Is the Theravada system one of direct realism?

Philosophy · January 5, 2023, 5:51pm

Ya, idk.

Every group seems to be filled with people content, even insistent, on being scholars of enlightenment or seekers of enlightenment rather than actually enlightened. Which, I’m not saying I am enlightened by any stretch so don’t take it that way…just that every once in a blue moon I pop my head out of my hole to see if there’s a group willing to actually look. The first place I looked was Western philosophy, where I found a lot of scholars of Plato, Descartes, Kant, and Wittgenstein…scholars of philosophy…but no philosophers.

I even looked at Zen, since they claim to be the school of direct pointing. I found a lot of scholars of Zen, practitioners of Zazen…but no one willing to just look. Plus they make you take Bodhisattva vows, which I’m sorry, I want to leave samsara. I want out of this place. I don’t want ten billion more lives. They’re right, my compassion for others does not stretch that far. Even one more life sounds unbearable. And they have outrageous claims about the authenticity of their literature. And every group I ever landed in was involved in a plethora of political causes. Bah, you guys probably know the problems with Mahayana better than I do, so ya…

I can just go read suttas and commentaries if I’m supposed to stick within the bounds of one ideology. There’s little value in that for me. The real Sangha-gem is having people to look at the truth with, and even though I poke my head out once in a blue moon, I’ve long accepted such a thing is heretical to how groups/consensus reality works in the first place - I won’t be finding it.

Philosophy · January 5, 2023, 6:04pm

And the other part of this is that having these conversations is too stressful anymore. I don’t even like interacting with people much anymore because it’s all stress. Having views on such things as realism and idealism is stress too. It’s all just stress, everywhere and everything. Only practice seems to bear fruit; even though it’s very stressful too, it’s at least the stress that seems to lead to letting go of stress.

Zans · January 5, 2023, 6:20pm

I agree, and I actually have a very personal version of what I consider enlightenment, correct dhamma, and so on, and some of it is not at all compatible with Classical Theravada. However, while I enjoy discussing personal philosophy, generally, I got sick of having zero framework, nor agreement on things. When everyone is just going on intuition, everything is a debate, and it’s hard to make progress while everyone is always on defense. This is why I am so very grateful for this site. This is where we come to get out of the fight. It is a place of agreement. A place to learn. A place where questions have official consistent, solid answers.

This forum is more like a class where you learn, and discuss, a specific doctrine, rather than an open group debate where everyone says whatever they want and argues. When I want to discuss random ideas, heretical views, etc. I certainly do so, as I’ve got plenty of them, I just don’t discuss them here.

As to the rest of your points: sounds like you’ve got some stress! I get it! I recommend jhana meditation. Especially since you say practice is stressful. It shouldn’t always be, especially jhana. Jhana is the opposite of stress. It is bliss. Further, you may consider speaking with a professional counseller about your stress. I do. I’ve had the same counseller since I was a kid lol! He’s been the counseller for my entire family for over 20 years. I see him even just for advice on career choices, and anything else that is difficult in life. It helps. Some work in that area, combined with Buddhism, and I’ve learned to become a lot more positive, relaxed, and happy.

As to philosphy, philosopical quietism of an extreme variety, where one simply has no position at all, like the Ajnana, is a common solution to finding realism, vs idealism and such ideas stressful. These ideas are part and parcel of philosophy. Hence, the only way around them, if they stress you, is seen, sometimes, as some kind of anti philosophy, like Ajnana. That said, the Buddha taught that we may simply drop all that stuff anyway, it’s all the thicket of views. So we may drop it all, and practice jhana, and mindfulness, and the path. We may keep the dhamma, and drop the philosopical debating.

I hope you find happiness

Philosophy · January 5, 2023, 6:50pm

I already do 3-4 hours a day of anapana practice (and wish I could do more). Lately it’s just another stress and not relaxing at all - I haven’t had a session that wasn’t drowsy for a couple weeks now. I’ve never been anywhere near a jhana. I won’t stop - meditation is subject to anicca as is everything and it’ll eventually happen, but its not been a source of relaxation either.

Zans · January 5, 2023, 7:24pm

I do a combination of Leigh Brasington’s very easy jhana, with Visuddhimagga hard jhana, and a pinch of Vimutimagga air nimitta jhana, refined by Shankman’s “The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation” and, “The Experience of Samadhi”. This is one of my heretical things. I fully admit I’m wrong, and the Visuddhimagga jhana is correct. Technically, I probably don’t even enter jhana at all, per the classical view lol! Since this is a CT forum, I’ll say my way is technically wrong, and, my recommendation is you follow the classical methods. Nonetheless, it brings me great, deep peace, and bliss.

I also do yoga sun salutations daily, and generate a feeling of general love during. Just loving and being loved. It is really nice. I cannot do full on metta, because the idea of loving evil people is too advanced for my level of understanding. So, I keep it just general, but intense, beautiful, love and being loved, not specific. But, here, too, whatever the CT version is, is the correct way, not my way.

Also, side note: I took the bodhisattva vows and yeah, lol! Irrational, impossible vows.

Save all beings, which are infinite. Impossible. Do so via enlightenment, but do this BEFORE I reach enlightenment. Impossible. So, never reach enlightenment, and help no one, and stay in samsara forever. But, the Mahayanists will argue this inside out using bizarre, inverted logic. You say the vows make no sense, they say they make sense ultimately. You say ultimately there are no beings to save, and no vows, so why take the vows, they say they make sense conventionally. You say neither make sense, they say you just don’t get it. Then riddle on about the emptiness of emptiness, Buddha nature, which isn’t or is an actual eternal thing, depending on who you ask, and their mood, and prajnaparamita and how dhammas never arise in the first place, but you should still take the vows, and on and on into inadvertently saying things that are vicious infinite regression, reductio ad absurdum, and other silly things.

