Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

The distinction of language in Buddhism—the conventional versus the ultimate.

edited January 2007 in Philosophy
Elohim wrote:
Vaccha,

Also, just to make myself absolutely clear, I am not denying individual effort (attakara), nor have I ever done so that I am aware of; nevertheless, I am denying that individual effort arises of its own volition. In the context of this thread, I would say that individual effort has its own requisite conditions just as right effort (sammakara) has its requisite conditions as well i.e. right view (sammaditthi).

Jason

jason, how can there be such a thing as individual (indivisble) effort, when the only "individuals" remain are dhammas?Would individual effort not become also a meaningless term, as well as controll seems to become?

Regards

Comments

  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    fofoo,

    As I have said, there are many different ways in which we can look at this subject depending on the context. When we are speaking about an individual, what exactly is it that we are speaking about? On the whole, a being (satta) or person (puggala) can be considered an individual, however what about when we consider the six sense media (salayatana) or the five aggregates (pancakhandha)?

    Does the eye, for example, put forth effort to see, or is it that the eye-faculty comes into contact with a visible object, and with the arising of eye-consciousness there is sight? On one level we can certainly talk about individuals and individual effort (attakara), I do not deny that, but on another level we cannot talk about individuals and effort in the same way as these concepts no longer apply.

    Jason
  • edited January 2007
    Jason,

    the point i want to make is this: If we all desribe in dhammas, seeing it as ultimate, then surely satta and pudgala are mere convention. An effort of a satta or pudgala is as meanigful or -less then the control a satta or pudgala has.

    There is no such thing then as individual or individble thing at all except the dhammas. Subject and object no longer exist. All explanations in terms of subjects and objects, the very structure of at least our indo-european languages, fail to express what we want to say. Every attempt would be self defeating. When i was in school, one of the first lessons in english i learned was that the sentences there follow the SPO-rule. Subject Predicate Object . fofoo writes this post. jason reads the post. it might sound silly, but how we can express agentless activities, at least in our language, at all?

    Maybe i got it totally wrong, but that`s the way I see it at the moment.

    Regards

    edit: that being said, even if i was to believe or even realize there were no agent, I would probably fail to express the damma in my mother tongue or in english.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    fofoo,

    Language itself is a convention. Externally, language is useful for the fact that individuals can relate various concepts between themselves in order to comprehend them such as topics of Dhamma for example. In the context of our practice, language is can be very useful, such as in the case of verbal fabrications or direct thought and evaluation, which are used to achieve the first jhana in meditation (AN 5.28). Nevertheless, these things are themselves conditioned, and therefore must be relinquished when the conditions are ripe for their relinquishment in order to touch the Deathless (amata). Essentially, what this means is that we cannot simply think our way to Nibbana, even though thought can help us to get to that the point of release.

    When you are speaking on the conventional level of beings (satta) or persons (puggala), you can use the conventions of Jason, fofoo, et cetera. When we are speaking on the ultimate level of dhammas, however, we cannot use the same conventions. For example, can we speak of the eye-faculty as Jason, even though the eyes are a constituent of the person conventionally known as Jason? No, we would have to say Jason's eyes. This comes to the idea of Jason as the owner of his eye-faculty, and conventionally we can say this as a true statement. When we come to the Buddha's teachings on the doctrine of not-self (anatta), however, this personality-view (sakkaya-ditthi) is deconstructed and we can see that ultimately, the eye-faculty is ownerless.

    Jason
  • edited January 2007
    Jason,

    language surely is convention, on this we agree. Subject and object however have a distinct role to play, since there the seperation between me and the world is made.

    I think i had my words on language in the anatta thread, summarized, we cut a piece out of the whole when using words, can use more and more words to describe a certain thing at a certain time maybe even completely. Without wanting to go further away from the topic, I want to give the following link as food for thought:

    Linguistic Turn


    The view that language 'constitutes' reality is contrary to common sense and to most of the Western tradition of philosophy. The traditional view saw words as functioning like labels. First there seemed to be something like 'the real chair', followed by the meaning 'Chair' to which the word "chair" refers. But already the founder of structuralism, Ferdinand de Saussure, was able to show that differences between meanings cannot exist independently from differences between sounds. The differences between meanings structure our perception. We would not be able to recognize a simple chair as a chair without knowing the meaning of "chair" as opposed to "arm chair". Therefore all we can know about reality is conditioned by language.


