'I exist to be deceived' – archy As good of a dogma as any posted above, Neil!
On Dec 3, 1:46 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The general leitmotif of Buddhist teachings, which is also the first > of the four noble truths, is the realization that unsatisfactoriness > or suffering (Skt. duḥkha, Pāli dukkha) is a pervasive aspect of > conditioned existence. With the recognition of this fundamental truth > about the nature of phenomena comes the realization of the cause of > discontent and of its finality (the second and third noble truths, > respectively). Lastly, undertaking the course of action that leads to > its cessation (the fourth noble truth) forms the basis and the main > motivating principle of the Buddhist path. > > 1. Unsatisfactoriness (duḥkha). As the first mark of conditioned > existence, unsatisfactoriness presents both an opportunity and a > challenge: as an undesirable condition, unsatisfactoriness itself is a > motivator for its own overcoming. But without a proper understanding > of its root cause, unsatisfactoriness can become a source of aversion > (toward unpleasant states) and of grasping (after pleasant states). > The cause of this unsatisfactoriness is ignorance (avidyā), understood > not simply as lacking knowledge about particular states of affairs, > but rather as a basic misunderstanding about how things truly are. The > Buddhist Abhidharma traditions break this unsatisfactoriness into > three categories: > > unsatisfactoriness proper (duḥkha-duḥkhatā), which comprises such > common discomforts as aches and pains as well as mental states such as > sadness and unhappiness; > the unsatisfactoriness of compounded phenomena due to their > impermanent nature (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā), which explains why even > apparently pleasant and desirable states are ultimately a source of > discontent on account of their conditioned and impermanent nature; > the unsatisfactoriness inherent in change (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā), which > captures the sense of distress that follows the realization that > pleasant sensations and mental states of delight change as the objects > upon which they depend change (see also Saṃyutta Nikāya, IV, 259). > 2. Impermanence (anitya). As the second mark of existence, > impermanence pervades all compounded phenomena. It forms an integral > part of the theory of momentariness (kṣaṇikavāda), which asserts that > phenomena do not endure for more than a moment. In the Shorter > Discourse to Saccaka (Majjhima Nikāya, I, 230, 35), the Buddha > explains that all formations (feeling, perception, etc.) and in effect > all things are to be regarded as impermanent. > > 3. No-self (anātman). This Buddhist view of the impermanence of all > phenomena works against the natural tendency to assume that knowledge > and experience are attributable to a self that is permanent, stable, > and unchanging. Instead of reifying each moment of existence, and > operating with the assumption that continuity is the hallmark of our > lives, the Buddhist view presents a fluid account of experience as an > ever-changing stream of psycho-physical events. This dynamic model of > the human existence comprises the five classes of phenomena the Buddha > referred to as the “aggregates of grasping” (upādāna-skandha), on > account of our tendency to grasp after and identify with them (see > §2.3). These classes of phenomena are to be understood purely in > causal terms, and not as the attributes and activities of a > substantive self. There is no self or substantive mind that either > supervenes or exists apart from these aggregates. Rather, as the term > ‘aggregate’ suggests, the Buddhist tradition introduces a new and > unique way of talking about human experience by avoiding the > metaphysical pitfalls of reification. > > The above from Stanford EP online. I don't hold with it, but these > lines of thought show just how perspectival all this I, me, self stuff > is. I go with AN Whitehead that we have occasions of experience in a > network of events. I was born ignorant and will die not much better. > More of us might have had a chance to know something of some > importance if the world was not so screwed by 'capitalism' and > 'religion'. One might say 'I exist to be deceived'. > > On 3 Dec, 21:25, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Along with why is how? If we can ascertain how we exist then maybe the > > why becomes clearer or resolves of itself. Changing Descartes a bit > > too... I think, ‘I exist’, we see that I’s exist within thought > > bounded contexts. Do I’s exist outside of those thought bounded > > contexts? I don’t see how we can claim that I’s do. If I’s are then > > bound to context, then I am is just another thought that arises and > > passes away with context. That is, I’s really don’t exist the way we > > think I’s do i.e. permanently and separately. When the I am thought > > resolves showing there is no separate me, then the infinite totality > > is realized without an inside or outside.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
