An argument for the dhammas, via the ultimate analysis of the Abhidhamma of the Mahāvihāravasins:
Argument from Essence.
P1) The intrinsic function/essence (sabhāva) of citta is cognition.
P2) Apart from cognition/essence (sabhāva) there is no citta.
P2) A citta existing without function/essence (sabhāva) is impossible.
P3) There is cognition.
C1) Therefore, citta exists.
C2) Therefore, sabhāva = existence.
Thoughts?
An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:06 am, edited 5 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.”
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.”
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Reality is stressful, anxiety, difficult, sufferingCeisiwr wrote: Thoughts?
Last edited by cappuccino on Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_94.html“Monks, it’s not that I dispute with the world, but that the world disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma doesn’t dispute with anyone with regard to the world.1 Whatever is agreed upon by the wise as not existing in the world, of that I too say, ‘It doesn’t exist.’ Whatever is agreed upon by the wise as existing in the world, of that I too say, ‘It exists.’
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Kind of disproves the Prajñāpāramitā sutras and Nāgārjuna.SteRo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:27 amhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_94.html“Monks, it’s not that I dispute with the world, but that the world disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma doesn’t dispute with anyone with regard to the world.1 Whatever is agreed upon by the wise as not existing in the world, of that I too say, ‘It doesn’t exist.’ Whatever is agreed upon by the wise as existing in the world, of that I too say, ‘It exists.’
“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.”
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.”
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:29 amKind of disproves the Prajñāpāramitā sutras and Nāgārjuna.SteRo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:27 amhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_94.html“Monks, it’s not that I dispute with the world, but that the world disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma doesn’t dispute with anyone with regard to the world.1 Whatever is agreed upon by the wise as not existing in the world, of that I too say, ‘It doesn’t exist.’ Whatever is agreed upon by the wise as existing in the world, of that I too say, ‘It exists.’
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Care to add something substantial?
“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.”
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.”
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Since this forum section is about theravada buddhism and thus theravada doctrine the sutta quote I have provided above appears to be substantial enough to me.
You may also look into abhidamma as to ultimate realities.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
I will add thisCeisiwr wrote: Care to add something substantial?
we always think we're the cause of stress
rather than… reality is
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Views...
To complicate to understand what you mean, the Tuth is simple, that's why it's True.
Imagine there is 1 and 0.
1 is conditioned sankharas
0 is pure citta
Between them is con-sciousness
Even 0,00...001 will never touch 0, they have no contact, 0 is free from 1.
1 and 0 can not exist apart from each other, like two shores of the same river. But when the stream of the river is over, both shores disappear.
In the same way when 1 disappear there is no more 0 as number, as dhamma.
One need to abandon both shores.
We don't live Samsara, Samsara is living us...
"Form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness - don't care about us, we don't exist for them"
"Form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness - don't care about us, we don't exist for them"
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Actually I think that the kind of discussion intended by the OP is alien to theravada. At least I've never come across such reasonings in theravada sources so far. Seems to be inspired by later philosophies.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Truth = indivisible, thus being directly known and necessary.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:19 am, 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.”
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.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Greetings,
The characteristics of any dhamma are that which has been imputed. When the commentaries say they uphold their own nature (or words to that effect), I believe their nature is sankata (fabricated), thus they uphold only their own fabricated imputation.
The reality that all dhammas are sankhata (aside from nibbana) is an argument against ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Metta,
Paul.
The characteristics of any dhamma are that which has been imputed. When the commentaries say they uphold their own nature (or words to that effect), I believe their nature is sankata (fabricated), thus they uphold only their own fabricated imputation.
The reality that all dhammas are sankhata (aside from nibbana) is an argument against ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- Lucas Oliveira
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Alino wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:52 amViews...
To complicate to understand what you mean, the Tuth is simple, that's why it's True.
Imagine there is 1 and 0.
1 is conditioned sankharas
0 is pure citta
Between them is con-sciousness
Even 0,00...001 will never touch 0, they have no contact, 0 is free from 1.
1 and 0 can not exist apart from each other, like two shores of the same river. But when the stream of the river is over, both shores disappear.
In the same way when 1 disappear there is no more 0 as number, as dhamma.
One need to abandon both shores.
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br
http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
The intrinsic nature of citta is to cognise. This is not a construct. If it were a construct then something is constructing the construct of citta. What can this be but an infinite regress? It is either that or we have a fundamental reality called citta, on top of which we construct the concept of "citta".retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:10 am Greetings,
The characteristics of any dhamma are that which has been imputed. When the commentaries say they uphold their own nature (or words to that effect), I believe their nature is sankata (fabricated), thus they uphold only their own fabricated imputation.
The reality that all dhammas are sankhata (aside from nibbana) is an argument against ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
Metta,
Paul.
“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.”
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.”
Re: An argument for ultimate reality from a Theravādin perspective.
No reasoning is provided. Also B. Bodhi in his commentary provides no reasoning. So "ultimate reality" seems to be dealt with as "a given" in abhidhamma.Ācariya Anuruddha wrote:§2. The Fourfold Ultimate Reality (Catudhā Paramattha)
Tattha vutt’ābhidhammatthā
Catudhā paramatthato
Cittaṁ cetasikaṁ rūpaṁ
Nibbānam iti sabbathā.
The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether
fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness (citta), mental factors
(cetasika), matter (rūpa), and Nibbāna.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.