Shared Reality

General forum on Mahayana.

Shared Reality

Postby yadave » Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:11 pm

Namdrol wrote:
yadave wrote:I have a simple explanation for shared reality, you do not.

Sure I do: functionality.

Hi all,

Namdrol, I can't find much on "Buddhist functionality" on- or offline. I see a theory of functionalism in philosophy of mind but think you refer to something else here. If you or anyone has a minute to spare, I would enjoy a better (lay person's) understanding of Buddhist functionality and how it relates to or explains shared reality.

Regards,
Dave.
yadave
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Shared Reality

Postby Malcolm » Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:28 pm

yadave wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
yadave wrote:I have a simple explanation for shared reality, you do not.

Sure I do: functionality.

Hi all,

Namdrol, I can't find much on "Buddhist functionality" on- or offline. I see a theory of functionalism in philosophy of mind but think you refer to something else here. If you or anyone has a minute to spare, I would enjoy a better (lay person's) understanding of Buddhist functionality and how it relates to or explains shared reality.

Regards,
Dave.


You will find it by running a search on arthakriya and its interpretation by Chandrakirti.

The basis of shared experience depends not on real external existence, but merely whether two people might accomplish the same result given similar sets of apparent conditions.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10219
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shared Reality

Postby yadave » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:51 am

Namdrol wrote:
yadave wrote:I have a simple explanation for shared reality, you do not.

Sure I do: functionality.
yadave wrote:I would enjoy a better (lay person's) understanding of Buddhist functionality and how it relates to or explains shared reality.

You will find it by running a search on arthakriya and its interpretation by Chandrakirti.
yadave wrote:Thanks. I see artha and kriya on Wikipedia.

The basis of shared experience depends not on real external existence, but merely whether two people might accomplish the same result given similar sets of apparent conditions.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that neither you nor I are schizophrenic. We are walking and talking and see a tree and both of us point and say "Look, there is a tree."

Now suppose Russell Crowe from the movie "A Beautiful Mind" walks up, points to empty space, and says "Look, there is a tree."

What is the difference? Is it we who are schizophrenic in some weird shared way and Russell has it right?

Regards,
Dave.
yadave
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Shared Reality

Postby Malcolm » Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:18 am

yadave wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
yadave wrote:I have a simple explanation for shared reality, you do not.

Sure I do: functionality.
yadave wrote:I would enjoy a better (lay person's) understanding of Buddhist functionality and how it relates to or explains shared reality.

You will find it by running a search on arthakriya and its interpretation by Chandrakirti.
yadave wrote:Thanks. I see artha and kriya on Wikipedia.

The basis of shared experience depends not on real external existence, but merely whether two people might accomplish the same result given similar sets of apparent conditions.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that neither you nor I are schizophrenic. We are walking and talking and see a tree and both of us point and say "Look, there is a tree."

Now suppose Russell Crowe from the movie "A Beautiful Mind" walks up, points to empty space, and says "Look, there is a tree."

What is the difference? Is it we who are schizophrenic in some weird shared way and Russell has it right?

Regards,
Dave.


The difference is that we are enjoying a common appearance and can agree to cut down the tree. We can't agree to cut down a tree we both are not seeing. The fact that we agree there is a tree does not prove by any standard that there is real tree. We agree there is a tree because we agree to call a given appearnce a tree because, ostensibly, we have a common use for such an appearance, or, to use another example, a bike.

Appearances that function are shared reality. We do not need to assert anything other than that.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10219
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shared Reality

Postby yadave » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:26 pm

Namdrol wrote:Appearances that function are shared reality. We do not need to assert anything other than that.

My lips are sealed.

Thanks for clarifying.

Regards,
Dave.
yadave
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:57 pm


Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

>