Venerable Saṁghabhadra deconstructs "form," he deconstructs it to the atoms. When he deconstructs "mind," he deconstructs it to the momentary cittas and caitasikas. If your opinion, the one that is scandalous IMO, is true, then we have this statement, to tie this in with the earlier parts of the conversation:
There is no singular abstract sabhāva-dhamma called "time," but, as a by-word for the sequential stream of all of the ultimately existing momentary entities, we can say that time exists ultimately.
You see why I say it's a scandal?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: All Exists

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:17 pm
You see why I say it's a scandal?
Yes I can certainly see why it looks like that, but is it so scandalous? Suffering can be a description of conditioned dhammas, or a synonym for them. To say there is suffering is to say there is viññāṇa, vedanā, sañña and so on. I don't think we can quite say the same thing about time. Time isn't a synonym for the conditioned dhammas, nor a description of them. We can also think in terms of categories. Under the category of Vedanā there are so many different types of vedanā, but there is no Vedanā ultimately. The same with suffering, but under the category of Time I struggle to see anything that would go into it. If the category heading of Time is purely conceptual, and if the category itself is empty, then is it not purely conventional in a way that Vedanā is not?
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: All Exists

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 4:40 pmTime isn't a synonym for the conditioned dhammas, nor a description of them.
In my outlining of your supposed "scandal," I used the reasoning you used to declare suffering as "ultimately true" in order to declare time to be similarly true by having it signified by the momentary ultimate realities and associated with the sequentiality of said realities, namely the "moments" of time. Time becomes a composite reality, like your "suffering," that is comprised of ultimate entities and "ultimately exists as a by-word for them." Form deconstructs into the atoms. Time deconstructs into the moments. Time breaks down to "the moments and their orderliness." I don't think that you can escape this consequence of what you've argued here, but we'll see.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: All Exists

Post by AlexBrains92 »

:popcorn:

«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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: All Exists

Post by Coëmgenu »

Returning to the matter of "time" and Theravāda, this can be found at the outset of Chapter 5 on page 101 of Abhidhamma Studies: A Buddhist Exploration of Consciousness and Time by Mahāthera Ñāṇaponika. It quotes the Dhammasaṅgaṇī commenting on the phrase "At a time when..." from its first paragraph:
By time the Sage described the mind
And by the mind described the time,
In order to show, by such definition,
The phenomena there arranged in classes.
(Samaye niddisi cittaṃ cittena samayaṃ muni
niyametvāna dīpetuṃ dhamme tattha pabhedato.)
This is consonant with how the Vaibhāṣikas deconstruct "the mind" into "the moments." I suspect that the same is the case with Theravāda.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: All Exists

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:49 pm ..
here read this,
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/sujato wrote:But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world.
Lokasamudayaṁ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti.
The notion of non-existence is same with the notion of non-existence of atta. It stems of the view that the atta and loka are the same(search: so loko so attā). View where things what are remembered are same with the world. A'la someone describing dreams without the distinction of unreal/suñña.
Five grasping aggregates are also the loka if there is held a view loka and atta are the same.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/sujato wrote:“Mendicants, whatever ascetics and brahmins recollect many kinds of past lives, all recollect the five grasping aggregates, or one of them.
“Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussaramānā anussaranti sabbete pañcupādānakkhandhe anussaranti etesaṁ vā aññataraṁ.
There is also the opposite extreme. All doesn't exist.
Post Reply