As always, Robertk, you are 100% correct from the abhidhamma position, and I appreciate you for that. In the CT sub, I wouldn't even have made such a supposition. However, here, I was just musing about possible interpretations of the suttas, removed from the CT understanding, including abhidhamma.robertk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:05 amRupa lasts for 17 moments of mind, so it still arises and passes away countless times in a split second.zan wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:22 am . Personally, I think the four elements in the suttas are semi permanent so long as the cosmos lasts, and then as it contracts, they are destroyed, and reborn again with the next cosmos. Thus, they are not dependently originated, that's only for beings, but they are impermanent, and lack self.
The matter that was here a second ago has vanished and cannot ever reappear but because of similar causes similar matter arises now.
On the Abhidhamma
Re: On the Abhidhamma
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
"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
Re: On the Abhidhamma
zan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:39 pmAs always, Robertk, you are 100% correct from the abhidhamma position, and I appreciate you for that. In the CT sub, I wouldn't even have made such a supposition. However, here, I was just musing about possible interpretations of the suttas, removed from the CT understanding, including abhidhamma.robertk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:05 amRupa lasts for 17 moments of mind, so it still arises and passes away countless times in a split second.zan wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:22 am . Personally, I think the four elements in the suttas are semi permanent so long as the cosmos lasts, and then as it contracts, they are destroyed, and reborn again with the next cosmos. Thus, they are not dependently originated, that's only for beings, but they are impermanent, and lack self.
The matter that was here a second ago has vanished and cannot ever reappear but because of similar causes similar matter arises now.
Re: On the Abhidhamma
In order to substantiate this claim you'd have to demonstrate that the suttas are strictly presenting a representational realism position, and not a direct realism position. No such clear and unambiguous discussion exists in the suttas, as there is never a time where the Buddha addresses this very specific delineation in clear, and unambiguous terms, and, hence this is insoluble. As to the orthodox Theravada position found in the commentaries, and such, arahants directly perceive the dhammas that exist as the fundamental building blocks of reality. They see the naked mahabhutas, while worldlings like us can only see the pannatti, or concepts that we falsely imagine in their place. This means that, ultimately, Theravada supports a kind of direct realism, where exactly what ultimately exists is seen, at least by arahants. They are not totally confined within the experience of the five senses in the way you imagine, forever cut off from seeing ultimate reality. Quite the opposite, they experience, and declare ultimate reality:skandha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:47 am I am enjoying the discussions here.
I will chip in a little on the mahabhutas. In terms of physical phenomena, we are totally confined within the experience of the 5 senses. The experience of the 5 senses are given more descriptive nuance using the model of the mahabhutas, it's just masses of vibrations at difference frequency, intensity. The "substance" behind the sensual stimuli is imputed based on the experience of the senses. The experience at the senses are the sabhava dhammas. Different living creatures will impute different "substances" out there based on the way sense stimuli work in their physiological makeup.
It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…
…
Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions…
…
…the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as “things which bear their own intrinsic nature” (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).
…
…concretely produced matter…possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.
…
Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 15, 26, 235, 260
Thus the Theravādins were able to establish the theory
of direct perception of the external object despite their recognizing the
theory of momentariness.
-Y. Karunadasa, The Theravada Abhidhamma
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
"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
Re: On the Abhidhamma
I'd be very grateful if you could explain away this issue that has been discussed between Ceisiwr and I for a long time now, across multiple forums: How do we understand the Theravada position that the earth element is strictly "hardness", when that introduces a phenomenalism element into an otherwise realist system?robertk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:46 pmzan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:39 pmAs always, Robertk, you are 100% correct from the abhidhamma position, and I appreciate you for that. In the CT sub, I wouldn't even have made such a supposition. However, here, I was just musing about possible interpretations of the suttas, removed from the CT understanding, including abhidhamma.
An example of phenomenalism:
Nothing existing but "hardness" and similar is phenomenalism, by definition. Yet, the rest is completely incompatible with the dhamma position that these things exist even when unobserved....to say that the pear before me exists is simply to say that certain properties (greenness, hardness, etc.) are being perceived at this moment. ...
-Wikipedia on phenomenalism
... When these characteristics are no longer perceived or experienced by anyone, then the object (pear, in this case) no longer exists.
