Monism, Eternalism, etc

[Caoimhghín]

Is the philosophical position of monism necessarily the wrong-view of eternalism? Does monism necessarily lead to the wrong-views of postulating a universal consciousness or eternal true self?

Isn't monism just the belief that substance dualism is an necessary notion? And that there is no need for seperate "material" and "spiritual/immaterial" substances making-up existence, because existence is just that, and only that, that is to say, existence as one unified undifferentiated whole?

Teaching about the fundamental unity of all existence in neither existence or non-existence, in neither mechanistic materialism nor solipsistic idealism, doesn't seem to be at odds with the Buddha's teaching. Of course just because the Buddha didn't preach against it doesn't mean its not wrong.

If all is śūnya of independent existence, and all is anitya, aren't śūnyatā and anityatā themselves the unifying factors that argue in favour of monism? Everything is constantly in flux, therefore, in a way, everything is also not constantly in flux. The existent paradox being the unifying factor of the monist understanding of the "oneness" of reality, which does not need an independent existence, awareness, or unchanging nature.

The fundamental qualities of zero-likeness (śūnyatā) can also be understood on terms of uncompounded singularity. Zero is undividable, undifferentiated, unified. Similarly an uncompounded understanding of oneness is undividable and undifferentiated and fundementally unified.

My legitemate Buddhism education is sparse, so if these positions are not to be found in Buddhism altogether, or if these positions are wrong-views, I would be interested to know the background of that.


-Caoimhghín

[Kaccāni]

The Buddhist message is more like: Give up thinking in those -isms, because all being views, you will never end arguing about which one is right, can lead countless arguments under which aspects one -ism resembles another one (it really just depends on the aspects), and none of them will ever mirror the essence of that which is.

Best
Kc

[Wayfarer]

I really hear where you're coming from with that question, such questions constantly occur to me. But bear in mind, Buddhism is not first and foremost a theoretical system or a philosophy as such. Terms like 'monist', 'dualist', and so on, are useful and necessary within their scope, but the important point about the Buddhist approach is to 'pay attention to the facts of experience'. A phrase that comes to mind is 'burn after reading' - Buddhism gives you an approach to learning how to pay attention to the facts of experience, beyond which it has no use! So, 'burn after reading'. But I'm not making light of it, because it is obvious that what is involved in really mastering that ability, is very demanding and hard to attain. So we're going to have to read it for a long time before burning it

But if you get too involved in mapping out Buddhist principles against philosophical schemas and so on, then it can actually detract from the real task, which is to pay attention to the facts of experience.

[muni]

I find this interesting to reflect about:

In every religion, there are transcendent things that are beyond the grasp of our mind and speech. This is a common difficulty faced by every religion. H H Dalai Lama

When we see for example eternalism, is that because there is eternalism ( often by wrong others) or is it our idea forming this because we understand it so? I have been wondering that. As we can only compare words, isn't it?

[vinegar]

the "oneness" of reality

Yes this produces the main wrong view, true existence

"If the word 'cow' were to directly signify an individual cow, it would be impossible to use the same word to denote another one. Since the word I learned directly referred to the particular I first saw, I would not be able to apply it to any other cow.

The opponent may answer that [this form] of denotation is not constituted by a single individual but by the collection of all the objects to which the word applies. If that were the case, we would have to identify all the individuals that a word denotes to know what the word means."

[Kaccāni]

One could just as diligently reflect on one's cowness upon encountering the cow principle, which could be just another convention attributed. Denotation, connotation, and (for this addition) moonotation All within the realm of -isms. Words' play.

Best
Kc

[vinegar]

"If the word 'cow' were to directly signify an individual cow, it would be impossible to use the same word to denote another one. Since the word I learned directly referred to the particular I first saw, I would not be able to apply it to any other cow.

The opponent may answer that [this form] of denotation is not constituted by a single individual but by the collection of all the objects to which the word applies. If that were the case, we would have to identify all the individuals that a word denotes to know what the word means."

One could just as diligently reflect on one's cowness upon encountering the cow principle

Yes, and is it one with the parts of the cow or independent of the parts of the cow?

This is very much the point! Has nothing to do with word-play

[Kaccāni]

As long as you attribute meaning to it, it probably is the point for you.

Best
Kc

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Although it is a fact of existence, it is not directly useful information for most people on the path.

Au contraire. At a minimum the idea of emptiness makes clear to the normal everyday mind that things are not as they seem. Next, that apparent phenomena cannot be clinged to as being the final word on facticity, etc. Next, if done rigorously, it demonstrates to the intellectual mind that there is no way to come to a true understanding of how things are via the intellect.

If you don't understand how phenomena are not you'll never let go enough to find out how they actually are.

[vinegar]

As long as you attribute meaning to it, it probably is the point for you.

I daresay the entire meaning of buddhadharma went over your head if you say that

The buddha's whole point is that the self is not one with its parts, nor independent to them.

Similarly, if a particular physical object possesses the characteristic of being a cow, then any other cow would have to be something other than cow. On the other hand we can say the previous physical object does not possess the characteristic of cow, in which case you would need to see all objects of similar type before you could cognize a cow.