    Of course, from a Buddhist POV it must be insisted that one can trancend (this word fabricated) reality, like all did who reached Nibbana.

    Regards
  • Bobby_LanierBobby_Lanier Veteran
    edited January 2007
    Elohim wrote:
    fofoo,

    When we come to the Buddha's teachings on the doctrine of not-self (anatta), however, this personality-view (sakkaya-ditthi) is deconstructed and we can see that ultimately, the eye-faculty is ownerless.

    Jason

    Might we take this one step futher and call Abhidhamma a species of Eliminative materialism?

    I think for purposes of discussion it might be better treat Abhidhammism as an early form of Indian eliminativism.

    Love ya'll,

    Bobby
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    fofoo,
    fofoo wrote:
    language surely is convention, on this we agree. Subject and object however have a distinct role to play, since there the seperation between me and the world is made.

    Well, perhaps it would be helpful if you could define what you mean when you say "me" and "the world". There might be a distinction between you and the world in the convention of everyday, ordinary language; however, in the Buddha's teachings of dependent co-arising (paticca-samuppada), I do not think that there is such a sharp distinction between what you perceive to be you and the experience of the world (SN 12.44) since it must be remembered that our experience of the world is directly tied in to our view of self (sakkaya-ditthi).

    Jason
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    Bobby,

    What exactly do you mean by that?

    Jason
  • edited January 2007
    Elohim wrote:
    fofoo,



    Well, perhaps it would be helpful if you could define what you mean when you say "me" and "the world". There might be a distinction between you and the world in the convention of everyday, ordinary language; however, in the Buddha's teachings of dependent co-arising (paticca-samuppada), I do not think that there is such a sharp distinction between what you perceive to be you and the experience of the world (SN 12.44) since it must be remembered that our experience of the world is directly tied in to our view of self (sakkaya-ditthi).

    Jason

    I wasn`t talking about my views, I was talking about how language fundamentally works. See Me, World.

    If you want to discuss sakkaya-ditthi further, we can maybe have a look in the anatta thread.

    Regards
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    fofoo,
    fofoo wrote:
    I wasn`t talking about my views, I was talking about how language fundamentally works. See Me, World.

    As I said before, there might be a distinction between you and the world in the convention of everyday, ordinary language; however, in the Buddha's teachings of dependent co-arising (paticca-samuppada), I do not think that there is such a sharp distinction between what you perceive to be you and the experience of the world as can be seen in the Loka Sutta (SN 12.44):
    Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

    "As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

    The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

    "Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

    "And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

    "Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world."
    fofoo wrote:
    If you want to discuss sakkaya-ditthi further, we can maybe have a look in the anatta thread.

    As for our self-identification view (sakkaya-ditthi), when speaking in a Buddhist context, our experience of the world is inherently tied in to that particular view. In Abhidhamma, the removal of this self-view is the basis for what we would call ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca)—the focus now on the analysis of the basic principles that govern mental and physical processes.

    Jason
  • Bobby_LanierBobby_Lanier Veteran
    edited January 2007
    Elohim wrote:

    As for our self-identification view (sakkaya-ditthi), when speaking in a Buddhist context, our experience of the world is inherently tied in to that particular view. In Abhidhamma, the removal of this self-view is the basis for what we would call ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca)—the focus now on the analysis of the basic principles that govern mental and physical processes.

    Jason

    Dr. Nakamura who was perhaps one of Japan's greatest Buddhist scholars and who, by the way, was a great Vedic scholar, had this to say about what you called "self-identification view", i.e., sakkaya-ditthi.
    "Thus, in early Buddhism, they taught avoidance of a wrong comprehension of non-âtman as a step to the real âtman. Of things not to be identified with the self, the misunderstanding of body as âtman is especially strong opposed. Foolish people comprehend their body as their possession. Buddhist of early days called this mis-comprehension "the notion on account of the attachment to the existence of one's body" (sakkâyadi.t.thi) and taught the abandonment of it" (Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, 90-91).