-Wikipedia on Phenomenalism
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
"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
Re: On the Abhidhamma
The sutta that comes to mind is the Sabba Sutta. All we have are "just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts". I think the suttas do not really focus on establishing a position of reality. It focusses on how to work with our experience, to cut the root of suffering.zan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:51 pmIn order to substantiate this claim you'd have to demonstrate that the suttas are strictly presenting a representational realism position, and not a direct realism position. No such clear and unambiguous discussion exists in the suttas, as there is never a time where the Buddha addresses this very specific delineation in clear, and unambiguous terms, and, hence this is insoluble.skandha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:47 am I am enjoying the discussions here.
I will chip in a little on the mahabhutas. In terms of physical phenomena, we are totally confined within the experience of the 5 senses. The experience of the 5 senses are given more descriptive nuance using the model of the mahabhutas, it's just masses of vibrations at difference frequency, intensity. The "substance" behind the sensual stimuli is imputed based on the experience of the senses. The experience at the senses are the sabhava dhammas. Different living creatures will impute different "substances" out there based on the way sense stimuli work in their physiological makeup.
A true master of knowledge has passed beyond all that is known and become dispassionate towards all vedanās.
- Sn 529
- Sn 529
Re: On the Abhidhamma
Yes, it’s a mirror for reflection.skandha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:22 pm
The sutta that comes to mind is the Sabba Sutta. All we have are "just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts". I think the suttas do not really focus on establishing a position of reality. It focusses on how to work with our experience, to cut the root of suffering.
“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: On the Abhidhamma
I will reply in due course Zan. In the meantime I found a source that possibly shows the discussions philosophers have on this.zan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:46 pm
I'd be very grateful if you could explain away this issue that has been discussed between Ceisiwr and I for a long time now, across multiple forums: How do we understand the Theravada position that the earth element is strictly "hardness", when that introduces a phenomenalism element into an otherwise realist system?
From the great minds at Viz magazine:
Re: On the Abhidhamma
lol! That was funny. Lot's of amusing euphemisms.robertk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:22 amI will reply in due course Zan. In the meantime I found a source that possibly shows the discussions philosophers have on this.zan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:46 pm
I'd be very grateful if you could explain away this issue that has been discussed between Ceisiwr and I for a long time now, across multiple forums: How do we understand the Theravada position that the earth element is strictly "hardness", when that introduces a phenomenalism element into an otherwise realist system?
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
"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
Re: On the Abhidhamma
Sure, and if the Buddha assumed direct realism, then this could, in fact, be all that there is. Even things that we are currently unaware of, and could perhaps only infer, and never actually perceive, could still be said to be within the all because inference is mental, and mind is one of the senses listed. Nothing in that sutta requires us to declare a kind of system that declares there is some kind of reality under what we perceive, that we are forever cut off from. In fact, the teaching, taken literally, means there is NOT something beyond the eye and sights, etc. because that is all there is. If anything, this is support for a direct realist reading, especially coupled with the fact that the Buddha and the arahants could see other realms, read people's minds, see trillions of years into the past, could see the cycles of the universe, and so on. If these amazing knowledges are within "the all" we are laughably outside of mere empiricism, or any other such thing.skandha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:22 pmThe sutta that comes to mind is the Sabba Sutta. All we have are "just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts". I think the suttas do not really focus on establishing a position of reality. It focusses on how to work with our experience, to cut the root of suffering.zan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:51 pmIn order to substantiate this claim you'd have to demonstrate that the suttas are strictly presenting a representational realism position, and not a direct realism position. No such clear and unambiguous discussion exists in the suttas, as there is never a time where the Buddha addresses this very specific delineation in clear, and unambiguous terms, and, hence this is insoluble.skandha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:47 am I am enjoying the discussions here.
I will chip in a little on the mahabhutas. In terms of physical phenomena, we are totally confined within the experience of the 5 senses. The experience of the 5 senses are given more descriptive nuance using the model of the mahabhutas, it's just masses of vibrations at difference frequency, intensity. The "substance" behind the sensual stimuli is imputed based on the experience of the senses. The experience at the senses are the sabhava dhammas. Different living creatures will impute different "substances" out there based on the way sense stimuli work in their physiological makeup.