I gave up on Mahayana a long time ago. The final piece of the puzzle was reading Stafford L Betty’s papers on Nagarjuna. Ironically, what got me over Yogacara was Nagarjuna and his philosophical descendent, Chandrakirti. They demonstrated that Yogacara, and all subjective idealism “All is mind” stuff is incoherent, and Betty demonstrated that Nagarjuna is incoherent (luckily, though, not the bits that refute idealism lol!).

Mahayana being either Madhyamaka or Yogacara, or the two combined into Madhyamaka-Yogacara, and pretty much nothing uninfluenced by these schools, except some eternalist stuff like Adi Buddha the eternal primordial Buddha and Tathagatarbha sutra interpretations which hold an existent, eternal Buddha nature as true, which are refuted already by Nagarjuna, that was that, for me. The Mahayana scaffolding fell. They attack all of reality, and undercut their own systems along the way.

Philosophy · January 5, 2023, 7:53pm

I reject idealism, which I suspect is the Mahayana view, too. Realism and idealism are both wrong. I spent like 20 years on this issue. There is no lasting “mind” for idealism to be correct. All there is is namarupa…a series of mind-moments and their content, but the delusion that the mind-moments are one, continuous mind is, well, a delusion. The delusion that the contents of those mind-moments exist outside the citta is also a delusion. Citta and contents arise together as one mind-moment.

As far as I can tell, this is consistent with Abhidhamma. Realism is just the default view and thus what people are very inclined to “read into” their interpretations. That’s all. That’s my take on it.

Zans · January 5, 2023, 8:28pm

In the Mahayana, which is clearly what influences your position, conventionally mind and matter both exist. Ultimately, neither exist. This is the two truths system they use to ostensibly avoid becoming incoherent. It absolutely confirms objective reality, and realism

Otherwise, what are you typing on? Who are you talking to on this forum? Your imagination? No one? Nothing? If you truly believe that, you’re wasting your time, and any philosophy built on anything but that things exist, at least to some degree, necessarily undercuts itself. If it isn’t real, you have no philosophy, and you wouldn’t bother telling anyone about it.

The Mahayanists saw this, and so acknowledged that there is a second truth, key word here: Truth. And that truth is that conventional reality does exist, it’s just empty. The pure idealists, the early Yogacara, were obliterated by Madhyamaka refutation, and ceased to exist entirely as a separate school for all intents and purposes. They were absorbed by the Madhyamaka.

See Chandrakirti for more Edit: original text paste was clipped, added full quote;

Chandrakirti’s works include the Prasannapadā—Sanskrit for “clear words”—a commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the Madhyamakāvatāra (his supplement to Nagarjuna’s text) and its auto-commentary. The Madhyamakāvatāra is used as the main sourcebook by most of the Tibetan monastic colleges in their studies of śūnyatā “emptiness” and the philosophy of the Madhyamaka school. -Wiki page on Chandrakirti

Some selections from a relevant work translated by C. W. Huntington, Jr. (Vijnanavada is the Yogacara or Mind Only school):

Candrakirti’s Madhyamakavatarabhasya 6.86-97

A Madhyamaka Critique of Vijnanavada Views of Consciousness

C. W. Huntington, Jr.

The word “only” has no capacity to negate the objective component of knowledge (jneya).

“(87)…the Lankavatara sutra substitutes “mind alone” for “mind alone is preeminent in the context of everyday experience.” The meaning of this scripture is not to be understood as a negation of form.”

…When the scripture says “mind alone exists; form does not,” this is taught to deny the importance of form and so forth, not to negate their very existence…

(88) If he intended to deny the existence of objective reality wen he said that [the world] is mind alone, then why would the mahatma declare, in the same text, that mind is produced from delusion (moha) and volitional action (karman)?

What sensible person would look at a passage from this same [Dasabhumikasutra] and imagine that consciousness exists as an independent thing (vastutah)? A notion like this is nothing more than dogmatic opinion. It follows that the expression “mind only” serves only to clarify that mind is the most significant element [in experience] This text should not be understood to assert that there is no objective form (rupa).

(90a-b) Even though objective form does indeed exist, it is not, like mind, an agent

This means that objective form is inert.

(90c-d) Therefore, denying any other agent besides mind is not the same as negating objective form altogether.

Some people take (the Samkhya) idea of “matter” (pradhana) and such things as agent, others believe it is mind, but everyone agrees that objective form is not an agent. To prevent pradhana and so forth from being taken as agent, it is explained that they do not have any such characteristic. Seeing that it has the capacity to serve as agent, one declares that mind alone is the agent, and in doing so one gains the high ground in any debate concerning the agency of pradhana and so forth. It is as if two kings desire power in a single land, and one of the two rivals is expelled while the other assumes control of the country. No matter who wins, the citizens are indispensable and would suffer no harm. So it is here, because objective form is indispensable to both, it suffers no loss. One can certainly maintain that objective form exists. Therefore, continuing in the same manner, the text declares:

(91) Within the context of everyday affairs, all five psychophysical constituents taken for granted in the world do exist. However, none of the five appears to a yogi who pursues illuminating knowledge of reality.

Therefore, seeing as this is so,

(92a-b) If form does not exist, then do not cling to the existence of mind; and if mind exists, then do not cling to the nonexistence of form.

When, for some reason, one does not admit the existence of form, then the existence of both is equally unreasonable and one must admit the nonexistence of mind, as well. And when one admits the existence of mind, then it is necessary to admit the existence of form, for both are conventionally real.

“O Subhuti, objective form is empty of inherent existence.” The same is said concerning the others, including consciousness. This is established both in scripture and through recourse to reason.

(93a-b) You destroy the relationship of the two truths, and even then your “real thing” (vastu) [i.e. mind] is not established, because it has been refuted.

In arguing that consciousness alone exists, without objective form, you destroy the relationship between conventional and ultimate truth as it has been explained. And even when you have destroyed this relationship between the two truths, your absolute reality will not be established. Why not? Once the reality [of form] is denied, your efforts [to establish consciousness] are pointless.

