Place of Rational Inquiry in Dharmic Worldviews

[Osal]

No, you are mixing object talk with property talk. There is no sea. There are only properties like colors, shapes, smells, heat/cold etc which arise and vanish dependently on other properties. There is no reason then why such properties cannot arise dependently on other properties in unbundled forms (as just a shape arising dependently from other pure shapes) rather than always arising in "bundled" state with other properties (co-arising shapes/forms/colors/smells) in a way that makes object talk intelligible.

Remember the famous Cheshire cat of Alice in Wonderland that vanishes entirely except the smile. That kind of single property phenomena should be observed far more frequently.

There's no such thing as a "pure" form. From a Buddhist POV that's an oxymoron. Form is an aggregate. It doesn have independant existence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, you are mixing object talk with property talk. There is no sea. There are only properties like colors, shapes, smells, heat/cold etc which arise and vanish dependently on other properties. There is no reason then why such properties cannot arise dependently on other properties in unbundled forms (as just a shape arising dependently from other pure shapes) rather than always arising in "bundled" state with other properties (co-arising shapes/forms/colors/smells) in a way that makes object talk intelligible.

You're still missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Object talk and property talk are just different perspectives. Objects ARE "bundles" of properties. The "sea" is the sum of it's properties, so is "apple", so is "person".

 

[sayak83]

There's no such thing as a "pure" form. From a Buddhist POV that's an oxymoron. Form is an aggregate. It doesn have independant existence.

Dependent existence does not mean that the dharmas have to exist in the bundled manner that makes it possible to model them as objects. I am not talking about their dependency and independency, but rather how they appear and persist in object-like clumps or aggregates. The mere assumption of co-dependent existence does not explain why they only exist in clumps, bundles and aggregates rather than in free-floating and distributed manner.

 

[sayak83]

You're still missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Object talk and property talk are just different perspectives. Objects ARE "bundles" of properties. The "sea" is the sum of it's properties, so is "apple", so is "person".

Correct. Why don't unbundled, dis-aggregated properties exist?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I am reading posts carefully and thus came to know of your unfounded assertion, which you modified later. If I had not pointed it out, your statement 'Gautama did not accept Ishwara" would have gone on record as given and many would have accepted it on face value.

I see that you are still not getting it. The statements mean the same. I rephrased to avoid confusion, not because the statement was wrong. More on this below.

Your second view is "Ishwara plays no role in Nyaya", is even more absurd. When Nyaya says "Ishwara has role in dispensing karma phala", how can it have no role?

This is not a second view. It is the same thing again. Nyaya says -

1. Life is painful
2. People should strive for emancipation to end this pain
3. Emancipation is obtained when one correctly understand the 16 categories
4. Understanding comes from reading literature and discoursing with learned people
5. Once understanding is obtained, it should be made steady through meditation (focusing inward and avoiding objects of perception which are distractions).

Where is Ishwara in any of this? Since this has been explained several times on this thread, I can only conclude that your prejudice is stopping you from accepting the truth. Your strong bias about a unified, theistic Hinduism prevents you from accepting facts - facts that demonstrate the diversity and complexity of Indian beliefs and their transformation over time. You want to hold on to the over-simplified view of consistent and uniform, veda based, Ishwara based astika darshanas and reject anything that does not align with this image. If that is what you desire, I have no problems.

The *only* sutra that talks about Ishwara is 4.1.19. Ishvara is mentioned here, not in the context of explicating a Nyaya tenet, but when describing a rival belief. There is nothing else about Ishwara in the entire Nyaya sutra. Your karma-phala theory is your own assumption and has little to do with Vatsyayana's view. But again, this has all been explained already.

If you took a holistic view of six Hindu Darshana-s as six faces of the one, you would realise that 'Ishwara Pranidhana' is a key teaching of Yoga, which Nyaya exhorts us to follow (see above).

You are making things up. Again, disproved already in previous posts.

Please do not imagine that Veda is only about karma kanda. The Veda is our known histories first document that has a full verse about meditation. And the whole of Vedanta is Veda. All six darsana-s are also linked to each other intimately.

It is such incorrect, Hindu nationalistic/utopian views that I intend to dispel.

 

[Osal]

Dependent existence does not mean that the dharmas have to exist in the bundled manner that makes it possible to model them as objects. I am not talking about their dependency and independency, but rather how they appear and persist in object-like clumps or aggregates. The mere assumption of co-dependent existence does not explain why they only exist in clumps, bundles and aggregates rather than in free-floating and distributed manner.

The basis of the teaching on DO, the Nidanas, include why. It's ignorance.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Correct. Why don't unbundled, dis-aggregated properties exist?

I would argue that there are only unbundled, dis-aggregated properties. It is ignorance that makes one see/connect/aggregate things and perceive "meaningful" entities. In Advaita terms, it is Maya that gives one the appearance of order and reality to perception.

Unskilled persons whose eye of intelligence is obscured by the darkness of delusion conceive of an essence of things and then generate attachment and hostility with regard to them. — Buddhapālita-mula-madhyamaka-vrtti P5242,73.5.6-74.1.2

 

[sayak83]

The basis of the teaching on DO, the Nidanas, include why. It's ignorance.

Please link one.
You must understand. I am not hostile to Buddhist beliefs at all. I was presenting an overview of Buddhist and Hindu philosophical ideas on important aspects of reality, psychology and morality in an interfaith discussion group over the course of several weeks last year. This question came to me while reading several treatises summarizing the beliefs of Hindu and Buddhist philosophers of classical India, and I did not see an adequate answer in the Buddhist treatises I had read. It would be interesting to see how ignorance could cause the actual aggregation of Dhammas into clumps.

