The underlying implicit metaphysics of Pali Buddhism

[Jack19990101]

We could perceive others' reflection/shadow (dk a better term), yet never can tangle with others themselves. We tangle with their image/reflection established via our own mind. Shorter verse, we tangle with our senses, never others.

That means, in a crude way to speak - we each live in a sealed world of ourselves, environment is our ripening kamma, our body is our old kamma, we constantly deal with our own past deeds, and mistaken as dealing with others, mistaken as dealing health issues.

This clearly isn't true though. Consider the following examples:

- One person is engaged in some kammic action to another such as helping them. In a distant future life the one who received now gives something back to the indivudal who gave, as part of the larger good kammic reward that results.

What maintains the connection and relationship between them?


- Someone gives a gift to a worldling, then to a stream winner. The kamma result of the gift given to the stream winner is far greater.

How is the kammic result for the one who gave different by virtue of the quality of mind of the recipient?

It implies again some kind of kammic field to which they are both participating, and thus the kamma of the gift is proportional in it's result based on both the givers and especially the receivers minds.

Metta.

The problem is not about answer, it is those questions themselves.
As those questions are formed by a view of I, them, and world.
With view of khandas and dependent origination, those questions cant sustain forming.

[Cause_and_Effect]

I am wandering if some conceptions of Dharmakaya, come also from the recognition of a Platonic super structure to the Buddha's description of the re-occurring cosmic order.

[User13866]

If you read the text you will see a bunch of terms and their definitions.

You will also see an epistemological exposition about the concept of 'everything/all', and further a lot of conventional & analogical reasoning explaining the semantic relation of the terminology for it's proper conception.

In that, there is a seemingly paradoxical case which requires uncommon logic where a pleasure is where nothing is felt, or 'a cessation of perception & feeling being a pleasure' and this is impossible to comprehend if one doesn't get the terminology and the epistemology of The All right.

There are no metaphysics as in the example afaik & how i understood you.

how then is there a repeated order of structure to the rearising of the heavens of the Four Great Kings, the Yama devas, Buddha's and the world etc?

Isn't it like asking why & how does water keep freezing? Because it does, that is as good of answer as i can give you without explaining everything.

- it freezes because it's cold
- why is it cold?
- because cold wind blows
- why does cold wind blow?
- because it's winter
- why is it winter?

Etc etc ad infinitum, even if i go into physics of the freezing you can keep asking why magnetism is like magnetism...

The world evolves how it evolves, it can't evolve otherwise.

If you want to have everything, in general, explained to you then read the texts, memorize the exposition about All and try to comprehend it.

[User13866]

Uncommon logic is basically a matter of being skilled in semantics, getting context right.

As an example in common logic, simply, a=a, a=/=b, 1=1 and 1+1=2.

Uncommon logic is in how we speak where we can say that in adding one unit of a liquid with high vapor pressure (evaporates fast) to another we have less than two units due to evaporation having occured, saying 1+1=<2 in this particular context.

There is no real paradox or anything incomprehensible going on, it's a matter of terminology;

Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'"

[Cause_and_Effect]

There are no metaphysics as in the example afaik & how i understood you.

how then is there a repeated order of structure to the rearising of the heavens of the Four Great Kings, the Yama devas, Buddha's and the world etc?

Isn't it like asking why & how does water keep freezing? Because it does, that is as good of answer as i can give you without explaining everything.

- it freezes because it's cold
- why is it cold?
- because cold wind blows
- why does cold wind blow?
- because it's winter
- why is it winter?

Etc etc ad infinitum, even if i go into physics of the freezing you can keep asking why magnetism is like magnetism...

The world evolves how it evolves, it can't evolve otherwise.

Your answer is 'because it does'.

My answer is 'because of an underlying Platonic structure it does'.

I feel my answer is more useful for a cogent view of the cosmos but that's me.

Also I just found this site which I have yet to look into in depth but I am sure will have interesting perspectives.

https://buddhistplatonistdialogues.com/

"Most famous for its theory of unchanging Forms, Platonism appears to be in diametrical opposition to Buddhist thought, which takes impermanence as a mark of existence—and yet Plato also recognised the fundamental transience of the sensible world, and the interdependence among Forms which the Platonist tradition underscored echoes, with variations, the interdependence some Buddhist philosophers took as the mode in which things exist.

Platonist ethics shares with its Indian Buddhist counterpart the striking claim that knowing reality is the indispensable engine for fundamental moral transformation from essentially deceptive ordinary experience, with its attendant cares and concerns, towards an equanimous experience of real reality which reorders our priorities and desires."

[User13866]

My answer is 'because of an underlying Platonic structure it does'.

Suppose it is so, whatever it is. Why is there an underlying platonic structure?

You are just adding a layer of complexity here, not answering the question as to why things are as they are.

To answer why anything is as it is in full detail, you need to provide all of the information about everything, every measurable & knowable detail about every knowable detail, things like spin of every electron in the universe, past & present, it is an infinite, uncountable & unmeasurable amount of information

A categorically different answer is simply that things behave like things because they are what they are and that is why they are called things and not something else

[User13866]

You are just adding a layer of complexity here, not answering the question as to why things are as they are.

Adding a layer of complexity is like saying things are as they are because God made them so.

[Cause_and_Effect]

My answer is 'because of an underlying Platonic structure it does'.

Suppose it is so, whatever it is. Why is there an underlying platonic structure?

You are just adding a layer of complexity here, not answering the question as to why things are as they are.

