Buddhism and Realism

[rossum]

You are mistaking the movement of time with change within the fingers. This seems to be an ongoing problem for you: you constantly apply terms that do not fall with the definition of the “nature” or “process” to the thing itself.

As you have probably noticed, I have great difficulties with “the thing itself”. There is no “thing itself” above any beyond the parts of which that thing is composed. A finger is composed of atoms; remove all the individual atoms and there is no “finger itself” left above and beyond the atoms. We use the word “finger” as a convenient abbreviation for a complete part-by-part description of a finger. The word is merely a convenient abbreviation to refer to the object in question.

The terms describe my temporal relation, not the thing itself.

To go back to my image of the virtual reality display we have inside our heads, we can never know the thing itself, all we can know is the image of the thing we have constructed based on our sensory (name removed by moderator)uts. All that we can describe is our relation (sensory (name removed by moderator)uts) with the thing and not the thing itself. There is no way we can directly perceive the thing itself - all we can ever perceive are electrical impulses coming in along our sensory nerves. Those electrical impulses are not any actual object in the real world outside our heads.

The image is compound, the imagining is not. If the imagining were compound, one would have to imagine each individual trait and then compile them step by step. The imagining is simple, because it is a single act and movement of the will.

Here we will have to disagree. A meditative analysis of our imagining will show that it is compound, not singular.

You’re using too narrow a definition of “real”. You seem to be mistaking “real” for “actually existing materially”, but that is not a sufficient definition. The unicorn is “real” in the imagination: it is a real image, and a real idea. It just doesn’t exist outside the mind, except by some artistic representation.

You are using too wide a definition of “real”.

You and I have literally never seen the same mountains or rivers, but we can speak of them as concepts and understand eachother because the ideas are stable, and the mind forms a real concept by abstracting from our experiences of mountains and rivers.

I would not say “stable”, rather “similar enough that communication is possible”. A trained geologist will have a far more complex concept of “mountain” than I do. Where our concepts overlap we can communicate; where our concepts do not overlap then I will be at a loss to understand what the geologist is saying.

Neither or our concepts of “mountain” have to be stable. The geologist will be reading new things about mountains in the geological literature and I will be learning things about mountains. As long as there is some overlap then we can communicate, even though the area of overlap may change.

Extinguishing the “I” does not mean that there was a real “I” to extinguish, but to extinguish the faulty perception of “I”,

Agreed.

rossum

 

[Ghosty]

As you have probably noticed, I have great difficulties with “the thing itself”. There is no “thing itself” above any beyond the parts of which that thing is composed. A finger is composed of atoms; remove all the individual atoms and there is no “finger itself” left above and beyond the atoms. We use the word “finger” as a convenient abbreviation for a complete part-by-part description of a finger. The word is merely a convenient abbreviation to refer to the object in question.

As I pointed out before, it’s irrelevant whether you believe in a “thing itself” or not. You used the term process to describe what I would call things, and the approach I’m using applies to either conception. You are applying terms to the process that don’t enter into the process.

To go back to my image of the virtual reality display we have inside our heads, we can never know the thing itself, all we can know is the image of the thing we have constructed based on our sensory (name removed by moderator)uts. All that we can describe is our relation (sensory (name removed by moderator)uts) with the thing and not the thing itself. There is no way we can directly perceive the thing itself - all we can ever perceive are electrical impulses coming in along our sensory nerves. Those electrical impulses are not any actual object in the real world outside our heads.

Again, this is irrelevant. Whether it’s a process, an illusion, or a real thing makes no difference. You are still avoiding reasonable engagement in favor of playing games with words.

Here we will have to disagree. A meditative analysis of our imagining will show that it is compound, not singular.

Then you will have to prove this, or demonstrate it in some way.

You are using too wide a definition of “real”.

I’m using a definition that applies to all processes that can be experienced and spoken of. You are arbitrarily limiting the definition to those things which have independent physicality, yet even that definition is insufficient since matter is not “solid”. I’m using an internally consistant definition that applies to a general category, you don’t seem to be using a consistant or generally applicable definition at all, and no discussion can take place in such circumstances.

I would not say “stable”, rather “similar enough that communication is possible”. A trained geologist will have a far more complex concept of “mountain” than I do. Where our concepts overlap we can communicate; where our concepts do not overlap then I will be at a loss to understand what the geologist is saying.

You are confusing knowledge about with knowledge of. The geologist does not aquire a new “object” of mountain by studying what mountains are comprised of. The geologist must have a consistant “objective idea” of mountain to even study one, and more data can be added to the understanding, but the object remains the same. If it did not, then the geologist could not be said to be studying mountains at all, as “mountain” would be a constantly shifting meaning without objective content.

Neither or our concepts of “mountain” have to be stable. The geologist will be reading new things about mountains in the geological literature and I will be learning things about mountains. As long as there is some overlap then we can communicate, even though the area of overlap may change.

