# Is the Theravada system one of direct realism?

**URL:** <https://classicaltheravada.org/t/is-the-theravada-system-one-of-direct-realism/229>\
**Category:** Abhidhamma\
**Created:** [May 3, 2022, 3:30pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/is-the-theravada-system-one-of-direct-realism/229 "2022-05-03T15:30:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 98

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Zans](https://classicaltheravada.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/7ab992/32.png) [@Zans](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Zans)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2023, 3:47pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/is-the-theravada-system-one-of-direct-realism/229/98 "2023-01-12T15:47:40Z")

</div>

> [@Right effort and anatta](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/right-effort-and-anatta/220/32):
>
> you’re simply not getting it.

I’m simply not getting it? You are on a Classical Theravada site, where the authoritative position is a realist one, in that objects do arise outside of consciousness, in the form of dhammas, which are ultimate reality, beneath the pannatti (concepts) that we normally understand. Yet you keep claiming objects do not exist outside of consciousness, and generally presenting a confused (and, I suspect drug fueled, since you believe vaping the hardcore hallucinogenic drug DMT is equivalent to jhana) version of subjective idealism, and then turning around and denying that it’s subjective idealism.

> [@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.

> [@Right effort and anatta](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/right-effort-and-anatta/220/32):
>
> all objects arise with consciousness. There is no object you can point to that arises independent of your consciousness.

> [@Philosophy](#):
>
> “Waking life” is just a different kind of dream.

> [@Philosophy](#):
>
> It’s just a recognition that “physical objects” and “self” are mental projections. I don’t believe the projections anymore.

> [@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.  
> …  
> As far as I can tell, this is consistent with Abhidhamma.

I have informed you, repeatedly, what the CT position is, and validated it with well sourced quotes, from unparalleled experts in the field, on the matter. For example of previously shared quotes:

> [@](#):
>
> 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.
> 
> "If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters. The whole Buddhist practical doctrine and discipline, which has the attainment of Nibbana as its final goal, is based on the recognition of the material world and the conscious living beings living therein.
> 
> Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 14, 172;
> 
> This theory ensures that the object of direct and immediate  
> perception is not an object of mental interpretation but something that is  
> ultimately real.  
> -Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 149.
> 
> Thus the Theravādins were able to establish the theory  
> of direct perception of the external object despite their recognizing the  
> theory of momentariness.  
> -ibid. page 146

> [@](#):
>
> dhamma theory is best described as dhamma realism  
> -The Theravada Abhidhamma: Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality  
> By Y. Karunadasa, chapter 2

> [@](#):
>
> 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. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…  
> -Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p 26

> [@](#):
>
> What emerges from this Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas  
> is a critical realism, one which (unlike idealism) recognises  
> the distinctness of the world from the experiencing subject  
> yet also distinguishes between those types of entities that  
> truly exist independently of the cognitive act and those that  
> owe their being to the act of cognition itself.  
> -Y. Karunadasa, The Dhamma Theory, page 38

You keep doing this, and then ending the conversation, rather than admitting you are wrong. For the umpteenth time, your position is **not** authoritative here, neither is mine, only the Classical Theravada position is. And, that position is a realist one, which is that objects exist outside of consciousness in the form of dhammas, that are not pannatti, as I’ve demonstrated again, and again, with quotes, yet, you think that I’m the one who is just not getting it?

You even responded to the quotes by experts, far beyond your knowledge of the Theravada, and beyond mine, for that matter, with:

> [@Philosophy](#):
>
> Maybe Classical Theravada is a realist system (but I’m not convinced - I see these quotes as reading in a specific view, the default worldly view at that),

So, you’re arguing that your understanding of the Theravada is the correct view, and this is that Theravada is some kind of subjective idealism, but not subjective idealism, in which objects do not exist outside of consciousness, and realism is wrong. You don’t believe the experts, and the entire Classical Theravada school that agrees with them, including the Visuddhimagga, commentaries, Abhidhammattha Sangaha, Abhidhamma itself, and so on. Further, you declare the Classical Theravada school’s view on reality as “the default worldly view,” of “unreflective people,” and, again, I’m the one who is still not getting it?

What?

Also, you seriously need to read the faq 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.

> 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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/is-the-theravada-system-one-of-direct-realism/229)._