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.
Did Buddhism miss the mark?
betaboy
Veteran
In advaita, they often give the following example: an object exists, then it is destroyed. But existence always is - and therefore this existence is the truth. Note it is not the existence of this or that object, BUT THE FACT OF EXISTENCE itself.
0
Comments
Cakes are a combinations of eggs, milk, batter, frosting, etc. Do these components comprise the cake's true existence? No, we can reduce it further.
Eggs, milk, batter, and frosting are all comprised of molecules. Let's reduce it further. Molecules are composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles. Continue to reduce the objects and eventually you will arrive at the true nature of reality -- the true essense of existence that gives rise to all objects.
Once you realize this existence, you can realize that the cake is only one form true existence can adopt. Destroy the cake by eating it, smashing it, burning it or what have you, and all you have done is destroyed a manifestation of true existence, but true existence itself remains.
In short, objects exist as a manifestation of the true nature of reality and existence, you can destroy and alter those manifestations, but the true nature of reality and existence will always remain.
That's how I interpret it, anyways.
From a scientific point of view you also can't say existence always was or will be. Was there something before the big bang? Since there was no time, can we speak of existence like this? It is the chance of things that creates this metaphysical existence, which again is not really that important from a Buddhist point of view.
If we can see the tree in the sheet of paper, we can see the seed as well.
It seems to be saying the same thing as I think Buddha was saying.
It exists.
It does not exist.
It both exists and does not exist.
It neither exists nor does not exist.
These guideposts are useless as tits on a bull when approached intellectually. Picking philosophical boogers never assured a peaceful and happy life. The guiding nature of these assertions lies in the degree to which individuals are willing to realize or actualize ... as in learning the taste of tea by tasting the tea. No one has to drink tea, but anyone who wants to know the taste will have to pick up the cup and sip.... meaning....
Practice.
I don't know, there could be some kind of ultimate ground of existence but to hold it as independent of the things that exist would act as a subtle block to realizing true suchness.
In all seriousness though, it doesn't matter what we call an object, which side we lay it on, or how we perceive it in general. The fact of the matter is that the object must be one of the following:
A) The true, irreducible nature of existence,
C) An illusion produced and perceived by the subjective perception of an entity which is itself either the true, irreducible nature of existence or a manifestation of it.
An example of A might be an elementary sub-atomic particle, which according to current scientific understanding is irreducible; however, it was once thought that atoms were irreducible. In fact, the word "atom" actually derives from the Greek word "atomos," meaning "uncuttable."
An example of B would be something that's existence could be reduced until the true, irreducible nature of existence is realized, such as a brick.
An example of C would be a mirage, which is ontologically subjective, and therefore doesn't exist in reality apart from the subjective perception of that which perceives it.
To say that a cake is "in our mind and was only ever in our mind" seems to suggest that a cake could be categorized as the C type; however, I would assert that cakes fall into the B category. The difference is that cakes can actually be reduced to the true, irreducible nature of existence (and are therefore ultimately grounded in reality), while mirages (in and of themselves) cannot be reduced, as they never actually existed in reality to begin with -- they truly are "only in our minds."
However, if you simply mean to say that the cake is empty of self -- that there is no true essense of "cake-ness," then I agree. Cake does not exist as a single, static, or ultimate object; rather, cake is a combination of several distinct objects, which themselves can be further reduced to other distinct objects, and this process can continue until you reach the true, irreducible nature of existence -- the very foundation upon which "reality" is built.
that nothing exist except vibrations.
also, what exists before the big bang?
nothing?
Personally I don't take a stance on whether or not the universe is eternal, but it is a possibility as far as I understand.
Now it could be argued that "reality" as we perceive it is nothing but an illusion, but from that it could only logically follow that there would be some kind of "true reality" that caused the illusion (for illusions cannot exist on their own without something to create and/or perceive them); this concept can be found in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave."
My logic here can be expressed thusly:
1. Objects can be perceived,
2. That which we perceive can be reduced,
3. That which can be reduced must be built upon something irreducible, else you run into the problem of infinite regression,
4. That which cannot be reduced is possesive of "-ness," as it exists independently in and of itself,
5. Therefore, some form of reality exists, whether we perceive its true nature or not.
That's my view of reality, anway.
out of curiosity are you of the theravada tradition? (I Was curious based off your user name, sounds like the pali language?)
My limited understanding says your position may be what was held by an early Buddhist school known as Sarvastivada. I'd say you give some good thought to the topic, but there have been others who have done likewise and have come to a different conclusion.
If the speeding car is heading right for us, why would be bother to get out of the way if it doesn't really exist, and exists only in our minds? Clearly it exists, we exist, and the hospital we'd be taken to an an ambulance if we didn't get out of the way also exists.
The last bit is like you say, the sum is greater than the whole of the parts. Cake is a compound existence.... dump some vinegar on it and it's gone.
The trick isn't to figure out if a cake exists. The trick is to let go of assumptions such as time and observer/observed that do NOT exist.
For anyone wanting to follow up on this there is a very authentic short and concise book at an entry level to emptiness. It is so authentic that the pages start from the right and go back to the left! It is called Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, by Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche. Don't knock prajna paramita until you try it.
I remember HHDL answering this once or twice and he simply said that all we can say is that is the way it is. I guess he means something like why are things impermanent, well that's just the nature of reality.