On the contrary, both concepts must be stable in the sense of object. If the geologists is one moment studying the composition of rocks, and the next minute studying the musical tempo Beethoven’s 5th Symphany, the geologist is not studying the same thing. Likewise, if one moment I mean by “mountain” a large rock formation, and the next I mean the color red, I do not have a consistant basis for language or communication.

Information about “mountain” does not change the object of the term, just as you knowing more or less about me does not change the object of the term “Ghosty”. There may be more or less overlap of information about, but the object remains consistant, even if the object itself changes in certain ways (mountains erode at all moments, and I age and change in molecular composition at all moments).

Peace and God bless!

 

[rossum]

As I pointed out before, it’s irrelevant whether you believe in a “thing itself” or not. You used the term process to describe what I would call things, and the approach I’m using applies to either conception. You are applying terms to the process that don’t enter into the process.

In this case I am not treating things as processes, I am treating the finger as a convenient name for a particular collection of atoms. Once the atoms are all removed there is no ‘finger’ left - with all the atoms gone then all of the finger is gone as well. There is no ‘finger itself’ left behind after the atoms have been removed. The word ‘finger’ is a convenient shorthand, but it does not refer to anything above and beyond the atoms. All compound objects can be analysed in a similar way.

Then you will have to prove this, or demonstrate it in some way.

I cannot meditate for you, it is something you have to do for yourself. For Christians I usually suggest starting with Saying the Jesus Prayer.

You are confusing knowledge about with knowledge of.

What is the difference?

The geologist does not aquire a new “object” of mountain by studying what mountains are comprised of.

By studying mountains the geologist aquires new knowledge of mountains. The VR image inside the geologist’s head has changed as the geologist’s knowledge has changed.

The geologist must have a consistant “objective idea” of mountain to even study one, and more data can be added to the understanding, but the object remains the same.

Neither object remains the same. The VR object inside the geologist’s head changes as the geologist’s knowledge changes. The external mountain changes as it erodes, expands or contracts as temperatures change and so forth. Change is ubiquitous. At the very least the age of the mountain increases by one day every 24 hours.

If it did not, then the geologist could not be said to be studying mountains at all, as “mountain” would be a constantly shifting meaning without objective content.

That is what I mean by saying that emptiness can be understood as a mirage. What we think of as reality is a constantly changing appearance of reality. There is no real substance behind it - all you get is the mirage:The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

On the contrary, both concepts must be stable in the sense of object. If the geologists is one moment studying the composition of rocks, and the next minute studying the musical tempo Beethoven’s 5th Symphany, the geologist is not studying the same thing. Likewise, if one moment I mean by “mountain” a large rock formation, and the next I mean the color red, I do not have a consistant basis for language or communication.

I agree. However, if one minute I mean “10,000 year old mountain” and the next minute “10,000 years and one minute old moountain” then the change is slow and limited enough to have a reasonable conversation.

Information about “mountain” does not change the object of the term, just as you knowing more or less about me does not change the object of the term “Ghosty”. There may be more or less overlap of information about, but the object remains consistant, even if the object itself changes in certain ways (mountains erode at all moments, and I age and change in molecular composition at all moments).

One of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Buddhism seems to me to be their attitude to change. Buddhism sees change as fundamental - everything changes, nothing is static. There may be an appearance of stasis, but on analysis the stasis is just an appearance. Christianity tends to the opposite view: stasis is fundamental and it is the change that is mere surface appearance.

You agree that both the mountain and Ghosty change, hence if our mental images of them are to remain accurate those images must also change as well. Having a mental image out of step with reality is the cause of suffering. If we try to freeze our mental images in stasis then we will get out of step and incur suffering as a result.

rossum

 

[Ghosty]

In this case I am not treating things as processes, I am treating the finger as a convenient name for a particular collection of atoms. Once the atoms are all removed there is no ‘finger’ left - with all the atoms gone then all of the finger is gone as well. There is no ‘finger itself’ left behind after the atoms have been removed. The word ‘finger’ is a convenient shorthand, but it does not refer to anything above and beyond the atoms. All compound objects can be analysed in a similar way.

And all of this is still irrelevant. No matter how you’re defining it, the changes in question do not apply the finger in the analogy.

Enough dodging around the point, and please address it directly. Earlier I charitably assumed that you were not being intentionally sophistic, but I’m beginning to have my doubts.

I cannot meditate for you, it is something you have to do for yourself. For Christians I usually suggest starting with Saying the Jesus Prayer.

As a Catholic of the Byzantine tradition I’m quite familiar with the Jesus Prayer, and with the various Catholic meditative practices. None of them lead to the conclusion that you’re proposing (namely that imagining, not just the image, is not a single act). For a discussion you’re going to have to provide some demonstration or proof, or else you simply can’t defend your position at all.

What is the difference?

Knowledge about something is the knowledge of details, or data, about the object. Knowledge of is simply knowing of the object, without reference to how much detail is known. You know of me as much as my mother does, but you know far less about me.

By studying mountains the geologist aquires new knowledge of mountains. The VR image inside the geologist’s head has changed as the geologist’s knowledge has changed.

The geologist knows more about the mountain, but does not know of a different mountain. The object remains the same.

