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.
So the conversation swings from "there is only mind" to "there is a world out there that is not self".
I'll have to go with "something else going on", which is emptiness of self and form, which is easy to say, difficult to realize, and about as far as words will likely ever take me to describing it.
The world goes on and on without any need for human analysis. If analyzed it must be, it's due to some perceived need that we have in ourselves only. The world is already perfect in itself, it's only the desires within and the demands we put on things that make it not seem so. Thus have I heard.
@robot said:
I'll have to go with "something else going on", which is emptiness of self and form, which is easy to say, difficult to realize, and about as far as words will likely ever take me to describing it.
Sure, the words can only go so far, and our views remain provisional. It's only practice which leads to real insight, being still and looking closely.
So it's idealism because subjectivity is consciousness. And since consciousness involves thinking or 'ideas' then that means it is 'idealism'. I think that is different from the usual 'idealism' vs. 'realism'. As I said IF reality is mind wrought then 'mind-only' would be realism. But as you say you can call it idealism because MIND wrought and mind is where ideas are.
For the reason I argued above this usage of IDEALISM as linked to mind (wrought) is different between the usual idealism/realism set.
@SpinyNorman said:
I experience them as "out there". How do you experience them? The way we experience sights and sounds is partly a result of human biology and evolution, we have two eyes to tell us how far away something is, and two ears to tell us which direction a sound is coming from.
This something else is nothing other than dependent coarising.
Take sight for example. The world out there is no more than a reflection on your retina. Hence within this body is the origin of the world and also its cessation. Whether there is a "real" world out there or not is irrelevant. That is how we can get so absorbed in movies/virtual reality/skyping.
In a sense, we create or are directed by the movie director to create the world that he wants us to "see". Politicians, scientists and others do that all the time.
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick?
How is it that the Buddha without any knowledge of human biology can reach such conclusion is just mind boggling.
Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata[1] it has not been established.[2]
"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed
and fastened onto as true by others,
One who is Such — among the self-fettered —
wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.
This something else is nothing other than dependent co-arising.
Take sight for example. The world out there is no more than a reflection on your retina.
Yes, it is dependent arising and conditionality, but with no sense-object there would be no contact and no experience. Are you denying the basic science? Are you denying that light is reflected off an object before striking our eye?
The Phena Sutta isn't making a meta-physical statement, it's skillful means, drawing our attention to the emptiness of form, it's conditionality.
Likewise the suttas aren't making a meta-physical statement, it's all skillful means, focussing our attention on immediate experience.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@SpinyNorman said:
Yes, we're sort of mixing up philosophical ideas with Buddhist ones.
>
When the original question is as vague as the one in the first post, it's hardly surprising the responses are going to be meandering....
@namarupa said:
The world is past karma. Present karma is a world waiting to be discovered.
past kamma is our past action, spoken words, and thought with ignorance and craving (deluion, greed, hate)
present kamma is effects (our experiences/five aggregates/what obvious to us is feelings from the five aggregates) of past kamma
craving is how we react to feelings at present moment with our delusion namely, we take the perception as a real thing (form+perception=form)
because of craving and ignorance we cling to perception thinking that is form
because of craving we have intention to think, speak, act with/without greed, hate and delusion namely, bodily, verbal, mental fabrication and this is the becoming
if we are not deluded we have no craving then our deeds, speech and thought would only be with mettha, karuna, mudhitha and upekka
such deeds, speech, thoughts never bring bad results to us or others they there is no becoming
@federica said:
When the original question is as vague as the one in the first post, it's hardly surprising the responses are going to be meandering....
but i consider the responses are very fruitful
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
according to Buddha's Teaching one lives in one's world (with six sense media) thinking that one lives in others (your) world
Exactly so.
In a sense we all act as if we live in the same world. Not so. There are commonalities, conventions, social and other norms. However as mentioned in other threads, I personally do not consider for example the emerging Christmas shopping frenzy as anything more than an induced aberration.
We are not what we think, even though we think we are . . . which is kinda the point of dharma . . .
Wrong view @lobster - My world has a universal but peculiarly selfish perpective, and whether you like it or not, you live in my world as much as I live in yours, and vice versa, and we depend on each other for our individual existence!