(93c-d) It would be better to hold, in conformity with this relationship, that in reality nothing arises; the arising of things is merely conventional.

(94a-b) Where a scripture declares that there is no external object and that mind (citta) alone appears as various things,

This scripture requires interpretation:

(94c-d) the refutation of form is provisional, directed specifically at those who are overly attached to it.

The meaning of such a text is strictly provisional. There are those who have lost themselves in clinging or anger or pride that is rooted in an extreme attachment to form; such people commit grievous errors and fail to cultivate merit or understanding. It is for these people, who are clinging, that the Blessed One taught “mind alone” even though it is not actually so. He did this in order to destroy the afflictions that are rooted in material form.
But how do you know this scripture is provisional, and not definitive?
Through both textual evidence and reason. The master has said precisely this:

(95a-b) The master has said that this [scripture] is of strictly provisional meaning; reason [as well] dictates it is of provisional meaning.

Not only is this scripture of provisional meaning, but also

(95c-d) This text makes it clear that other scriptures of this type are of provisional meaning.

And if one inquires which scriptures are of “of this type,” there is the following passage from the Sandhinirmocanasutra, explaining the “three natures”-the imaginary, the dependent, and the perfected:

The imaginary is nonexistent, only what is dependent exists.

(96) The Buddhas teach that the subject, or knower (jnatr), may easily be dispensed with once the object of knowledge, or the known (jneya), is no longer present. For this reason they begin by refuting the object of knowledge, for, when it is no longer present, refutation of the subject is already accomplished.

Blockquote

And Jay Garfield on Nagarjuna:

Like a dream, like an illusion, Like a city of Gandharvas, So have arising, abiding, And ceasing been explained. This chapter thus brings the first principal section of Mulamadhyamakakarika to a close, drawing together the threads spun in the earlier chapters to produce a thorough demonstration of the emptiness of the conventional phenomenal world. Having demon- strated the emptiness of conditions and their relations to their effects, change and impermanence, the elements, the aggregates, 56 and characteristics and their bases — in short, of all the fundamental Buddhist categories of analysis and explanation— Nagarjuna has now considered the totality they determine— dependent arising itself and the entire dependently arisen phenomenal world- 56. Sometimes translated as “heaps,” or “collections.” These are the groups of more basic phenomena into which complex phenomena such as persons are decom- posed in analysis. The decomposition is in principle bottomless — bundles of bundles of bundles. . . . See Chapters III and IV. Examination of the Conditioned 177 arguing that dependent arising and what is dependently arisen are themselves empty of inherent existence. This is a deep result. It again presages the doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness that is made explicit in Chapter XXIV, and it develops further the theme explored in Chapter I, namely, that when from the Madhyamika perspective one asserts that a thing is empty or that it is dependently arisen, one is not contrasting their status with the status of some other things that are inherently existent. Nor is one asserting that they are merely dependent on some more fundamental independent thing. Nor is one asserting that instead of having an independent essence things have as their essence dependence or emptiness, either or both of which exist in some other way. Rather, as far as one analyzes, one finds only dependence, relativity, and emptiness, and their dependence, relativity, and emptiness. But this is not to say either that emptiness, dependent arising or conventional phenomena are nonexistent — that they are hallucinations. Indeed it is to say the opposite. For the upshot of this critical analysis is that existence itself must be reconceived. What is said to be “like a dream, like an illusion” is their existence in the mode in which they are ordinarily perceived/conceived — as inherently existent. Inherent existence simply is an incoherent notion . 57 The only sense that “existence” can be given is a conventional, relative sense. And in demonstrating that phenomena have exactly that kind of existence and that dependent arising has exactly that kind of existence, we recover the existence of phenomenal reality in the context of emptiness.

-Jay Garfield, Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, VII.56

By reason of the cessation of one factor in the twelvefold chain, another successor factor fails to arise. Thus does this entire mass of suffering completely cease.
-MKK 26.12 Commentary by Jay Garfield:

If suffering had an essence,

Its cessation would not exist.

So if an essence is posited,

One denies cessation.

Similarly, the third noble truth is the truth of cessation. But inherently existent things cannot cease. Empty ones can. Nagarjuna’s
analysis thus explains the third truth; the reifier contradicts it.

If the path had an essence,

Cultivation would not be appropriate.

If this path is indeed cultivated,

It cannot have an essence.

If suffering, arising, and
Ceasing are nonexistent,

By what path could one seek
To obtain the cessation of suffering?

The fourth truth is the truth of the path. Again, the path only
makes sense, and cultivation of the path is only possible, if suffer-
ing is impermanent and alleviable and if the nature of mind is
empty and hence malleable. The path, after all, is a path from
suffering and to awakening. If the former cannot cease and the
latter does not depend on cultivation, the path is nonexistent. But
it is the analysis in terms of emptiness that makes this coherent. An
> analysis on which either the phenomena were inherently existent
> or on which emptiness was and the phenomena were therefore
> nonexistent would make nonsense of the Four Noble Truths.

Blockquote

Philosophy · January 5, 2023, 8:43pm

I don’t say nothing exists. Namarupa exists. That’s all that exists. I can’t deny that the objects of experience exist…I only recognize that they exist as objects of experience. I don’t take the extra and unnecessary step of saying they exist independently, on their own, in a world with other objects. Technically I don’t even deny that they do that either; my position is epistemological rather than metaphysical: there’s no knowledge possible of objects existing in an external world apart from consciousness, as consciousness is the very instrument by which all knowledge is known to us.
In a dream, do you talk to dream characters? It’s just much easier to recognize that dream characters are heaps of the five aggregates…fleeting…not ultimately with substance…than it is in this dream, with its strong sense of memory and self. It’s not that it’s a waste, it’s just that I see myself and people in that way. When in a dream, you talk to dream characters. When in this place, you talk to these characters.
I’m typing on namarupa and talking to namarupa. The form of a keyboard, the form of letters on a screen that I form, using perception, into a coherent linguistic understanding. Form =/= physical object. The idea of physical object is superfluous and adds nothing of understanding, except perhaps with the heuristic of object permanence we learn as a child.

