The underlying implicit metaphysics of Pali Buddhism

[Bundokji]

- An implicit universal kammic field is a backdrop to the Buddha's teachings

It is not implicit!

"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The intention & aspiration of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

- A Platonic archetypal structure to reality is implicitly declared by the Buddha.

Archetypes are the belief in an original from which all else to be measured. Its always been there. The Buddha did not imply it. It is a figure of speech. Remember, going against the grain is not denying it, but rather, shedding light on it.

[Cause_and_Effect]

It is an answer, you just don't agree. At this point I would be repeating myself.

No you are ducking and using obfiscation.
Then explain how it answers the causal connection between individuals who have kamma between them many lives later. Nothing in your 'habits, likes and dislikes', comes anything close to accounting for these long range relationship between individuals effects, despite your attempts at portraying that it does.

Taking less drugs and developing more sense restraint will help with your mental clarity.

why are you introducing ad hominem attacks, it sounds like you are flustered already.

You are arguing that kamma should be viewed through the lens of Platonic forms. Plato's theories of Forms is a form of substance metaphysics. You don't seem to understand what it is you are arguing for. You also don't seem to understand my position. Nowhere have I made an argument for a "darwinian dhamma theory"

Not entirely, you seem to have confused the two points I raised at the beginning. Read the first post again. I said that the structure of the universe and samsara as described by the Buddha is a recurring archetypal Platonic form.
There's is nothing in the Pali Canon that disputes this implicit position, and nothing you have raised thus far comes close to disputing it.

You in contrast suggested that the structure of the various levels of heavens and the arising of Buddha's was something like 'a recurring convergent evolution' a frankly ridiculous blind faith guess in order to run from the Platonic implications of the Buddha describing clearly the cosmic order.
Also some level of evolution and platonic forms are not at odds in any case.

[Cause_and_Effect]

- An implicit universal kammic field is a backdrop to the Buddha's teachings

It is not implicit!

"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The intention & aspiration of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

Indeed, it is explicitly stated here, and implicit throughout the entire teaching.

[Ceisiwr]

No you are ducking and using obfiscation.
Then explain how it answers the causal connection between individuals who have kamma between them many lives later. Nothing in your 'habits, likes and dislikes', comes anything close to accounting for these long range relationship between individuals effects, despite your attempts at portraying that it does.

I answered you directly. I see it in terms of a stream of conciousness and mental dispositions and qualities. I'm not much interested in causality, which I'm sceptical of.

why are you introducing ad hominem attacks, it sounds like you are flustered already.

I'm perfectly calm. It wasn't an ad hom. It was advice, since you have trouble following arguments and articulating your own.

Not entirely, you seem to have confused the two points I raised at the beginning. Read the first post again. I said that the structure of the universe and samsara as described by the Buddha is a recurring archetypal Platonic form.
There's is nothing in the Pali Canon that disputes this implicit position, and nothing you have raised thus far comes close to disputing it.

You in contrast suggested that the structure of the various levels of heavens and the arising of Buddha's was something like 'a recurring convergent evolution' a frankly ridiculous position and blind faith guess in order to run from the Platonic implications of the Buddha describing clearly the cosmic order.
Also some level of evolution and platonic forms are not at odds in any case.

I don't think the suttas support the idea of hidden and permanent independent realities such as substances, which are the cause of our phenomenal experience. You have once again appealed to Platonic forms as an explanation. Once again, Plato's Forms are a form of substance theory. According to Plato the world we see is a shadow on a wall, whilst the real world of substances stands behind them and it is through these substances, so the theory goes, that we can explain our phenomenal experiences. This is what you are also trying to argue here and on the other thread, where you also acknowledged 4 element substances and 1 conciousness substance. Regarding my own view, rather than Darwinian natural selection it was more the idea that certain intentional actions will lead to certain results, when the conditions are right.

[Cause_and_Effect]

I don't think the suttas support the idea of hidden and permanent independent realities such as substances, which are the cause of our phenomenal experience. You have once again appealed to Platonic forms as an explanation. Once again, Plato's Forms are a form of substance theory. According to Plato the world we see is a shadow on a wall, whilst the real world of substances stands behind them and it is through these substances, so the theory goes, that we can explain our phenomenal experiences. This is what you are also trying to argue here and on the other thread, where you also acknowledged 4 element substances and 1 conciousness substance. Regarding my own view, rather than Darwinian natural selection it was more the idea that certain intentional actions will lead to certain results, when the conditions are right.

Plato argued for Ideals or perfect forms or templates I would not class them as 'substances'.
There is an almost inescapable conclusion to the reoccurring structure of the worlds within Samsara, that there must there be a Platonic structure.
It's in fact much more Platonic than most Western Platonists since it asserts the same basic structure is arising and the ceasing an infinite number of times through beginningless time as the world systems come to be.
You seem to be confusing dependent arising as being a contrasting 'philosophical position' whereas thats not it's purpose at all.