[Kaccāni]

The buddha's whole point is that the self is not one with its parts, nor independent to them.

The notion of a self is an illusion.

Best
Kc

[krodha]

The notion of a self is an illusion.

Nope, a negation of a self, a person, is nihilism.

Holding to the view that there is no self of any stripe, even conventionally, and allowing that view to corrupt one's path and view in general is nihilism.

But no, pointing out that a self is a byproduct of delusion is not "nihilism" just as pointing out that a rope lying in a dark room is not a snake (in order to help someone who mistakes it for a snake) is not nihilism.

[krodha]

Of course we can say in a conventional sense that John Doe or Mary Smith are deluded. We do not deny conventional selves. But the idea that those names have actual referents is absolutely denied.

[krodha]

Actually emptiness is expressed in everything and in every instant. Emptiness does not mean "mere nothingness." It merely means that all things are impermanent, essentially. We all observe this all the time..

Emptiness means more than just "impermanence".

It more accurately means that phenomena are (i) non-arisen, (ii) free from extremes, (iii) dependently originated or (iv) lacking inherency.

All of which are synonyms.

[AlexMcLeod]

Although it is a fact of existence, it is not directly useful information for most people on the path.

Au contraire. At a minimum the idea of emptiness makes clear to the normal everyday mind that things are not as they seem. Next, that apparent phenomena cannot be clinged to as being the final word on facticity, etc. Next, if done rigorously, it demonstrates to the intellectual mind that there is no way to come to a true understanding of how things are via the intellect.

If you don't understand how phenomena are not you'll never let go enough to find out how they actually are.

The path is not an intellectual one, although it can help to hear or read what the past masters thought of the various experiences along the way.

Basic day-to-day living should show you enough to realize that nothing is as it seems. Conventional reality is what you are living as a result of past kamma. Emptiness as an idea or teaching in no way brings a person closer to the understanding of it. Only by direct experience can you understand Emptiness, just as taste, feeling, sound, smell, sight and energy must be directly perceived to be understood.

A rudimentary understanding of the concept will suffice for the vast majority, because more than that will merely cause confusion and mental exhaustion from contortions of the type you are suggesting, in most people.

This is bad for mental and physical health, which are both necessary prerequisites for the rigorous training needed for attaining bodhi.

[boda]

Actually emptiness is expressed in everything and in every instant. Emptiness does not mean "mere nothingness." It merely means that all things are impermanent, essentially. We all observe this all the time..

Emptiness means more than just "impermanence".

It more accurately means that phenomena are (i) non-arisen, (ii) free from extremes, (iii) dependently originated or (iv) lacking inherency.

All of which are synonyms.

Of course emptiness means all sorts of goofy things to people, but the essential observable fact is impermanence.

Free from extremes?

[krodha]

It more accurately means that phenomena are (i) non-arisen, (ii) free from extremes, (iii) dependently originated or (iv) lacking inherency.

All of which are synonyms.

Of course emptiness means all sorts of goofy things to people, but the essential observable fact is impermanence.

Free from extremes?

None of those definitions are "goofy things" and all are standard.

Impermanence is really not a definition that captures the meaning or intention of emptiness at all.

And yes, emptiness means phenomena are free from the extremes of existence and non-existence, including any combination of the two.

[boda]

It more accurately means that phenomena are (i) non-arisen, (ii) free from extremes, (iii) dependently originated or (iv) lacking inherency.

All of which are synonyms.

Of course emptiness means all sorts of goofy things to people, but the essential observable fact is impermanence.

Free from extremes?

None of those definitions are "goofy things" and all are standard.

I wasn't referring specifically to your meanings.

Impermanence is really not a definition that captures the meaning or intention of emptiness at all.

As I said, emptiness has all sorts of meanings. I said nothing of intention, only observable or apparent fact, in response to davidbrainerd's assertion about such facts.

What do you believe the "intention" of emptiness is??

I would not call it intention, but the teaching suggests that grasping is unwise, essentially.

And yes, emptiness means phenomena are free from the extremes of existence and non-existence, including any combination of the two.

This qualifies as goofy (harmlessly eccentric) in my estimation.

[krodha]

What do you believe the "intention" of emptiness is??

To reveal that phenomena have been unoriginated and unconditioned from the very beginning.

I would not call it intention, but the teaching suggests that grasping is unwise, essentially.

Sure, yet without insight into emptiness, grasping is unavoidable because the perception of conditioned entities that can be accepted and rejected is all one knows.

And yes, emptiness means phenomena are free from the extremes of existence and non-existence, including any combination of the two.

This qualifies as goofy (harmlessly eccentric) in my estimation.

Freedom from the four extremes is a staple view of Mahāyāna. Certainly nothing I have fabricated, in a "harmlessly eccentric" manner or otherwise.

[A Ah Sha Sa Ma Ha]

When something is "empty", doesn't that mean it is empty of inherent existence ? That it can not exist without depending on something else ?

A tree is empty because it is dependant on causes and conditions for it to arise : Seed, soil, sunlight, air,water, etc.

Form is emptiness (dependant on causes and conditions)
Emptiness is form ( )