Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Asking "Who?"
zenff
Veteran
In another thread Talisman posted this interesting quote:
-----------
§ 7. The Buddha: “From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes
contact.’”
Ven. Moliyaphagguna: “Lord, who makes contact?”
“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘makes contact.’ If I
were to say ‘makes contact,’ then ‘Who makes contact?’ would be a valid
question. But I don’t say that. When I don’t say that, the valid question is ‘From
what as a requisite condition comes contact?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From the
six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a
requisite condition comes feeling.’”
“Lord, who feels?”
“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘feels.’ If I were to
say ‘feels,’ then ‘Who feels?’ would be a valid question. But I don’t say that.
When I don’t say that, the valid question is ‘From what as a requisite condition
comes feeling?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From contact as a requisite condition
comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition
comes craving….’”
SN 12:12
-----------
I find it interesting because the Buddha avoids the “who-questions" from his student. He describes impersonal processes instead.
Okay.
Here’s a thought-experiment (a “frog in the damn” so to speak).
The Buddha and I both put one hand on a rock. In my other hand I have a big hammer.
I bring the hammer down as hard as I can on either one hand and ask these questions: “Lord who makes contact?” And “Lord who feels?”
We know the Buddha would answer “Not a valid question”; but I know for me the question is as valid as they get!
I think the problem (my problem) refers to qualia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia .
------------------
“Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are:
1. Ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.
2. Intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3. Private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4. Directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale."
----------------
When the hammer is on my hand that’s a quale. And it is this quale which makes the “who-question" valid to me. Apparently.
So:
1. Does anyone –like me- disagree with the Buddha on the validity of Moliyaphagguna’s questions?
2. Do qualia exist?
3. Are they connected to the “who-question" as my intuition says?
4. Does that imply that there’s someone - a self or a soul - in this body after all?
-----------
§ 7. The Buddha: “From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes
contact.’”
Ven. Moliyaphagguna: “Lord, who makes contact?”
“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘makes contact.’ If I
were to say ‘makes contact,’ then ‘Who makes contact?’ would be a valid
question. But I don’t say that. When I don’t say that, the valid question is ‘From
what as a requisite condition comes contact?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From the
six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a
requisite condition comes feeling.’”
“Lord, who feels?”
“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘feels.’ If I were to
say ‘feels,’ then ‘Who feels?’ would be a valid question. But I don’t say that.
When I don’t say that, the valid question is ‘From what as a requisite condition
comes feeling?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From contact as a requisite condition
comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition
comes craving….’”
SN 12:12
-----------
I find it interesting because the Buddha avoids the “who-questions" from his student. He describes impersonal processes instead.
Okay.
Here’s a thought-experiment (a “frog in the damn” so to speak).
The Buddha and I both put one hand on a rock. In my other hand I have a big hammer.
I bring the hammer down as hard as I can on either one hand and ask these questions: “Lord who makes contact?” And “Lord who feels?”
We know the Buddha would answer “Not a valid question”; but I know for me the question is as valid as they get!
I think the problem (my problem) refers to qualia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia .
------------------
“Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are:
1. Ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.
2. Intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3. Private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4. Directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale."
----------------
When the hammer is on my hand that’s a quale. And it is this quale which makes the “who-question" valid to me. Apparently.
So:
1. Does anyone –like me- disagree with the Buddha on the validity of Moliyaphagguna’s questions?
2. Do qualia exist?
3. Are they connected to the “who-question" as my intuition says?
4. Does that imply that there’s someone - a self or a soul - in this body after all?
0
Comments
Conventionally there is "you" and there is "me" only so far as they refer to a temporary group of aggregates that have been formed by causal relations out of the four elements, that are said together to constitute a "person" and that will soon no longer be a person at all. Where was this person before the galaxy was formed? What is your original face before your mother and father were born? The I-making and my-making are really concerned with this "in-between" where these aggregates have arisen together, but what materials did form your body and so become your body? What will happen to all of that material when you die? Can anything really belong to you or be "you" except in a conventional sense referring to a specific conditioned and temporary awareness/viewpoint of life?