[Ceisiwr]

Plato argued for Ideals or perfect forms or templates I would not class them as 'substances'.

As permanent realities which are the cause of the structure of our phenomenal world, Plato's theory of Forms is a form of substance theory. Plato is also a pure Rationalist.

There is an almost inescapable conclusion to the reoccurring structure of the worlds within Samsara, that there must there be a Platonic structure.
It's in fact much more Platonic than most Western Platonists since it asserts the same basic structure is arising and the ceasing an infinite number of times through beginningless time as the world systems come to be.

You really are too quick to jump to conclusions. If you want to go on though believing you are an immortal being, that there are eternal hidden realities underlying or supporting everything and engage in further mental masturbations that is of course up to you. I think though that despite all this philosophising and indulgence in titillating thoughts after it all, in the end, you will still find yourself subject to dukkha. Just my thoughts.

You seem to be confusing dependent arising as being a contrasting 'philosophical position' whereas thats not it's purpose at all.

Not really. I see it more as a natural law that was discovered by observing the natural world, albeit one here that includes past lives, in a mind that was absolutely still and clear. No Rationalism required and no hidden and spooky realities.

[Jack19990101]

Kamma is the field for birth, it is not to endorse a universal backdrop.

If there is an universal kamma backdrop, like air we all breath,
while one awakens, all of us have been clean of kamma as well.

Since no one can remove other's kamma, it means our kamma can never mix with other's. Like water vs sand.
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.

[Jack19990101]

I think we shall go back to dependent origination and khandas -

The disconnection is
Khandas is only representation of an individual or the whole world?

One set of Khandas is representing the whole world - including what we called other beings.

Being is represented in Khandas in two components -
Form - their image.
mental sankhara - fabrication of a being behind the image.

Tanha glues the two seamlessly. Without tanha, image stays as image.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Plato argued for Ideals or perfect forms or templates I would not class them as 'substances'.

As permanent realities which are the cause of the structure of our phenomenal world, Plato's theory of Forms is a form of substance theory. Plato is also a pure Rationalist.

Whatever label you want to give it, when the Buddha taught the ordered reoccurance of the universe and worlds within it and the rearising of Buddha's, he endorsed a similar position.

You really are too quick to jump to conclusions.

Not as quick as you. In fact it seems to be one of your characteristics, since I see your often inane comments being the first response to many threads here, and rambling speculations.
I am giving a coherent view of the implications of the Buddha's vision of the cosmos.

If you want to go on though believing you are an immortal being, that there are eternal hidden realities underlying or supporting everything

So now we see your actual position. Nice try at lumping together two different concepts.

Btw, Nibbana is also called 'the immortal'. It's just that it's beyond being and non-being. You seem perpetually hung up on a concopt of non-being though.

Not really. I see it more as a natural law that was discovered by observing the natural world, albeit one here that includes past lives, in a mind that was absolutely still and clear. No Rationalism required and no hidden and spooky realities.

You seem to be bent on arguing against the implcit Platonism of the Buddha teachings, when it has no bearing on your understanding of the dhamma. It simply is, and is an extension of the vision if reality the Buddha described.

No Rationalism required and no hidden and spooky realities.

The universe and samsara is plenty spooky. Far more then you could ever envision behind your comfortable little desk.
There's even a hidden ghost realm ordinarily invisible to us alongside many other realms, and all reoccurring in an ordered structure.
Maybe the sense of having an intellectual handle on it reassures you, if so let's leave you to it.

[Cause_and_Effect]

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.

[Ceisiwr]

In fact it seems to be one of your characteristics, since I see your often inane comments being the first response to many threads here, and rambling speculations.
I am giving a coherent view of the implications of the Buddha's vision of the cosmos.

I shan't respond in the future. Good luck with your philosophical speculations.

[Cause_and_Effect]

- A Platonic archetypal structure to reality is implicitly declared by the Buddha.

Archetypes are the belief in an original from which all else to be measured. Its always been there. The Buddha did not imply it. It is a figure of speech. Remember, going against the grain is not denying it, but rather, shedding light on it.

The Buddha is one in an endless line of Perfectly awakened ones. Likewise our present world and the order of heavens and hells is a recurring phenomena with structure. The Buddha's teachings therefore rest on this Platonic vision of reality. He did not discuss it further because there is no need to, and speculating about its origins or why is a question that goes nowhere and distracts from the work.

However having a general view of it is in my opinion part of clarifying right view. There is this cosmos with it's order and structure and there are Buddha's.

In fact it seems to be one of your characteristics, since I see your often inane comments being the first response to many threads here, and rambling speculations.
I am giving a coherent view of the implications of the Buddha's vision of the cosmos.