I’ll read and respond to your quotes on Chandrakirti and Nagarjuna in a bit. I’m still at work! I’m open to my views falling under any label; I just don’t like how the Mahayana practices or claims that their sutras are from the historical Buddha when clearly they’re later additions. I’d be disappointed if that’s an accurate label for what I see, but I won’t reject it if it is.

Zans · January 5, 2023, 9:07pm

You lean very skeptical on all of these issues, but then affirm the reality, and validity, of consciousness, even if by accident. You imply consciousness is real, and reliable. If it weren’t you’d have no reason to say “there’s no knowledge possible of objects existing in an external world apart from consciousness, consciousness is the very instrument by which all knowledge is known to us.” And etc. This confirms that consciousness is and/or does impart knowledge. This is a very Advaita Vedanta/Yogacara type view. It is not tenable. Either mind and matter exist, or neither exist. Chandrakirti demonstrated this in the quotes above, and it becomes clear when we notice that the word mind has no meaning apart from matter, and vice versa, and many other issues that make this incoherent.

That said, if you truly feel that your consciousness has any reality or validity, please keep in mind that this then means you should be able to use that consciousness to do the Classical Theravada practices that allow you to become an arahant and see the objective world that underlies your conceptual world of pannatti that you currently experience. You will then confirm the objective reality that makes up the world. That, or you should be able to percieve some other valid, real perception. If this is impossible, then consciousness is not reliable at all.

If you say consciousness cannot be trusted in these ways, you undercut the validity, reality and reliability of your own consciousness, and, since the only thing you acknowledge is your own consciousness, and it would then be invalid, you must retreat to Ajnana style skepticism.

In other words, if consciousness is real, then so is perception, and percieved objects. There is no way to confirm that mind consciousness is real, and somehow vision consciousness is unreliable. Thinking is just a sense. We cannot truly say “My thoughts are real, I know, but I don’t know about what I see.” We cannot say one sense is real and the others fake. A thought is just as real as a sight, just as verifiable. Your own mind could be a mere illusion, and everything else could be real. Or vice versa. Picking one over the other is untenable.

So, either mind, and all the senses are real, including their perceptions, or you’ve no position at all.

Further, dreams only make sense when held up to the comparison of real life. Without real life, the word dream is meaningless. Thus, you acknowledge more than just your own consciousness, and invalidate your position. And, even then, to answer your question, when I realize I’m dreaming, no, I don’t talk to dream characters like I talk to real people. If I realized I was dreaming while typing some boring (compared to exciting dreams) message like this, or having a conversation, I’d drop it and go fly around and have fun. In real life, I cannot fly.

Edit: This reminds me, I once had a dream I was trying to convince other dream characters that I was dreaming lol! Spent the dream trying to fly for a group of people, but kept just going like 20 feet up and coming back down. For some reason they were unconvinced. I woke up thinking that was asinine and a waste of a good dream lol!

Another time I gave a coworker a slip of paper with the words written on it with magical letters: “This is a dream.” And challenged her: “if this isn’t a dream, prove it by giving me this on monday!” Totally forgot about the dream over the weekend. Saw the coworker on monday and remembered. I said, “Do you have something for me?” She looked at me like I had four eyes lol! Another wasted dream spent trying to convince people that don’t exist that they don’t exist! Quite ridiculous. The same issue applies to believing no one is real. I wouldn’t waste time trying to convince them, it would be irrational.

Philosophy · January 5, 2023, 9:49pm

You lean very skeptical on all of these issues, but then affirm the reality, and validity, of consciousness, even if by accident. You imply consciousness is real, and reliable.

All the 5 khandas are “real.” Like, it’s undeniable that an experience is happening, and that the experience at this moment is thus. I deny that consciousness has existence independent of its objects. All knowledge seems to run through consciousness as all knowledge is of consciousness and its objects. I suspect there’s something else beyond consciousness and its objects in the form of nibbana, which I’ll talk about more below. But on this side of nibbana, it’s all namarupa.

This confirms that consciousness is and/or does impart knowledge.

Consciousness is the knower, at least that’s the subjective experience. Its objects are what is known, at least that’s the subjective experience as well.

That said, if you truly feel that your consciousness has any reality or validity, please keep in mind that this then means you should be able to use that consciousness to do the Classical Theravada practices that allow you to become an arahant and see the objective world that underlies your conceptual world of pannatti that you currently experience. You will then confirm the objective reality that makes up the world. That, or you should be able to percieve some other valid, real perception. If this is impossible, then consciousness is not reliable at all.

I suspect nibbana is the extinguishment of consciousness and thus objects as well. It’s unconditioned, and since all the khandas are conditioned, it’s outside all the khandas. The arupajhanas still have consciousness-object as their theme. The object is just very subtle. “Nothingness” is still an object. Thus, no, I don’t believe consciousness to be “reliable” in this way. It cannot know nibbana.

I also suspect that the mind of an arahant is beyond comprehension of the unenlightened for this reason. The way it looks like on this side of things is that consciousness is the knower and there is no knower outside consciousness.

In other words, if consciousness is real, then so is perception, and percieved objects.

Yes, this is true. I never deny this. You’re still conflating the forms you perceive with physical objects though. You’re still assuming direct realism in order to prove direct realism. Where I’m coming from doesn’t assume a view, it just looks at what is present, here and now, and then I do my best to describe it with words. I don’t “see” physical objects. I just see forms. “That form is a physical object that exists independently of me” is a thought that is projected onto the perception, but it doesn’t come with the direct perception itself. It’s added on in the mind. The idea of self works the same way, just more subtly.

Further, dreams only make sense when held up to the comparison of real life. Without real life, the word dream is meaningless.