We might assume the last line "Because it is out of his domain" means there are other domains, but this is assumption only, and no such thing is ever said overtly, clearly, and unambiguously in the suttas, to my knowledge, anyway. The line could just as easily mean that there is just the one domain, and going outside of it is impossible, because that is all there is. Or, the line could mean, perhaps more likely, that "his domain" means normal perception, and what Buddha's and arahants can see is what that other domain would be. However, since the Buddha's and arahants use their minds to see these things, they are still, technically, within the all.
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
"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
Re: On the Abhidhamma
Not sure if I understand direct realism. Do you mean that there are external things out there, independent from our minds? The external things that are out there, independent from our minds are; sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, mental objects. Until or unless these external objects come into contact with our internal sense base, no consciousness can arise.zan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:20 pm
Sure, and if the Buddha assumed direct realism, then this could, in fact, be all that there is. Even things that we are currently unaware of, and could perhaps only infer, and never actually perceive, could still be said to be within the all because inference is mental, and mind is one of the senses listed. Nothing in that sutta requires us to declare a kind of system that declares there is some kind of reality under what we perceive, that we are forever cut off from. In fact, the teaching, taken literally, means there is NOT something beyond the eye and sights, etc. because that is all there is. If anything, this is support for a direct realist reading, especially coupled with the fact that the Buddha and the arahants could see other realms, read people's minds, see trillions of years into the past, could see the cycles of the universe, and so on. If these amazing knowledges are within "the all" we are laughably outside of mere empiricism, or any other such thing.
We might assume the last line "Because it is out of his domain" means there are other domains, but this is assumption only, and no such thing is ever said overtly, clearly, and unambiguously in the suttas, to my knowledge, anyway. The line could just as easily mean that there is just the one domain, and going outside of it is impossible, because that is all there is. Or, the line could mean, perhaps more likely, that "his domain" means normal perception, and what Buddha's and arahants can see is what that other domain would be. However, since the Buddha's and arahants use their minds to see these things, they are still, technically, within the all.
A true master of knowledge has passed beyond all that is known and become dispassionate towards all vedanās.
- Sn 529
- Sn 529
Re: On the Abhidhamma
Direct realism is where we sense objects directly. Indirect, or representational realism is what you were describing, where we only get something like a closed circuit tv screen inside our heads of objects we sense. Per direct realism, we see the substances, or whatever we might call it, that the world is. In indirect realism, we would only see a mind made image of the world, and would never actually see what the world is underneath our imagined ideas about it. Personally, without a self to be watching the tv screen, I don't see how representational realism is even coherent. In a system without a self, where beings are said to be like piles of grass and sticks, or marionettes, it makes no sense to assume there is a little man inside our heads watching a video of reality, but never seeing reality. Just like saying a marionette never sees actual reality, but only sees representations of it would be absurd. Marionettes don't see anything, their bodies just interact with the world, which they are no different from.skandha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:57 pmNot sure if I understand direct realism. Do you mean that there are external things out there, independent from our minds? The external things that are out there, independent from our minds are; sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, mental objects. Until or unless these external objects come into contact with our internal sense base, no consciousness can arise.zan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:20 pm
Sure, and if the Buddha assumed direct realism, then this could, in fact, be all that there is. Even things that we are currently unaware of, and could perhaps only infer, and never actually perceive, could still be said to be within the all because inference is mental, and mind is one of the senses listed. Nothing in that sutta requires us to declare a kind of system that declares there is some kind of reality under what we perceive, that we are forever cut off from. In fact, the teaching, taken literally, means there is NOT something beyond the eye and sights, etc. because that is all there is. If anything, this is support for a direct realist reading, especially coupled with the fact that the Buddha and the arahants could see other realms, read people's minds, see trillions of years into the past, could see the cycles of the universe, and so on. If these amazing knowledges are within "the all" we are laughably outside of mere empiricism, or any other such thing.
We might assume the last line "Because it is out of his domain" means there are other domains, but this is assumption only, and no such thing is ever said overtly, clearly, and unambiguously in the suttas, to my knowledge, anyway. The line could just as easily mean that there is just the one domain, and going outside of it is impossible, because that is all there is. Or, the line could mean, perhaps more likely, that "his domain" means normal perception, and what Buddha's and arahants can see is what that other domain would be. However, since the Buddha's and arahants use their minds to see these things, they are still, technically, within the all.
Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and
while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood,
[595] yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentalitymateriality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands
merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had
curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the
Ancients said:
The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.