You are nothing special, as much as I am nothing special...
I have yet to see you acquiesce on anything.
My acquiescence is my realisation - yours, just seems to be clenched buttocks - can't be comfortable can it? Whatever imaginable cushion you might conceive that you are sittting on, I can only say this .... edited by my veritable self!
@SpinyNorman said:
Likewise the suttas aren't making a meta-physical statement, it's all skillful means, focussing our attention on immediate experience.
Are you denying the basic science? Are you denying that light is reflected off an object before striking our eye?
Nothing of the sort. If no light reaches your retina, there is no world at all for you to all intents and purposes assuming you only have you eye and mind sense. This world is entirely dependent on you having the organ of sight, light reaching your eyes. If you don't have any other senses, you probably cannot tell a movie apart from the "real" thing.
You construct the world out of your senses. That is how you experience the "world". It is neither internal nor external, that is the middle way between existence and non existence.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell. Otherwise there is no bell.
It all revolves around the six sense media (ayatanas). The world is nothing more than a series of experiences!
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
Please take time to ponder over this. Many assume that the Buddha was not taking a metaphysical position whatever that means. Again, I find it mind boggling that as far as core teachings are concerned, science has only just begun to catch up with the Buddha's discovery.
When explaining how the process of grasping takes place, the physical process of the eye meeting the visible object and having eye-consciousness is described in the Samyutta Nikaya.
The same holds for the remaining five senses (we know that mind is considered a sense in Abhidhamma)
"I will teach you the Dhamma, bhikkhus, for the full understanding of all grasping...
"Dependent upon the eye and visible-objects, visual consciousness arises. Contact is the coming together these three. Conditioned by contact is feeling. So seeing, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple is dispassionate towards the eye, is dispassionate towards visible-objects... towards visual-consciousness... visual-contact... towards feeling. Being dispassionate he is detached, being detached he is liberated, being liberated he knows, 'Grasping has been fully understood by me.'
"Dependent upon the ear and sounds... the nose and odors... the tongue and tastes... the body and tangible objects...
"Dependent upon the mind and objects of mind, mind consciousness arises. Contact is the coming together of these three. Conditioned by contact is feeling. So seeing, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple is dispassionate towards the mind... towards mind-objects... mind-consciousness... mind-contact... towards feeling. Being dispassionate he is detached, being detached he is liberated, being liberated he knows, 'Grasping has been fully understood by me.'
"This, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma for the full understanding of all grasping."
The Blessed One said, " What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
Would this All be the world, which includes the sense and the object?
I find the explanation in the link rather quizzical...
"Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.
"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.
"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.
I believe that this is a point that greg911 made. That kamma is the 'self'.
Comments
So the conversation swings from "there is only mind" to "there is a world out there that is not self".
I'll have to go with "something else going on", which is emptiness of self and form, which is easy to say, difficult to realize, and about as far as words will likely ever take me to describing it.
The world goes on and on without any need for human analysis. If analyzed it must be, it's due to some perceived need that we have in ourselves only. The world is already perfect in itself, it's only the desires within and the demands we put on things that make it not seem so. Thus have I heard.
Sure, the words can only go so far, and our views remain provisional. It's only practice which leads to real insight, being still and looking closely.
So it's idealism because subjectivity is consciousness. And since consciousness involves thinking or 'ideas' then that means it is 'idealism'. I think that is different from the usual 'idealism' vs. 'realism'. As I said IF reality is mind wrought then 'mind-only' would be realism. But as you say you can call it idealism because MIND wrought and mind is where ideas are.
For the reason I argued above this usage of IDEALISM as linked to mind (wrought) is different between the usual idealism/realism set.
Yes, we're sort of mixing up philosophical ideas with Buddhist ones.
This something else is nothing other than dependent coarising.
Take sight for example. The world out there is no more than a reflection on your retina. Hence within this body is the origin of the world and also its cessation. Whether there is a "real" world out there or not is irrelevant. That is how we can get so absorbed in movies/virtual reality/skyping.
In a sense, we create or are directed by the movie director to create the world that he wants us to "see". Politicians, scientists and others do that all the time.