Well, no, that’s not true. “Waking life” is just a different kind of dream. The essential quality of it: experienced, is the same, but there is a different subjective quality to this place. Memory is much stronger/more prominent so it is experienced as having a continuity, independent existence, and sense of permanence. But none of that really is the case, it’s just the result of the prominence of memory compared to a nighttime dream.

This reminds me, I once had a dream I was trying to convince other dream characters that I was dreaming lol! Spent the dream trying to fly for a group of people, but kept just going like 20 feet up and coming back down. For some reason they were unconvinced. I woke up thinking that was asinine and a waste of a good dream lol!

I had a similar dream once. I walked up a wall and they weren’t convinced.

That’s basically what’s happening now. Except there’s no “real life” to wake up to. It’s just all dreams. Rebirth is just changing dreams. Going to sleep is just changing dreams. There’s just a series of mind moments, and the theme of them is such that they give the illusion of a permanent, objective world of impermanent, independently existing objects that almost everyone calls “the real world.” But it can be likened to another dream: it’s impermanent, unserious, made of components that the mind assembles into cohesive but illusory perceptions, etc.

In real life, I cannot fly.

Now who’s going against the suttas? I suspect you’d say people can’t fly in real life and not just yourself…but there’s tons of examples of the Buddha and arahants doing all sorts of supernormal things.

Zans · January 6, 2023, 2:39am

I think you should take a break from philosophy. Relax, learn to cook a fun dish, go for walks, and learn to enter jhana. Forget all this Mahayana stuff. Learn to be happy

I was on your path, and believed exactly what you do, for 15 years. It led to many headaches and a lot of confusion, and was bad for my life. Best to stop now.

RobertK · January 6, 2023, 4:22am

This topic about sarupato is relevant:

Zan quotes bhikkhu Bodhi

“It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data.”

Philosophy · January 6, 2023, 11:00am

I haven’t been into philosophy for years, tbh. Its all been meditation lately. I figured this particular subject out a while ago.

There’s nothing negative about it, except when I try to talk to other people about it lol. It doesn’t cause me stress. The only part that causes me stress is trying to explain it. I have to enter the thicket of views, while this knowledge was entered into outside such a thicket. I stopped intellection about it and just looked at the world as it is. This was what happened when I left views, when I stopped projecting the mind into what I perceive, and instead just looked. To describe it I had to use some intellection again, but it still doesn’t require projecting preconceptions and beliefs onto perceptions.

It’s just a recognition that “physical objects” and “self” are mental projections. I don’t believe the projections anymore. It’s not a belief or view, it’s the abandoning of a belief in objects being “out there” and a self. And the root delusion of them both: the delusion of continuity. It’s clear as day and with focus these beliefs are just seen through (not saying they’re not still deeply ingrained in my unconscious mind though!).

There’s the appearance of forms and there’s a cognitive discernment of their properties (perception). But unlike the color red or the smoothness of a surface, “physical object independent of consciousness” is a sankhara projected onto the object. That’s the difference.

There’s nothing unhealthy about this and it’s the view most consistent with Abhidhamma as I understand it. I’m not as well read and cannot readily quote things like many of the people on this forum though. For me that’s not a problem: scriptures and commentaries are super useful in that they can point to something I’m missing but ultimately I’m committed to looking, directly, for myself. And that’s what I understand to be the Buddha’s way. He’ll point you in the right direction but you’re going to have to look for yourself. And only by seeing for yourself will you fully understand. This seems to be the path of those “liberated by wisdom” anyways.

Yogacara and Mahayana are idealists, which I also reject. Honestly, I think you’re mistaking this as idealism, since it’s not realism, and not understanding fully. And again, this isn’t really a “view.” It’s direct seeing. You only need to look at experience without bias…look directly…don’t project ideas onto the world…notice the ideas you’re projecting onto the world. I notice “physical object,” “self and other,” and “continuity” are all ideas I project.

Philosophy · January 6, 2023, 11:04am

That’s interesting. What set of things are included in the dhammas of this sort?

If my understanding of nibbana is correct (not saying it is), and nibbana is extinguishment of namarupa, which means consciousness and its objects, then something must remain. And I use the term “something” very loosely. Dhammas seems like the answer.

Zans · January 6, 2023, 4:33pm

Just to be clear, I’m trying to help you. The path you walk leads to, at best, confusion, stress, slacking off, bad habits, cherry picking, and a sad life, and, at worst, to really messing up your life. I’m going to try to explain this to you, again, in the hopes that you will be helped out of this rut you are in, but are mistaking for a vehicle.

Okay, then this means you must drop all philosophy. The exact same reasoning by which you conclude all things are mental projections undercuts this position. It self refutes. You have no valid position.

Think about it: you have the thought “all physical objects are mental projections.” Ok, if this is valid, then so is the thought, “All physical objects are mind independent.” They have the exact same amount of proof, once proof is thrown out, that is. In actuality, much more proof points to physical objects being real, and mind independent. But I digress.

The point is, there is no line of reasoning to claim all is a projection of mind that can’t also be used to claim that the mind is the illusion, and physical reality is what is real, or both are real, or neither, and so on. This extreme skepticism about reality turns the sword of doubt on mind, too. If you don’t trust that your mind is telling you to eat, and pay bills, which are mind independent (if they weren’t assumed as such, your mind would fill your belly when you get hungry, rather than telling you to go get food, etc.), you cannot trust this same mind to tell you that this very mind is real, either.

If you will say mind is not real, then, it doesn’t exist, and it cannot project anything at all. Then, you’re claim of mind projected objects is talking incoherent religious babble: all things that normally seem to exist do not exist, because they are projections of mind. This mind also does not exist.

How do you not see that this is self refuting, and extreme nihilism, to boot?

You have backed yourself into a skeptic/ajnana corner and don’t understand this. All proof, human instinct, common sense, and so on leads towards realism at least to some degree. You don’t like that, so you say all proof is invalid, it all comes from mind. Thus, mind is invalid, and cannot prove itself, either. You’ve thrown out all things that could prove the mind, and are considering mind to be proof. You cannot have one without the other. No matter, then no mind, either. Either mind and its common sense assumptions about reality are valid, to some degree, or neither are valid, you have no position whatsoever.