To answer why anything is as it is in full detail, you need to provide all of the information about everything, every measurable & knowable detail about every knowable detail, things like spin of every electron in the universe, past & present, it is an infinite, uncountable & unmeasurable amount of information

A categorically different answer is simply that things behave like things because they are what they are and that is why they are called things and not something else

I didn't introduce a 'why' question, I simply stated this is the clear implication of the Buddha's vision of the cosmos. He didn't elaborate on why it follows a template-like recurring structure because it's not required to answer this question for liberation, and possibly can't be answered.

Similarly you have introduced the Western term 'God'.
There is no self or person so we are clearly not speaking of a personal god if such a concept applied.

What does an 'impersonal god' mean? Can an impersonal god be simply the divine yet mindless laws of physics and the larger Platonic structure? If so we don't need the term 'god' then.

Let's just say Platonic Cosmic Order. It just is, and the Buddha gave the path to the various destinations within it and the path to liberation beyond it.

[User13866]

My answer is 'because of an underlying Platonic structure it does'.

Suppose it is so, whatever it is. Why is there an underlying platonic structure?

You are just adding a layer of complexity here, not answering the question as to why things are as they are.

To answer why anything is as it is in full detail, you need to provide all of the information about everything, every measurable & knowable detail about every knowable detail, things like spin of every electron in the universe, past & present, it is an infinite, uncountable & unmeasurable amount of information

A categorically different answer is simply that things behave like things because they are what they are and that is why they are called things and not something else

I didn't introduce a 'why' question, I simply stated this is the clear implication of the Buddha's vision of the cosmos. He didn't elaborate on why it follows a template-like recurring structure because it's not required to answer this question for liberation, and possibly can't be answered.

Similarly you have introduced the Western term 'God'.
There is no self or person so we are clearly not speaking of a personal god if such a concept applied.

What does an 'impersonal god' mean? Can an impersonal god be simply the divine yet mindless laws of physics and the larger Platonic structure? If so we don't need the term 'god' then.

Let's just say Platonic Cosmic Order. It just is, and the Buddha gave the path to the various destinations within it and the path to liberation beyond it.

Why and how are similar

- how does water keep freezing?
- molecules arrange themselves in a tight formation due to a loss of thermal energy
- how is there a loss of thermal energy?
Etc etc

You might be satisfied with this or that answer but any such answer is incomplete as it doesn't explain everything

One can be thinking about everything more so like a mathematician/epistemologist, not a physicist.

[Bundokji]

Samara and the various planes that go through endless cycles of universe expansion and dissolution are an endless manifestation. They are thus of an archtypal structure.
Some dislike acknowledging it because it alludes to the basis of archetypal perfection beyond the phenomenal universe. However for me its simply how the system works and doesn't change how we work with it or the practice of dhamma.

Maybe the denial of archetypal perfection is justified by the analogy of the middle. Imagine you bought a new car (a modern version of a chariot) from the dealership, the standard edition. As the car is brand new, the paint is usually in a state of perfection hence a scratch on the car would appear as ugly, offending our sense of aesthetics and worthy of investing time to repair it. But even if there is no scratch on the car, the standard edition can be improved by investing in adds-on and other luxuries to make it even prettier. While a standard - brand new car would serve as a state of perfection in view of scratch (dissolution), it becomes substandard in view of endless improvements and adds on (expansion). This is how a standard - brand new car can be a middle between two states and still empty or unidentifiable in the ultimate sense. One could argue that if there was a state of perfection in it, then improvements cannot be even fathomed. If there was no state of perfection in it whatsoever, then the scratch would not appear as ugly - taking away from its original value.

While the above might appear silly, it is utilized in the teachings. In the teachings, we have two archetypes: the ordinary person (the standard edition), and the arahant (a state of perfection where any further improvement cannot be fathomed). As such, the archetype of the ordinary person is worthy of denial when the vicious cycle of becoming is explained through the wrong center/middle. A real state of perfection therefore, the one discovered by the Arahant, begets a new middle or center of gravity that allows him to break away from the vicious cycle of expansion and dissolution.

[Radix]

Philosophy and Physics are two different things.

At a deep level of physics it becomes metaphysics.
And his theory in any case is actually Platonic physics on a physical level.

There is such a thing as the philosophy of science, and specifically, the philosophy of physics.

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Scientists generally look down on the philosophy of science.

[Ceisiwr]

Philosophy and Physics are two different things.

At a deep level of physics it becomes metaphysics.
And his theory in any case is actually Platonic physics on a physical level.

There is such a thing as the philosophy of science, and specifically, the philosophy of physics.

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Scientists generally look down on the philosophy of science.

The philosophy of science isn’t science. It’s philosophy.

[Cause_and_Effect]

The philosophy of science isn’t science. It’s philosophy.

I thought you said you weren't going to post any more on this thread. Kindly keep to your word.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Philosophy and Physics are two different things.

At a deep level of physics it becomes metaphysics.
And his theory in any case is actually Platonic physics on a physical level.

There is such a thing as the philosophy of science, and specifically, the philosophy of physics.

Yes there is, and they overlap at this level. Ultimately categories like this start to converge.

Since I have mentioned him a few times I will say the Nobel prize winning Platonic Physicist I mentioned is Sir Roger Penrose.

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/platoni ... a45840fe00
I have a strong inclination that:

- His views about reality are closer to being right than those who have come before.

- They are compatible with Buddha Dhamma

His view there is a Platonic Implicate Order which gives rise to the phenomenal world, and this would account for an infinitely recurring supra-cosmic system with various heavens and structure.

Interestingly his theory about time is that the universe goes through infinite recurrance of expansion and dissolution, also somewhat in line with the vision of the Buddha over aeons.

[Ceisiwr]

The philosophy of science isn’t science. It’s philosophy.

I thought you said you weren't going to post any more on this thread. Kindly keep to your word.

I wasn't responding to you.