I shan't respond in the future. Good luck with your philosophical speculations.

It isn't a speculation, it's a direct explication of the Buddha's vision of the cosmos.

Since in any case you avoided directly answering any of the main issues raised in support and instead resorted to ad hominem attacks, it would be pointless for you to continue yes.

[Bundokji]

The Buddha is one in an endless line of Perfectly awakened ones. Likewise our present world and the order of heavens and hells is a recurring phenomena with structure. The Buddha's teachings therefore rest on this Platonic vision of reality. He did not discuss it further because there is no need to, and speculating about its origins or why is a question that goes nowhere and distracts from the work.

However having a general view of it is in my opinion part of clarifying right view. There is this cosmos with it's order and structure and there are Buddha's.

Teachings on heaven and hell are not peculiar to the Buddhas and can be found in other religions. One could argue that rupa loka is similar to the platonic forms and goes beyond the sensual realm. The fire in the allegory of the cave and the corresponding shadows on the wall is somehow similar to Abrahamic religions which portray iblis/satan/mara/lucifer as a guardian of the sensual realm and made/created by the fire element.

We created you, We formed you; and then We commanded the angels, “bow down before Adam,” and they bowed. But not Iblis; he refused to be one of those who bow.

God said: “What prevented you from bowing down as I commanded you?” And he [Iblis] said: “I am better than he: You created me from fire and him from clay.”

God said: “Get down from here! Here is no place for your arrogance, Get out! You are the lowest of creatures!”

but Iblis said, “Give me respite until the day they are raised.”

and God said, “You have respite.”

And then Iblis said, “Because you have put me in the wrong, I shall lie in wait for them on Your straight path; I will assault them from the front and the back, from their right and their left; nor will you find that most of them are grateful.”

God said, “Get out! You are disgraced and expelled! I swear I shall fill Hell with you and all who follow you.”

The archetypes emphasize a universal and endless manifestations. One of the iddhis is to Replicate and project bodily images of oneself, which still utilizes "the shadow" as a mark of traceability. The focus on ending circularity in Buddhism utilizes kamma "as the field" even when craving for the form and formless properties. It somehow acknowledges these properties in the metaphysical sense, but argues that they can still be the basis for bhava when they continue to act as objects of grasping.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Why does karma need to either be a field or arise out of a field of potentiality? Karma can be utterly immaterial, then it doesn't need to physically or energetically arise out of a field.

This field business sounds like it's inspired by quantum field theory.

Why does a field of potentiality have to be material?

If we take the sutta passage it clearly states kamma is 'the field'. Some are assuming a simplistic correlation to this analogy about an individual's kammic results but this doesn't account for the interdependent effects between people. When acccounting for these effects the broader field we all participate in makes sense, and brings clarity to how it functions.

Again I ask: How does the kammic result to the individual vary, depending on the mind state of the recipient of their kammic action, if they are both not participating in a shared field?

Regarding parallels with some quantum field theory- perhaps there are which we might expect if quantum or string theory are close approximations of reality and so is the field analogy of kamma as given by the Buddha.

The archetypes emphasize a universal and endless manifestations.

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.

[Coëmgenu]

Why does karma need to either be a field or arise out of a field of potentiality? Karma can be utterly immaterial, then it doesn't need to physically or energetically arise out of a field.

This field business sounds like it's inspired by quantum field theory.

Why does a field of potentiality have to be material?

They aren't material, at least I don't think so, in quantum field theory. Materiality is emergent of them AFAIK. That being said, I barely know what a muon is. Once we start talking about things like "massless particles," it really calls into question whether something without mass can itself be "material."

So the usage of "field" here is actually agrarian and based on a well-known, if curious, suttic metaphor that I ought to have recognized, and not to do with quantum field theory. That changes my appraisal of it.

The original suttic "field metaphor" is sufficiently obscure in its intended meaning that later Yogācārins felt the need to "tweak it" subtly, so that vijñāna is the field (in the form of the ālaya) and the karmas are the seeds ("bījāni") planted within it that eventually emerge as "vipāka plants" (for the sake of continuing the agrarian metaphor used by the Buddha) which are subsequently "taken up," i.e. harvested. Oddly enough, it ends up meaning the same thing at the end of the day, because the vipāka half of karma must be experienced via vijñāna (with the exception of the asaṃjñaka dharma arisen from wrongly grasping the fourth dhyāna or certain of the arūpyas.... this dharma is only enumerated by Sarvāstivādins anyways though).

The issue with the field of karma being shared, given the above clarification, is that then you could inherit my vipāka and vice-versa. In the Buddha's day, there was private or otherwise semi-private ownership of agricultural land just as much as today. Different fields are worked by different farmers.