Even if you became able to live like in a dream, flying around, making food appear in your belly, time traveling, and whatever you can imagine, that still leads to having no position. All proofs cease to have meaning. All words cease to have meaning. Holding onto a bunch of Mahayana religious jargon about skandhas and stuff would be asinine. If all is truly unreal, then so is all this silliness. The only place to go from there is having no position at all. Or it would lead to being a god, more on this, later in the post.

Put another way:

Me: is all mind (projections of mind)?

You: Yes.

Me: Ok, is mind real and existent?

You: Yes.

Me: Then so is everything else, because all proofs for mind rely on the exact same apparatus and logic that prove physical reality. It’s like saying the metric side of a ruler is imaginary, and doesn’t exist, but the imperial side is real. Nonsense. Either the ruler is real, or it isn’t. Mind either proves both physical reality and itself, or is totally invalid, because it can think and percieve about physical reality and itself in the exact same ways.

Further, you couldn’t believe the statement “all is a projection of mind” because you’ve declared projections of mind unreal/non existent. So, that statement could not possibly be true, even if we ignore the incoherencies of the idea pointed out above.

I know you’ll say you don’t believe that, because you don’t believe mind exists, but I had to cover it, because your philosophy is all over the place. So, here’s a more likely scenario:

Me: is all mind (projections of mind)?

You: Yes.

Me: Ok, is mind real and existent?

You: No.

Me: Well, from the position that all is mind (projections of), now that mind is unreal and non existent, this literally means nothing exists whatsoever. This is a non position. It self refutes. This is a faith based position. You may as well say everything is god, and be done with it. Especially if you posit some super soul or ultimate reality beyond mind and matter, and everything, as the cause for all this illusion. Just call it god and leave off all this Buddhist jargon.

I know you’re going to continue believing these strange ideas. You don’t even understand that you’re promoting solipsism, subjective idealism, advaita vedanta, and yogacara type stuff, and then promoting extreme nihilism. So, I challenge you to prove it to yourself.

Prove it. Prove that objects are only projections of your mind. Don’t pay your electric bill. It’s a mere projection. If you truly don’t think about it, your power should stay on. When you’re hungry, visualize food into your stomach. Make yourself a hundred feet tall. Do the things you should be able to do if life is just a dream.

If you are successful, words are meaningless, proof is meaningless, nothing could possibly matter, nor have meaning. Holding onto these Mahayana ideas and announcing “All things are a projection of mind” would be absurd. You would still be hard pressed to prove that reality is unreal/non existent though lol! This would prove that things are under your control, not that they don’t exist. You’d basically prove you’re god, because surely you’d be able to do anything, and know anything. Then, you’d realize everything is real, because you, god, are real. How nice would that be?

Or, if you manage to prove things are like a dream, and you can do the above, but otherwise have to follow rules, or randomness rules your life, you’d still be unable to prove that there’s no objective reason for this. Just because it seems all random and dream like to you, doesn’t mean it actually is. You could be stuck in an illusion created by a wizard that covers up the truth, which is why there’s things you don’t control. Further, it also doesn’t prove that this random dream like quality of your reality isn’t physical, and real. If there’s anything you can’t do, and knowledge you can’t have, like what reality, then, is, you have no way to prove that these aren’t external to yourself, in some sense. The only being who could successfully, entirely refute reality, would be a god, with exponentially more knowledge and thinking capacity than we have. But they’d still have to admit they exist, and by extension, the things they create exist, too.

Since I know you’ll just argue a bunch of ideas to justify why reality isn’t real, and yet, inexplicably, reality still follows a ton of rules that are unbreakable, yet, life is a dream, just with a ton of rules, etc. I issue another challenge:

Keep this philosophy that there is no physical world and all is a projection of mind, and so on, with ZERO language, nor attention. Never think about it, write about it, read about it, talk about it, visualize it, nor anything at all. Do this for years. See if it has any existence whatsoever without you making it up, feeding it, and pretending it is true.

Your entire position is essentially Yogacara, while denying mind exists, and denying that conventional/commonsense reality exists. This relies on positing that mind exists and can be aware of itself. This, you deny, but yet again, if mind doesn’t exist, then your position is extreme nihilism, since you declared physical objects projections of mind, and mind as non existent. Here is Chandrakirti on your position, that all is just projections of mind alone. I’ve bolded a particularly relevant point:

[Refutation of a noncognized entity (reflexive awareness) as the ultimate truth]

(72) If this “dependent entity” exists in the absence of both subject and object, then who is aware of its existence? It would be unacceptable to assert that it exists unapprehended.

(73) It is not proven that [a cognition] is aware of itself. Nor can this be proven by using the subsequent memory [of a previous event as evidence], for in this case the thesis intended to substantiate your claim itself embodies an unproven premise, and therefore it cannot be admitted [as valid proof].

(76) Therefore, without [this notion of] reflexive awareness who (or what) will apprehend your dependent [form]? The actor, the object [of the action], and the action are not identical, and for this reason it is illogical to maintain that [a cognition] apprehends itself.

(77) However, if the entity which is [a manifestation of this] dependent form (paratantrarupavastu) exists without ever having been produced or cognized, then why should our opponent insist that [belief in] the son of a barren woman is irrational? What harm could the son of a barren woman inflict on him [that he has not already suffered through belief in his concept of dependent form]?

(78) And in the event that this dependent [form] in no way whatsoever exists, then what will function as the cause for the screen [of conventional truth]? All the ordered structure of everyday experience is laid waste by this clinging to a real substance inherent in our opponents philosophical views.

[The true meaning of teachings on “mind alone”]

(79) There is no means of finding peace for those walking outside the path trodden by the master Nagarjuna. Such people have strayed from the truth of the screen and from the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest meaning], and on account of this they will never be free.

