Zans
January 12, 2023, 5:22pm
100
Philosophy:
Your mind is attached to intellection and you’re using the suttas to feed that attachment. Directly seeing, for yourself, is superior to 10000 suttas, and the entire point of the Buddha’s teaching is that you can see for yourself. The suttas are only a guide to that.
I gave up trying to find answers through reading suttas and comparing views. It doesn’t interest me because it doesn’t lead to answers but only leads to getting stuck comparing views and anxiety about “the correct interpretation” and “authoritativeness.” All you’re doing here is feeding your clinging to finding “the right view.” The way out is to stop and just look directly for yourself, which is the perfection of right view. There is no higher view! Why does the stream-enterer have perfect faith? Because they have seen for themselves. And on this issue it’s far easier to see than stream-entry!
On this particular issue, I honestly don’t care (what you think) the suttas say. I honestly don’t care what any tradition says. I have a “faith” that’s unshakeable because it’s not faith at all: it’s directly seeing. It’s seeing right now or any time I wish. It’s not even mystical, it’s not some great attainment or anything like that. It’s just looking. No sutta, no tradition, no man, woman, child, animal, sword, or hammer can break that.
You do not see, but only because you refuse to look. You’re here to find scholars and texts that confirm some intellectual view you have. I have no use for intellectual views; only practice bears the fruit of seeing.
You’re treating scriptures the same way Christians do: to find some correct interpretation and thinking you’ll find lasting contentment with that answer. You won’t, and when it still gnaws at you you’ll have to quiet that voice of skepticism with zealotry or more scripture searching, which is what you’re doing.
The promise of the Buddha is you can see for yourself. That’s the best part about this path. You just have to look.
@bksubhuti @RobertK @Ontheway @ekocare
Thoughts?
For reference (and fyi DMT is one of the most powerful hallucinogenic drugs on Earth):
Philosophy:
If anything, idealism is closer to the truth than realism, as you can actually experience consciousness of nothingness (arupa-jhanas or a ~20mg dose of vaporized 5-MeO-DMT) but an object that exists but has no impact on any consciousness is literally impossible. You can’t even think of such an object as thoughts only appear in consciousness.
Philosophy:
Theravada proports that consciousness and objects co-arise. Neither precedes the other, neither is independent of each other, neither is the real and permanent thing. They both are dependent on each other. There are no objects without a consciousness to view them; there is no consciousness without an object to direct itself toward.
Everything is namarupa . Objects are just form (rupa ). Form is beheld by the mind. There is no external object you can point to; there is only a mental image of form that can be pointed to. Any assumption or belief that a form is an external object that exists in the world independent of you is just a belief that appears in the mind.
Regarding their theory of sense perception and the nature of the cognitive object, the Theravāda Abhidhamma view is a kind of direct realism that says we do perceive external physical objects.
Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 149.
Philosophy:
direct realism is the default position of unreflective people. Language itself is oriented toward direct realism. Even though I personally have no belief in it, I still tend to talk in terms of it when speaking with other people. A great deal of these quotes are the same way: the Buddha is addressing a tangent subject and is not going to go to linguistic lengths to avoid this issue. It’s very similar to using the concept of self in everyday conversation.
You don’t need the scriptures for this issue anyways. You don’t even need meditative attainments. All you have to do is sit down and look. Direct realism is clearly wrong. The thought “this object exists in a real world” only appears as a thought…a belief. Your mind is projecting this belief into your direct perceptions in the exact same way it is projecting a self into your experience. Just look.
If realism is true, then you should be able to bring me an object that exists apart from consciousness. Bring me such an object!
Philosophy:
I reject idealism, which I suspect is the Mahayana view, too. Realism and idealism are both wrong.