    As we can see, there is a difference between "sakkaya-ditthi", i.e., "self-identification view", and the referent self. This next passage shows that puthujjanas suffer from sakkayaditthi insofar as they regard the self to be the khandhas.
    "How, my lady, there come to be sakkayaditthi? Herein, friend Visakha, the unlearned common man, disregarding the ariyans ... regards the body as the self, or the self in the body. Regards feeling .... Regards perception .... Regards the inner complexes ... Regards consciousenss as the self, or the self as having consciousness, or consciousness in the self, or the self in consciousness. Thus, friend Visakha, there comes to be sakkayaditthi." — M.i.300

    If we, therefore, regard our body (rupa) as being the self we have, using your term, fallen into "self-identification view". Our self has become identified with a body, its feelings and the rest of the khandhas. As a result, we come to suffer.

    Above all, it would be incorrect to contend that sakkayaditthi means that there is no self. The problem is not with the self, in other words. The problem is with what we view (ditthi) to be the self which turns out to be conditioned, namely, our body (sakkaya).


    Love ya'll,


    Bobby
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    Bobby,

    First, it should be noted that nowhere was it said that sakkaya-ditthi means that there is no self. What was said, however, was that when we come to the Buddha's teachings on the doctrine of not-self (anatta), personality-view (sakkaya-ditthi) is deconstructed and we can see that ultimately, these aggregates are ownerless—not assuming anything with regard to these five clinging-aggregates to be self or belonging to self until the lingering residual 'I am' conceit is fully obliterated.

    The question of anatta seems to be heading towards asking whom or what realizes Nibbana. Perhaps what should also be remembered here is that the Buddha said that any sense of self, any self-identification view, any process of I-making and my-making, is based on either one or all of the five khandhas (MN 44, MN 109, SN 22.1). When speaking about a self, agent, referent, et cetera, you must do so in reference to something that cannot be touched, felt, perceived, thought about, or cognized in any way whatsoever.

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but effectively, you are speaking about something that, as far as experience goes, cannot be said to exist because if it cannot be experienced, how can it be said to exist. That is why, when it comes to Nibbana, such a thing is beyond words, beyond concepts, beyond existing or even not existing, as it is the final end of phenomena (AN 10.58). Logically speaking, what could be said to observe this final end of phenomena? How could it observe this? Where is it? The questions are endless.

    As for Dr. Nakamura, I am sure he held the view that the Buddha originally taught the elimination of all false views of self regarding the aggregates in order to uncover what was the self; nevertheless, if there was a self, what on earth was there to prevent the Buddha from saying so? I fail to see a single sutta where the Buddha explicitly declares this self, so I cannot agree entirely with what you have said with regard to the referent self, although I agree with the majority of the rest.

    Jason
  • Bobby_LanierBobby_Lanier Veteran
    edited January 2007
    Elohim wrote:

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but effectively, you are speaking about something that, as far as experience goes, cannot be said to exist because if it cannot be experienced, how can it be said to exist.

    When you say something doesn't exist, what do you mean? Do you mean that it doesn't exist as a khandha?

    Love ya'll,

    Bobby
  • edited January 2007
    Ironically, Sariputta is guilty of "I-making" himself in SN 22.1.

    "Then in that case, householder, listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

    I think the phrases "I-making" and "my-making" can be questioned. What was Sariputta thinking when he said "I will speak"?

    isn`t it more that the section is about not to mistake the skandhas for an eternal self?

    Slightly confused

    Regards
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    Bobby,

    Let us begin with the SN 35.23 where 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." According to this sutta, anything that lies outside the range of the five aggregates cannot be said to exist, not exist, both, or neither can it?

    The Buddha also said in SN 22.86 that, "when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" Therefore, just according to these two suttas alone, can you say that as far as this referent self goes, it can be said to exist, etc.?

    Jason
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    fofoo,

    Is that supposed to be a joke?

    Jason
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    fofoo,
    Ven. Sariputta said, "Friends, just now as I was withdrawn in seclusion, this train of thought arose to my awareness: 'Is there anything in the world with whose change or alteration there would arise within me sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'There is nothing in the world with whose change or alteration there would arise within me sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.'"
    When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Sariputta, "Sariputta my friend, even if there were change & alteration in the Teacher would there arise within you no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair?"