(80) Conventional truth is the means, the truth of the highest meaning is the goal, and one who does not appreciate the distinction between these two treads a wrong path through his reified concepts.

(81) We [Madhyamikas] do not have the same attitude toward our [concept of] the screen as you [Yogacarins] have toward your [concept of] dependent being (paratantrabhava). With reference to the nature of everyday experience, we say: “Even though things do not exist, they exist” - and this is done for a specified purpose.

(82) [The things of the world] do not exist for the saints who have abandoned the pyschophysical aggregates and found peace. If, in a similar manner, they did not exist in the context of everyday experience, then we would not maintain that they do - even in this qualified sense.

(83) If everyday experience poses no threat to you, then you may persist in this denial of the evidence provided by such experience. Quarrel with the evidence of everyday experience, and afterward we will rely on the winner.

Philosophy · January 6, 2023, 4:45pm

Think about it: you have the thought “all physical objects are mental projections.” Ok, if this is valid, then so is the thought, “All physical objects are mind independent.” They have the exact same amount of proof, once proof is thrown out, that is. In actuality, much more proof points to physical objects being real, and mind independent. But I digress

No, they’re not equivalent. Once assumptions are thrown out, you can literally watch the mind projecting the belief of physical object onto its objects just as you can watch it projecting the concept of “self” on (certain) objects. This idea of physical objects only occurs mentally.

But I think I’m going to end this here. You’re straw manning my position and conflating it with another position you have in your mind. Our entire conversation has been a roundabout where I try to correct your assumptions about what I’m saying over and over.

You’re responding to Yogacara or Mahayana here and not really responding to me and I’m not skilled enough to lead someone to looking directly without projections. I don’t hold an idealist position where mind exists independently of objects. I hold what I think is the Abhidhamma position where mind and objects co-arise. You can’t have one without the other. They both arise and fall extremely quickly in a series of mind moments, one mind moment conditioning further mind moments, in such a way that they give the delusion of continuity…but their atomic elements are instantaneous moments that arise and pass and condition further moments. But there’s not a independent, continuously existing mind in the sense that Yogacara or Madyamaka or idealists seem to mean it.

My view is limited by my attainments, which are few, in the same way a tribesman’s view of Saturn is limited. When I get further along, aka acquire a telescope, maybe my view will change. But for now I know what I see and you’re not understanding it as its own thing…you’re trying to place it into a box you’ve already made ready for it. I know what I’m saying is the case because it’s literally the direct experience. The mind only comes in when trying to describe it.

So, I’m out. Good luck Zans.

Zans · January 6, 2023, 5:32pm

Not really, I’ve covered an array of positions, from advaita and Yogacara, to Nihilism, Ajnana, realism, idealism, theism, and just general, down to earth reasoning, and on and on. In fact the bulk of my arguments are just down to earth reasoning, and replying to specifically your statements, not some straw man. Ironically, you are straw manning my position as being only relevant to Mahayana.

No, you literally declared physical objects to be projections of mind, and life to be a dream lol! Your initial post was also pure Yogacara Mahayana (which you bizarrely call “Theravada”). I sincerely don’t think you understand what each school teaches, and you are very confused.

This is literally the Yogacara, Mahayana position, yet you cannot grasp this. You also seem to believe you have some unique philosphy, but inexplicably don’t notice that it uses the exact terminlology and conclusions that Mahyana Buddhism uses. You actually sound like you’re quoting or at least paraphrasing Mahayana texts. It’s baffling that you don’t see this. If you do have some totally unique philosophy, you utterly failed to delineate it from the Mahayana position.

Hence, a refutation of Yogacara, and general Mahayana, refutes you, too. But just to be safe, I also refuted you in several common sense ways too, to be as broad and general as possible, since your philosphy is all over the place. I even pointed out the logical and linguistic problems with your statements that had nothing to do with Yogacara, nor any other specific philosophy. I relied on just plain common sense, and following the dots to explain the final results of your extreme skepticism that inevitably cause it to undercut itself.

Correct, because your ideas about projections are based on delusions. This is certainly related to this fact:

Once you enter jhana, you’ll see through all of your strange ideas.

Back to the topic at hand:

What actually happened, is I made you uncomfortable with your philosophy, even if only subconsciously. So much so that you are using confirmation bias to ignore the broad scope of my refutation, and so you are withdrawing, on the false pretenses that 1.) my refutation is strictly about Mahayana, and, 2.) that your position is not Mahayana.

This is a good thing! This is because the path you’re on leads to delusion, and further deepening of samsara, so you should be very uncomfortable with it! Good luck. I sincerely hope you get over these ideas. I also hope you become less stressful, become happy and enjoy your life

As to your philosophy, I’ve done all I can, because you sound exactly like I did for 15 years, and I wanted to help you get over that. But, there’s nothing else to say on the matter, so I won’t be responding to this stuff any more. Hopefully someone else can refute you in a way that breaks through your delusions. Or, hopefully my refutations sink in, and you drop this stuff.

Any time you want to talk Classical Theravada, not refute it, and, not promote your own personal philosophy, but just talk about Classical Theravada, or learn about it, I hope to hear from you again

Philosophy · January 6, 2023, 5:48pm

Ok, for real, last message.

No, you haven’t threatened or made me question what I’m saying. Any time I have doubts about what I’m saying I can sit down, I can shut up, and I can just look at what I see. I see the perceptions, the forms, of a screen and keyboard. Any ideas about them being physical objects in the “real world” appear as ideas. You can’t threaten that except by killing me or knocking me unconscious I guess. There’s nothing to question in direct seeing.