Ultimately there are two sides of life, namely form and the experience of form (mind). When we speak of form, we speak of form. When we speak of mind, we speak of mind. A hammer striking a hand causes pain; that pain is an experience, i.e. "mind". There is no belonging, no ownership, in ultimate reality. It's not "your hand", not "your pain", because there is no part of the aggregates which owns the others much less itself. All is empty. The experience of pain is known to the mind, and when the mind perceives "I" and ownership, does not have clarity of selfless reality, there is suffering associated with the experience.
This may not be the best explanation. It's 4am here...
2. "[...]is a term used in philosophy to describe subjective conscious experiences. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, the experience of taking a recreational drug, or the perceived redness of an evening sky.". If this is "qualia", then it does exist. But, IMO, even the concept is just as subjective as the object it describes.
3. What ? Well, qualias do relate to some "who" questions, but mostly it is related to "what is it like ".
4. I don't think qualias imply directly the existence of a soul or a self in the physical body after all. Let's take the question of the existence of a soul. Answers: 50 % yes, 50 % no. As I said, qualias do not imply directly, because the problem is based on a certain kind of truth ( even if it is not valid in the long run, still, it is considered objective rather than subjective). Qualia will apply to this problem in a question like "What is it like to have, or not to have a soul ?".
Spiny
Spiny
Buddhism realizes that there is no 'me' or 'who', only causes leading to a result. Lord Buddha was asking the better question. We have an attachment to this me where we feel like it is ourselves. I don't know how to describe it. We have this certain identity, this core that we feel is uniquely us.
But I ask: If you lost your name, family, life history, job, material objects, past experience, who are you? What if you had severe amnesia? You would start out at square one all over again. You would begin constructing this identity that you can attach yourself to. I don't know why we do it, but we do.
I feel that as the monk is his pupil, Buddha was trying to guide him to the truth. If you want to talk about hitting somebody with a hammer, it is obviously you with the hammer, initiating contact with the hand of Buddha. The Buddha would have a response(firing of synapses and such). It is your functional self who initiated the contact, and Buddha's functional self who 'felt' it. Now, what is the point in knowing that? It is very obvious! It is less obvious to see what caused you to create contact, and what caused there to be 'feeling'. Feelings are caused by attachment. I explain further down below.
By seeing that nothing arises without dependence on another thing, you can see that it is intrinsically empty. Its characteristics are based on a predecessory cause. It cannot stand alone, thus 'empty'. It lacks any solidity. But it is this emptiness(the non-solidity) that is the form of this thing. And now we're back to the fundamentals of Buddhism. In example, you can't just feel. There was something before that made you feel. However, we can stop the chain before it happens. We choose to feel. And by feel, I mean hold on to the experience and give it meaning. You can hit Buddha with the hammer. Would it cause him suffering though? No. Why? Because pain is empty of intrinsic characteristics. We must assign pain the characteristics that make it suffering or unsatisfactory! Everything is subject to the characteristics you assign to it because everything is inherently... EMPTY! Now... understanding this is difficult, and realizing it, even more so.
This post is all over the place, sorry.
The wiki article is fairly dense. But this 2 part video explains it well.
I appreciate the effort you’re making.
I’m processing this right now. I’ll try and get back to you soon.
Spiny
I think they are the same or at least similar. I think this 'identity' is at least part of the unchanging-self. Which we seem to believe is impermanent. And when it changes, we experience dukkha.
Most people identify themselves by what their job is, who their significant other is, how they appear, and many other things. We just need to see that this self-identity isn't constant. You won't always be good at a certain activity, you won't always have a job, a significant other, your current physical features, etc. Your identity will never be permanent. That doesn't mean we can't be happy with what we have in this moment, though. It's about being satisfied with everything in life because nothing was set in stone anyway. Our life wasn't even guaranteed. It still isn't guaranteed. You or I could die today.