Re: A Challenge - KH/Thomas
- Hi Tony,
>> KH: This is where our Mahayana friends go astray. They think the doctrine of dependent origination refers to the existence of conditionality but not to the existence of conditioned dhammas.---------
> T: Do they??? Where is your evidence for this (huge) assumption?
KH: Did I get that wrong? If so, I apologise. I believe Dieter (for example) has argued quite often that Dependentent Origination means there are just conditions without any dhammas that are conditioned.
We hear so much doubletalk about dhammas existing but not existing "in and of themselves" or "but not existing with own being." It is not surprising that some of us get confused.
You, Tony, have added to the confusion by telling us dhammas "exist, but their mode of existence is illusory." What is that if not doubletalk?
And then, to make matters worse, you tell us that dhammas cannot possibly exist when they are not being experienced - and you say it as if it was a matter of common sense!
> Tony: With regards to this particular debate I suggest we turn the tables. I have offered several refutations to your view regarding the realities of Dhammas as separate from the mind. Maybe you could refute the Prasangika stance. That would be interesting. If it helps I will construct a salient statement that you can use as a reference point.------------------
> If you're successful I will turn away from the Prasangika and subscribe to your views in a heartbeat :)
KH: Have you offered any refutations? I remember Jon asked you for an explanation of why things could not exist outside experience. Your only reply was to say you had already explained it. But where?
I certainly believe dhammas exist when they are not being experienced. This belief is supported by the conventionally known world, which is often a shadow of ultimate reality. In the conventionally known world a clock on a wall in an empty room keeps ticking. When someone enters the room and looks at the clock it tells the right time. That means it was still there, ticking away, when no one was watching it.
It's the same in ultimate reality. Consciousness (citta) and mental factors (cetasika) exist when there is no consciousness of them. In fact, that is the only time when they do exist. By the time citta can, in turn, become an object of citta it has already fallen away. Only its nimitta can be experienced.
But don't let me spoil your suggestion: please construct a salient statement that I can use as a reference point.
- Dear Thomas,
Op 3 aug 2013, om 03:49 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven:
> Th: Thanks for your reply. It brought my attention to it. Yes, according to the SN suttas, one should first fully know the phenomena of the five aggregates (nama-rupa) themselves, and then fully see them as anicca, dukkha, or anatta.------
N: That is right. Sati and pa~n~naa have to attend to their characteristics when they appear and this is, as Acharn Sujin says, beyond words. It is not thinking about them. But for all of us it takes quite some time before we really understand this. We are bound to take thinking for awareness. Above all, there is no person who is trying to know, sati and pa~n~naa perform their functions. They arise because of conditions and these are listening to the Dhamma and considering it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]