Neither object remains the same. The VR object inside the geologist’s head changes as the geologist’s knowledge changes. The external mountain changes as it erodes, expands or contracts as temperatures change and so forth. Change is ubiquitous. At the very least the age of the mountain increases by one day every 24 hours.

See above. Data about the object can change, but if the object itself does not remain, then we can’t speak of change at all. Change is the movement of a single object to or through different states; if the object does not remain, then change can’t be spoken of at all. By admitting change, you have admitted a fundamental object that is changing, you have admitted a real subject of “accidental change”.

In short, all change assumes an underlying constant identity, or else it is not change at all but rather creation.

That is what I mean by saying that emptiness can be understood as a mirage. What we think of as reality is a constantly changing appearance of reality. There is no real substance behind it - all you get is the mirage

This is a contradiction in terms. If reality is constantly changing, with no fundamental “realness” underneath or categorically, then there is no change at all because the object is not moving, but vanishing, and a new “reality” is taking its place. Change without fundamental realities underlying it is a self-falsifying concept, a nonsense term, like a square circle.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

I agree. However, if one minute I mean “10,000 year old mountain” and the next minute “10,000 years and one minute old moountain” then the change is slow and limited enough to have a reasonable conversation.

Again, you are falling into the trap of inconsistant thought and terminology. It is not the age that is fundamentally being spoken about, but the mountain. The mountain remains the constant, fundamental reference point for both terms, with no change at all. The amount of time changes, but unless that time is merely applied as an accidental trait of the fundamentally constant mountain, there can be no speaking of “limited change”. The change can only apply to a fundamentally solid idea, or else it is not change but rather creation of a new idea. In this case, the mountain does indeed change, but if “mountain”, as an underlying concept, was even a little bit different it would an all-together new term, and we could not speak of change at all, limited or otherwise.

In short, you’ve admitted the fundamental stability of the idea of “mountain” simply by speaking of change in it.

One of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Buddhism seems to me to be their attitude to change. Buddhism sees change as fundamental - everything changes, nothing is static. There may be an appearance of stasis, but on analysis the stasis is just an appearance. Christianity tends to the opposite view: stasis is fundamental and it is the change that is mere surface appearance.

This is indeed a difference, but it’s not a Christian thing per se. What I’m speaking of is not Christian, or even Catholic, but purely natural reasoning called Realism. Christianity accepts the premises of Realism (which is itself a non-religious working theory) and Realism is indispensible for Christian thought, but it remains a secular concept in itself.

As a secular concept it doesn’t carry with it the need for Christian religious dogmas to stand on its own. It stands or falls on its own merit, in rational inquiry. Buddhism seems to be, at least in my experience both outside and within this conversation, at odds with Realism, hence this thread. Since Realism cuts to the very heart of Buddhism, it’s imperitive for Buddhism to present a cohesive alternative to Realism, and so far this doesn’t seem to be the case. I suppose some forms of Buddhism might be able to hang their hat on a Nominalist-like belief (things are fundamentally real, but we merely experience a shadow of them and therefore don’t actually know their nature or essence, and what we call the thing is really just a “name” we created for a certain set of experiences without knowing the essence that underlies them) but I’m not sure how well Buddhist belief would hold up in Nominalism, and even then I believe that Realism is a far better concept than Nominalism, but that’s another topic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[rossum]

It is not the age that is fundamentally being spoken about, but the mountain. The mountain remains the constant, fundamental reference point for both terms, with no change at all.

The mountain is not constant, it changes. The change is slow enough for the conversation to succeed but that does not require stasis, merely agreement. Your parents agree on what “Ghosty” refers to, but what “Ghosty” referred to the day you were born is very different to what the word refers to today. Despite the obvious changes, conversations about “Ghosty” were and are possible. The mountain may change more slowly but a similar process applies.

In short, you’ve admitted the fundamental stability of the idea of “mountain” simply by speaking of change in it.

The stability is not fundamantal, the change is more fundamental than the apparent stability.

This is indeed a difference, but it’s not a Christian thing per se.

Agreed. Not many philosophies or religions see change as fundamental; it is one of the more unusual things about Buddhism.

I suppose some forms of Buddhism might be able to hang their hat on a Nominalist-like belief (things are fundamentally real, but we merely experience a shadow of them and therefore don’t actually know their nature or essence

Better to phrase it “things may possibly be -]are/-] fundamentally real, but we merely experience a shadow of them and therefore don’t actually know their nature or essence so we will never be able to tell for sure”.

A more common Buddhist view is that we falsely impute an appearance of underlying reality to something that only has a surface reality. This is the “emptiness” of things; they exist, but do not have the degree of reality that we mistakenly attribute to them. The ordinary is just the ordinary, nothing more than that. Searching for more is pointless. Nirvana is samsara - what you see really is all that you get. Like a soap bubble, it is all surface and no underlying substance.

As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp,
A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble,
A dream, a lightning flash, or a cloud,
So should one view what is conditioned.

Diamond sutra 32

rossum