-Visuddhimagga XVIII.31
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
"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
Re: On the Abhidhamma
All the components within "the all" are real ultimate realities, paramattha dhammas, nama-rupa. The sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch and mind objects that impinge the 6 internal sense bases are ultimate realities. The sensations felt at the internal sense bases are ultimate realities. The various consciousness that arise are also ultimate realities. They are not representational, rather these realities are experienced directly.zan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:06 pm
Direct realism is where we sense objects directly. Indirect, or representational realism is what you were describing, where we only get something like a closed circuit tv screen inside our heads of objects we sense. Per direct realism, we see the substances, or whatever we might call it, that the world is. In indirect realism, we would only see a mind made image of the world, and would never actually see what the world is underneath our imagined ideas about it. Personally, without a self to be watching the tv screen, I don't see how representational realism is even coherent. In a system without a self, where beings are said to be like piles of grass and sticks, or marionettes, it makes no sense to assume there is a little man inside our heads watching a video of reality, but never seeing reality. Just like saying a marionette never sees actual reality, but only sees representations of it would be absurd. Marionettes don't see anything, their bodies just interact with the world, which they are no different from.
Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and
while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood,
[595] yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentalitymateriality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands
merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had
curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the
Ancients said:
The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.
-Visuddhimagga XVIII.31
Last edited by skandha on Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
A true master of knowledge has passed beyond all that is known and become dispassionate towards all vedanās.
- Sn 529
- Sn 529
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:57 am
Re: On the Abhidhamma
Jhana or the Brahma realm is governed by citta niyama.
Samsara (kalpa cycles) is governed by dhamma niyama.
The sensuous realm, including heaven and hell is governed by kamma niyama.
The vegetation realm is governed by bija niyama.
Samsara (kalpa cycles) is governed by dhamma niyama.
The sensuous realm, including heaven and hell is governed by kamma niyama.
The vegetation realm is governed by bija niyama.
you're not a shape shifter, you're a mindless ghoul in previous life and you will fall again • those who draw the sword die by the sword, but oh wait you're too lame to even use a sword
Re: On the Abhidhamma
Please elaborate with sources. Sounds promising. How does this solve the issue?blightmaster wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:35 am Jhana or the Brahma realm is governed by citta niyama.
Samsara (kalpa cycles) is governed by dhamma niyama.
The sensuous realm, including heaven and hell is governed by kamma niyama.
The vegetation realm is governed by bija niyama.
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
"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
Re: On the Abhidhamma
Your previous summation declared a kind of representational realism, where we never have access to the ultimate behind the senses.skandha wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:15 amAll the components within "the all" are real ultimate realities, paramattha dhammas, nama-rupa. The sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch and mind objects that impinge the 6 internal sense bases are ultimate realities. The sensations felt at the internal sense bases are ultimate realities. The various consciousness that arise are also ultimate realities. They are not representational, rather these realities are experienced directly.zan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:06 pm
Direct realism is where we sense objects directly. Indirect, or representational realism is what you were describing, where we only get something like a closed circuit tv screen inside our heads of objects we sense. Per direct realism, we see the substances, or whatever we might call it, that the world is. In indirect realism, we would only see a mind made image of the world, and would never actually see what the world is underneath our imagined ideas about it. Personally, without a self to be watching the tv screen, I don't see how representational realism is even coherent. In a system without a self, where beings are said to be like piles of grass and sticks, or marionettes, it makes no sense to assume there is a little man inside our heads watching a video of reality, but never seeing reality. Just like saying a marionette never sees actual reality, but only sees representations of it would be absurd. Marionettes don't see anything, their bodies just interact with the world, which they are no different from.
Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and
while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood,
[595] yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentalitymateriality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands
merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had
curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the
Ancients said:
The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.
-Visuddhimagga XVIII.31
Typically, beings that never see beyond their senses to the different "substances" out there are said to never see ultimate realities.skandha wrote: I will chip in a little on the mahabhutas. In terms of physical phenomena, we are totally confined within the experience of the 5 senses. The experience of the 5 senses are given more descriptive nuance using the model of the mahabhutas, it's just masses of vibrations at difference frequency, intensity. The "substance" behind the sensual stimuli is imputed based on the experience of the senses. The experience at the senses are the sabhava dhammas. Different living creatures will impute different "substances" out there based on the way sense stimuli work in their physiological makeup.
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
"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