I’m only tired of having this conversation with people, because no one ever understands it. It appears “all over the place” because it’s not familiar to you…because you’re looking to place this into something you already know. I’m not claiming this is unique; I’m claiming that it doesn’t resemble any philosophy you have in your mind. I’m claiming you don’t understand it and I’m not skilled enough to get you to understand it. You have a framework pre-built for this topic and I’m simply not fitting into it. Talking about how life is a dream is just a metaphor that, yes, comes from the Mahayana but that borrowing their metaphor does not make my view the same as their’s. I’m just borrowing their metaphor.

Any time you want to talk Classical Theravada, not refute it , and, not promote your own personal philosophy, but just talk about Classical Theravada, or learn about it, I hope to hear from you again

Stop with this. I never came here to refute Classical Theravada. You’re making this…political…by creating an image of me as some nasty heretic come here to refute your religion. From what I understand of Abhidhamma, my view is consistent with it. Maybe it’s not, but claiming I came here to refute Classical Theravada is just underhanded.

This is also why I’m really tired of this conversation - you believe your thoughts about me and my views on almost everything, and those thoughts about me are just proliferating like crazy. It’s exhausting.

As to your philosophy, I’ve done all I can, because you sound exactly like I did for 15 years, and I wanted to help you get over that.

Ya, exactly, you have this idea in your head. You’re not responding to me, you’re responding to something in your head that sounds similar. You have come with a preconception of what I’m saying being similar to something you believed in the past and are responding to that. You’re not having a conversation with the person actually present.

So ya, for real, last message. I’m exhausted.

Zans · January 6, 2023, 6:07pm

You need to reread the main page for this forum:

Who Should Join
We are looking for people who are interested in Classical Theravāda who are not afraid of dogmatism as it relates to Classical Theravāda. We are not looking to be convinced about alternate faiths, even those within “The Wide Range of Buddhism”. Please do not publicize this website, but only share by word of mouth. We are refugees from other groups looking to discuss and praise Classical Theravāda. If this group is for you, we welcome you. Please read the FAQ before joining.

You are doing precisely what this says not to do. Your personal philosophy is an alternate faith within the wide range of Buddhism. It is incompatible with the Classical Theravada, and is not appropriate for you to proselytize on this forum. I was only pointing this out. If this was some general Buddhism forum, you wouldn’t have heard a peep about this from me. I only continued to respond to you after the first time I pointed this out because you reminded me of myself and I felt bad for you.

You seriously need to do some self analysis, and some reading, and learning. Your education on Buddhism is grossly behind your personal interpretations of it, and you’re mixing and mistaking Mahayana Buddhism for your own ideas, which you then seem to think are Theravada.

Further, if you really had no doubts in your personal enlightenment and understanding of your own philosophy, as you seem to imply, you wouldn’t be mixing it with Mahayana Buddhism, denying this, and arguing with morons, like me, on the internet lol!

Seriously though, I say all of this out of compassion. I truly hope you learn more, and I wish you much metta and happiness

Also read the faq for this forum. You’ve been in violation of the rules this entire time. Again, I was only putting up with it to help you, and that’s after I clearly explained to you the rules of the site, and provided verified evidence as to why your position was against the rules, and that was at the very beginning of our conversation. You chose to ignore it. See below, from the faq, compared to your accusations.

FAQ
This website forum was created for those who are in favor of Classical Theravāda which will be known as CT and the members as CT’ers. CT was created for those who seek a supportive environment or safe haven to discuss such topics in English without the entanglements of other “schools” which seem to be the majority in the English Dhamma world.

Who Should Not Join?
If you are not in favor of Classical Theravāda, which means the full Tipitaka including Abhidhamma with the commentary explanations and most of the sub-commentaries, it would be best join another group such as Dhammawheel or Suttacentral.

Disqualification Checklist:

Are you one who passionately follows other sects of Buddhism?
Do you wish to spread these other nonCT teachings here?
What if I’m not a pure orthodox Theravādan?
Some who want to learn CT but not convert are welcome, but “learning” must be the intent rather than “sharing”. It is a one-way experience if you wish to join.

Zans · January 6, 2023, 7:52pm

I missed this the first time I read your response. Everything makes sense now. You use hallucinogens. And one of the hardest ones on earth, DMT! Holy crud! That’s why you’re so confused. That’s why no one understands you. Your philosophy is infected by twisted drug experiences, and so what you mean by things you write isn’t how other people understand those same words.

Had I spotted this before I wouldn’t have bothered trying to explain everything to you. Please forget everything I said and go see a sober, clear headed counselor (ie not one who is themselves a drug user nor condones drug use), and never do drugs again. Tell the counselor about your drug use, and all the bizarre ideas you believe you have learned about reality.

Even if you will deny using them, or pretend you were joking, to save face, your post is recommending the use of this hard core drug, as you present it as an equivalent to the arupa jhanas, and even explained ingestion method, specific drug, and dose size to ostensibly achieve the equivalent of arupa jhana. Wildly inappropriate. And laughably false information, no drug can achieve anything remotely like jhana.

5-MeO-DMT or O-methyl-bufotenin is a psychedelic of the tryptamine class. It is found in a wide variety of plant species, and also is secreted by the glands of at least one toad species, the Colorado River toad. Like its close relatives DMT and bufotenin, it has been used as an entheogen in South America.
-Wikipedia

This also explains your inability to separate your concepts, ideas, and thoughts, from raw consciousness. You have completely blended them, and believe them to be the same. If you truly dropped all language and concepts about your ideas, and went drug free, and practiced actual jhana, for a year or more, all of your wrong ideas about reality would evaporate, entirely. You would see that consciousness, alone, has no concepts, and “direct seeing” is a concept that you made up.

“Appear as ideas” This proves my point. I am suggesting you drop all ideas, and you are mistaking the idea of “appear as ideas” for something other than yet another idea. You are not describing dropping all ideas and concepts, you’re describing sitting down and mulling over your ideas and concepts.

This is another perfect demonstration of the fact that you have zero understanding of what raw consciousness is. You clearly blend consciousness with ideas, concepts and such, and falsely believe you’ve thrown out assumptions. In reality, you’re describing the process of being wrapped up in assumptions.