I don't know if that's what you're asking and I'm sure that answer isn't very satisfying but that's all I got as far as a Buddhist answer.
If I were of your view, I would take #3 in your list into insight meditation and see what happens.
With warmth,
Matt
The reason sanghas don't invest more energy in social activism is that they say people can do that on their own separate from the sangha's dharma teachings. Some also say "you can't fix samsara" which means escaping samsara is where the effort goes rather than trying to fix samsara. It's like being worried about making a good dinner while your house is burning down.
Unfortunately, we tend to think that existence resembles a vast room with an "inside" and an "outside" -- or we temporalize it, applying prepositions like "before" and "after." Prepositions cannot be applied to existence, only existents. Grammar tricks us, making us stray into meta-physics.
By "true" existence, I simply mean reality as it really is. Human perception interprets reality into things it isn't. Take colors for example. Colors don't actually exist in objective reality, they are simply the brain's subjective interpretation of wavelengths of light. You can't realize color for what it really is until you reduce it to its most fundamental and irreducible part or parts and examine it for what it is in entirety. The same is true of cake and everything else. So again, I'm not saying cars or human bodies don't exist as a particular combination of atoms, molocules, cells (etc) manipulated in such a way as to produce what we call a human or a car, I'm simply saying that such things lack a "self" because they are both reducible and dependent on other distinct entities, thus lacking any independent, irreducible entity which can truly be called "me" or "I." Once you reduce any object you can realize it's emptiness of self and see it for what it really is.
That or I've just spent too much time in my own head and gone crazy.
No, I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I shall not suffer my infallibility to be the questioned.
Haha, just kidding of course. I realize there are other views that have been reached by people much more qualified, well-read, and intelligent than myself, and I respect their opinions. I always try to keep an open mind.
I asked Stephen Batchelor about the deconstruction of "self" with regard to humans. And he said that's an incorrect teaching. It's about non-attachment to self, and realizing that "self" is always evolving, always changing. Maybe that's just a different way of saying more or less the same thing, but it makes more sense to me that way. I don't see the point in deconstructing anything and everything into minute constituent parts. I don't understand what that's supposed to do for us.
Although I respect Stephen Bachelors views, I disagree with them. Whereas Bachelor asserts that the self is a continually changing and evolving entity, I assert that there was never a self to change and evolve in the first place (which I have attempted to explain here: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19167/have-i-realized-anatta#latest).
If you look up mereological nihilism you'll probably be able to find someone who can explain it much more eloquently and succinctly than I.
Thanks for the link, I'll take a look tomorrow. It's late now. ZZZzzzz G'night.
Nagarjuna is clear - nothing really exists.
Yet Nibbana is a phenomenon according to the Abhidharma. It can only be given a negative classification (neti, neti, etc). But, crucially for this discussion, it would be a phenomenon. It is just that it cannot be correctly said to exist or not-exist. These would be partial views thus incorrect.
This does not cause a problem for Aristotle's tertium non datur rule, as has been suggested earlier, because in this case 'exist' and 'not-exist' would not be a true contradiction. For a true contradiction one side of the contradiction must be true and the other false. So when, say, Heraclitus states that we both exist and do not exist, this is not a breach of Aristotles's laws of thought, since he is not suggesting that one of these views is true and the other false, but that the truth is not captured by either view.
This is why the Middle Way doctrine, Lao Tsu's doctrine and nondualism more generally does not require a modification to Aristotles' logic. It took me years to figure this out, and it required checking back with Aristotle's provisos to his rules. It is the failure to check these provisos that led Heisenberg to say that QM required a modification to A's rules. But Aristotle covered all the bases. QM requires no modifications to his logic, and nor does Middle Way Buddhism. It is not a coincidence, I believe, that both QM and nondualism require a logic of contradictory complementary. It is just the nature of Nature and the way we have to describe it. Aristotle's rules allow for such a logic without modification.
This is a hobby-horse for me, since it took me a lot of work to reconcile Buddhist doctrine with classical logic. For years I assumed it could not be done. Then I stumbled on Aristotle's De Interpretatione, where he discusses the implementation of his laws of thought.
So existence and non-existence must be treated as an emergent distinction. There would be an ultimate phenomenon that grounds existence, preventing an infinite regress, but it could not be said to exist or not-exist. It would be unmanifest. Being would emerge from non-being. This is explained by George Spencer Brown in his book Laws of Form, where he presents a mathematical model of Taoist cosmogenesis. It may be an interesting read for any mathematically-minded Buddhists. Brown also suggests that Aristotle's laws must be modified for the doctrine of dependent origination. He is wrong, but it is a very common mistake.
I spoke to Brown once and he told me that he is a buddha. He was a colleague of Bertrand Russell and a friend of Wei Wu Wei. A fascinating person. Worth a google.
So, going back to the OP, it is not clear to me that existence is a fact apart from the apparent existence of particular existents. Take them away and no existence is left over.
In western philosophy this is the 'problem of attributes'. Take way all the contingent attributes of an object and what is left over? It is an unsolved paradox. This is because western academic philosophy refuses to accept the Buddha's solution. After all, Buddhist doctrine is obviously irrational nonsense. Almost everybody in this tradition knows this.
""'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the third sextet.
"'The six classes of contact should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. 'The six classes of contact should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the fourth sextet.
Chachakka Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html