    "Even if there were change & alteration in the Teacher, my friend, there would arise within me no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Still, I would have this thought: 'What a great being, of great might, of great prowess, has disappeared! For if the Blessed One were to remain for a long time, that would be for the benefit of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of sympathy for the world; for the welfare, benefit, & happiness of human & divine beings.'"

    "Surely," [said Ven. Ananda,] "it's because Ven. Sariputta's I-making & mine-making and obsessions with conceit have long been well uprooted that even if there were change & alteration in the Teacher, there would arise within him no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair." (SN 21.2)

    Jason
  • edited January 2007
    Not really.

    I was seriously thinking how I can express "I will speak" without using "I". ( no, "will speak" doesn`t count, i thought more of psycho-physical processes, or dhammas, that were involved.) Sorry, did not want you two to distract from the debate, just forget sleepy fofoo`s comment :)

    Regards
  • edited January 2007
    Actually Jason,

    something intersting came out of my comment, or more precicely, out of your second response.

    is the world in you quote the same as the all? I presume the pali term was Loka Sorry if this has been discussed already somewhere.

    edit: feel free to move this post into a new topic "All vs Loka"
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2007
    fofoo,
    fofoo wrote:
    Not really.

    I was seriously thinking how I can express "I will speak" without using "I". ( no, "will speak" doesn`t count, i thought more of psycho-physical processes, or dhammas, that were involved.) Sorry, did not want you two to distract from the debate, just forget sleepy fofoo`s comment :)

    One can us conventional language without attaching to the concepts involved. I believe that it is in this sense that the Buddha sometimes said, "These are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." Also, since we are on the subject of I-making and my-making, perhaps you would like to read this excerpt from MN 109:
    Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit?"

    "Monk, one sees any form whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — every form, as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

    "One sees any feeling whatsoever... any perception whatsoever... any fabrications whatsoever...

    "One sees any consciousness whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — every consciousness — as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"

    "Monk, knowing in this way, seeing in this way is there — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit."

    Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"

    Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

    "No, lord."

    "... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

    "... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

    "... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

    "What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

    "No, lord."

    "Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

    "Any feeling whatsoever...

    "Any perception whatsoever...

    "Any fabrications whatsoever...

    "Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

    "Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
    fofoo wrote:
    Actually Jason,

    something intersting came out of my comment, or more precicely, out of your second response.

    is the world in you quote the same as the all? I presume the pali term was Loka Sorry if this has been discussed already somewhere.

    This particular subject has been discussed before, but not in this particular thread. Unfortunately, I cannot recall precisely where. If you are truly unaware of the answer, may I suggest that you take the time to read the suttas in question (such as AN 4.45, SN 12.44, and SN 35.23 for starters) and see if you can discover the answer on your own? I must take my leave of you all and retire for the night. Perhaps we can continue this discussion tomorrow.

    Jason
  • edited January 2007
    Actually, All is German for cosmos, I sometimes confuse this, especially when in zombie mode and translating back and forth. :)

    Regards
  • Bobby_LanierBobby_Lanier Veteran
    edited January 2007
    Sabbe, the “all”, is explained in the Samyutta-Nikaya, IV.15. Essentially the six senses comprise the “all” (= "The eye forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena.")

    The term 'all' is therefore not exhaustive—it doesn't include everything. It doesn't include, for example, the transcendent nirvana; nor does it even seem to include the 'detached mind' as evidenced from the following passage.
    Monks, the man who does not understand and comprehend the all (sabba.m), who has not detached his mind therefrom, who has not abandoned the all, can make no growth in extinguishing Ill. But, monk, he who does understand and comprehend the all, who has detached his mind therefrom, who has abandoned the all, he makes growth in extinguishing Ill.— Itivuttaka 3–4

    Also in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (26) of the Majjhima-Nikaya the Buddha states that,
    I am one who has transcended all, a knower of all,
    Unsullied (anupalitto) among all things (sabbesu dhammesu), renouncing all,
    By craving's ceasing freed.

    At this point, it appears that the Buddha is not using common speech because he is making statements about the transcendent which is paramarthsatya.

    Love ya'll,


    Bobby
Sign In or Register to comment.