How is it that the Buddha without any knowledge of human biology can reach such conclusion is just mind boggling.
One who is Such — among the self-fettered —
wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.
Warm regards
This something else is nothing other than dependent co-arising.
Take sight for example. The world out there is no more than a reflection on your retina.
Yes, it is dependent arising and conditionality, but with no sense-object there would be no contact and no experience. Are you denying the basic science? Are you denying that light is reflected off an object before striking our eye?
The Phena Sutta isn't making a meta-physical statement, it's skillful means, drawing our attention to the emptiness of form, it's conditionality.
Likewise the suttas aren't making a meta-physical statement, it's all skillful means, focussing our attention on immediate experience.
>
When the original question is as vague as the one in the first post, it's hardly surprising the responses are going to be meandering....
past kamma is our past action, spoken words, and thought with ignorance and craving (deluion, greed, hate)
present kamma is effects (our experiences/five aggregates/what obvious to us is feelings from the five aggregates) of past kamma
craving is how we react to feelings at present moment with our delusion namely, we take the perception as a real thing (form+perception=form)
because of craving and ignorance we cling to perception thinking that is form
because of craving we have intention to think, speak, act with/without greed, hate and delusion namely, bodily, verbal, mental fabrication and this is the becoming
if we are not deluded we have no craving then our deeds, speech and thought would only be with mettha, karuna, mudhitha and upekka
such deeds, speech, thoughts never bring bad results to us or others they there is no becoming
but i consider the responses are very fruitful
I didn't say they weren't.....
AND I am knowledgeably declaring that not all seeds will bear fruit...
Thankfully if one does - then it's worth it's weight when matured 10-fold; hey am I saying capitalism is right?
I frankly haven't a clue what you're saying. Is it relevant...?
@federica - it's relevant to the few!
..... 'few' is overstating it.....
Exactly so.
In a sense we all act as if we live in the same world. Not so. There are commonalities, conventions, social and other norms. However as mentioned in other threads, I personally do not consider for example the emerging Christmas shopping frenzy as anything more than an induced aberration.
We are not what we think, even though we think we are . . . which is kinda the point of dharma . . .
Wrong view @lobster - My world has a universal but peculiarly selfish perpective, and whether you like it or not, you live in my world as much as I live in yours, and vice versa, and we depend on each other for our individual existence!
You are nothing special, as much as I am nothing special...
I have yet to see you acquiesce on anything.
My acquiescence is my realisation - yours, just seems to be clenched buttocks - can't be comfortable can it? Whatever imaginable cushion you might conceive that you are sittting on, I can only say this .... edited by my veritable self!
Are you denying the basic science? Are you denying that light is reflected off an object before striking our eye?
Nothing of the sort.![:\](https://newbuddhist.com/plugins/emojiextender/emoji/little/confused.png ":\")
If no light reaches your retina, there is no world at all for you to all intents and purposes assuming you only have you eye and mind sense. This world is entirely dependent on you having the organ of sight, light reaching your eyes. If you don't have any other senses, you probably cannot tell a movie apart from the "real" thing.
You construct the world out of your senses. That is how you experience the "world". It is neither internal nor external, that is the middle way between existence and non existence.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell. Otherwise there is no bell.
It all revolves around the six sense media (ayatanas). The world is nothing more than a series of experiences!
Please take time to ponder over this. Many assume that the Buddha was not taking a metaphysical position whatever that means. Again, I find it mind boggling that as far as core teachings are concerned, science has only just begun to catch up with the Buddha's discovery.
Regards,
When explaining how the process of grasping takes place, the physical process of the eye meeting the visible object and having eye-consciousness is described in the Samyutta Nikaya.
The same holds for the remaining five senses (we know that mind is considered a sense in Abhidhamma)
But what about the All? This All that encompasses the sense and the object?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
Would this All be the world, which includes the sense and the object?
I find the explanation in the link rather quizzical...
@ pegembara, @dhammadragon, @namarupa i very much appreciate thse last posts
i find them as 'when the student is ready the TEACHER comes'
thank you everyone who post in this thread and everyone who create and maintain this forum including moderators
merits to you all
I believe that this is a point that greg911 made. That kamma is the 'self'.