 

[sayak83]

I would argue that there are only unbundled, dis-aggregated properties. It is ignorance that makes one see/connect/aggregate things and perceive "meaningful" entities. In Advaita terms, it is Maya that gives one the appearance of order and reality to perception.

Unskilled persons whose eye of intelligence is obscured by the darkness of delusion conceive of an essence of things and then generate attachment and hostility with regard to them. — Buddhapālita-mula-madhyamaka-vrtti P5242,73.5.6-74.1.2

I would argue that the clumpiness is a real feature of how the Dharmas are manifested in the perception stream. Buddha himself categorized them into 5 skandhas and several other subcategories, which were further elaborated upon in Abhidhamma. These clumpiness of dhammas may also be caused due to conditioned arising of some sort, but I do not see why one would expect that at all.

 

[Osal]

The basis of the teaching, the Nidanas, DO include why. It's ignorance.

Please link one.
You must understand. I am not hostile to Buddhist beliefs at all. I was presenting an overview of Buddhist and Hindu philosophical ideas on important aspects of reality, psychology and morality in an interfaith discussion group over the course of several weeks last year. This question came to me while reading several treatises summarizing the beliefs of Hindu and Buddhist philosophers of classical India, and I did not see an adequate answer in the Buddhist treatises I had read. It would be interesting to see how ignorance could cause the actual aggregation of Dhammas into clumps.

How about doing your own homework? I figured you'd look it up if you cared enough.

 

[sayak83]

How about doing your own homework? I figured you'd look it up if you cared enough.

There are thousands of Suttas. You need to tell me which ones you have in mind. Otherwise its humanly impossible. I did not find any that answered my questions. So i am asking.

 

[Osal]

There are thousands of Suttas. You need to tell me which ones you have in mind. Otherwise its humanly impossible. I did not find any that answered my questions. So i am asking.

Google is your friend. Start with Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nidānas

It's a good overview. Beyond that you're on your own

 

[sayak83]

Google is your friend. Start with Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nidānas

It's a good overview. Beyond that you're on your own

Yes I am aware of this one. Its an explanation of rebirth, but I do not see any direct relevance to my question. Its most clearly spelled out in the mahanidana sutta
https://suttacentral.net/en/dn15 but does not seem relevant to what I was asking.

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Ānanda, if one is asked: ‘Is existence due to a specific condition?’ one should say: ‘It is.’ If one is asked: ‘Through what condition is there existence?’ one should say: ‘With clinging as condition there is existence.’
“Thus, Ānanda, with mentality-materiality as condition there is consciousness; .." - Mahanidana Sutta
Sure, that is what Hindus also say. Abandon your attachments and there is no sorrow.
Asking whether there is substance or not is mentality-materiality (wow, what a word, what a translation!*), and Buddha disparaged that.

Here is a simpler one from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. .."

 

[sayak83]

“Ānanda, if one is asked: ‘Is existence due to a specific condition?’ one should say: ‘It is.’ If one is asked: ‘Through what condition is there existence?’ one should say: ‘With clinging as condition there is existence.’
“Thus, Ānanda, with mentality-materiality as condition there is consciousness; .." - Mahanidana Sutta
Sure, that is what Hindus also say. Abandon your attachments and there is no sorrow.
Asking whether there is substance or not is mentality-materiality (wow, what a word, what a translation!*), and Buddha disparaged that.

Here is a simpler one from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. .."

There is a difference in the theory of rebirth as explained by Buddha and the one that is explained by Yajnavalka in Brihad-Aryanaka for example. Yajnavalka's theory focuses on the critical role of the Atman, while Buddha does not mention Atman at all. That is another example of the key difference between Upanisadic view and Buddhist view of a person, that spills over into theories of the world in the Nyaya-Buddhist debate.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe in none of these theories, though I am closer to Buddha. My view is this (Note: Dirty work bench. They could have used a cleaner place):

Purnamadah purnamidam, purnāt purnamudachyate,
Purnasya purnamādāya, purnameva avashishyate.

That is whole, this is whole, this whole arises from that whole,
From the whole give the whole, the remainder still is the whole.

 

[atanu]

I see that you are still not getting it. The statements mean the same. I rephrased to avoid confusion, not because the statement was wrong. More on this below.

If two statements 'Gautama did not accept Ishwara" is same as "Ishwara plays no role in Nyaya", then forgive me my imbecility. No arguments there.

Okay. Let us see what others are saying.

 

[Osal]

Yes I am aware of this one. Its an explanation of rebirth, but I do not see any direct relevance to my question. Its most clearly spelled out in the mahanidana sutta
https://suttacentral.net/en/dn15 but does not seem relevant to what I was asking.

It can be used to explaina number of things, including rebirth. It's also usefull in answering your question as well, provided, of course, it's an answer you really want.

 

[sayak83]

It can be used to explaina number of things, including rebirth. It's also usefull in answering your question as well, provided, of course, it's an answer you really want.

I would like to know how it answers my question.
You should stop insinuating that I don't really want to know. You have no basis to make such a claim and this is a DIR forum. If you know the answer, please explain it.

 

[3d2e1f]

I would like to know how it answers my question.

Sayak, perhaps you have access to this essay from elsewhere, I do not know. In any case, if possible, look up Arindam Chakrabarti's article "I touch what I saw" which appeared in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. He does a great job outlining various views (including Buddhist views) and defending the Nyaya POV. You may know that already.

Perhaps our Buddhist posters may like to read this article as well.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2107746