AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

A forum for scholastic discussion/debate.

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby conebeckham » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:18 pm

Actually, bare perception happens with the sense consciousnesses...but we are not "aware" of perceptions until the "intellect" registers those perceptions. I think that's the classical understanding, at least...
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2789
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby viniketa » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:24 pm

conebeckham wrote:Actually, bare perception happens with the sense consciousnesses...but we are not "aware" of perceptions until the "intellect" registers those perceptions. I think that's the classical understanding, at least...


That's my understanding, as well. Perception, manas (sense integration); interpretation, bodhi (intellect, sense interpretation).

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby deepbluehum » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:32 pm

Salāyatana does not mean perception. Perception happens at the level of nāma-rūpa and vijñāna. In English perception can mean either raw sense data or judgment. This has led to confusion of terms in Western Buddhism.

To understand 12 links correctly, there is nothing really there to impinge on senses. The 12 links combine to create mirages. So perception is only in the mind part. The salāyatana are merely bases.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby viniketa » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:40 am

deepbluehum wrote:Salāyatana does not mean perception. Perception happens at the level of nāma-rūpa and vijñāna. In English perception can mean either raw sense data or judgment. This has led to confusion of terms in Western Buddhism.

To understand 12 links correctly, there is nothing really there to impinge on senses. The 12 links combine to create mirages. So perception is only in the mind part. The salāyatana are merely bases.


We are getting off-topic and, for the last few posts, not giving our sources (as required in the Academic forum). I'd like to ask for the source for the above statements, please, DBH.
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby deepbluehum » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:50 am

viniketa wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Salāyatana does not mean perception. Perception happens at the level of nāma-rūpa and vijñāna. In English perception can mean either raw sense data or judgment. This has led to confusion of terms in Western Buddhism.

To understand 12 links correctly, there is nothing really there to impinge on senses. The 12 links combine to create mirages. So perception is only in the mind part. The salāyatana are merely bases.


We are getting off-topic and, for the last few posts, not giving our sources (as required in the Academic forum). I'd like to ask for the source for the above statements, please, DBH.


The twelve links of dependent origination. I like the translation suggestions given by Ven. Madawala Punnaji. His definitions work very well with Madhyamaka, especially Nagarjuna. I also can't help but channel the Drikung Kagyu (i.e., Kyobpa Jigten Sumgon's "Introduction to Mahamudra--The Co-Emergent Unification) and Nyingmapa oral instructions lineages related to perception and mind (i.e., Karma Lingpa's terma of Guru Rinpoche's "Direct Introduction to Naked Awareness.") . In addition to generally reviewing Nagarjuna's verses. Thus all yanas agree in essence that all perception is just mind.

This is directly on topic, because if this is the case, that all perception is just mind, then there is no outer world, no objects, and therefore, objectivism is false.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby viniketa » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:13 am

http://dictionary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/3440/ayatana

Source: A Dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2003, 2004 (which is available in electronic version from answer.com)
Description:
āyatana (Sanskrit). In Buddhist psychology, the twelve āyatanas are the six senses or modes of perception and the six kinds of object they correspond to, namely: (1) sight and colour/form (rūpa-āyatana); (2) hearing and sound (śabda-āyatana); (3) smell and scent (gandha-āyatana); (4) taste and flavours (rasa-āyatana); (5) touch and tangible objects (sparśa-āyatana); and (6) the mind and ideas (mano-āyatana). Each āyatana is thus the sphere or domain of a particular sense, and encompasses everything that can be experienced through that particular ‘sense-door’. See also ṣad-āyatana.

Source: Pali-English Dictionary, TW Rhys Davids, William Stede,
Description:
Āyatana (nt.) [Sk. āyatana, not found in the Vedas; but freq. in BSk. From ā + yam, cp. āyata. The pl. is āyatanā at S iv.70. -- For full definition of term as seen by the Pāli Commentators see Bdhgh's expln at DA i. 124, 125, with which cp. the popular etym. at KhA 82: "āyassa vā tananato āyatassa vā saŋsāradukkhassa nayanato āyatanāni" and at Vism 527 "āye tanoti āyatañ ca nayatī ti ā."] -- 1. stretch, extent, reach, compass, region; sphere, locus, place, spot; position, occasion (corresponding to Bdhgh's definition at DA i.124 as "samosaraṇa") D iii.241, 279 (vimutti˚); S ii.41, 269; iv.217; v.119 sq., 318. sq.; A iii.141 (ariya˚); v.61 (abhibh˚, q. v.) Sn 406 (rajass˚ "haunt of passion" = rāgādi -- rajassa uppatti -- deso SnA 381); J i.80 (raj˚). Freq. in phrase araññ˚ a lonely spot, a spot in the forest J i.173; VvA 301; PvA 42, 54. -- 2. exertion, doing, working, practice, performance (comprising Bdhgh's definition at DA i.124 as paññatti), usually -- ˚, viz. kamm˚ Nd1 505; Vbh 324, 353; kasiṇ˚ A v.46 sq., 60; Ps i.28; titth˚ A i.173, 175; Vbh 145, 367; sipp˚ (art, craft) D i.51; Nd2 505; Vbh 324, 353; cp. an˚ non -- exertion, indolence, sluggishness J v.121. -- 3. sphere of perception or sense in general, object of thought, sense -- organ & object; relation, order. -- Cpd. p. 183 says rightly: "āyatana cannot be rendered by a single English word to cover both sense -- organs (the mind being regarded as 6th sense) and sense objects". -- These āyatanāni (relations, functions, reciprocalities) are thus divided into two groups, inner (ajjhattikāni) and outer (bāhirāni), and comprise the foll.: (a) ajjhatt˚: 1. cakkhu eye, 2. sota ear, 3. ghāna nose, 4. jivhā tongue, 5. kāya body, 6. mano mind; (b) bāh˚: 1. rūpa visible object, 2. sadda sound, 3. gandha odour, 4. rasa taste, 5. phoṭṭhabba tangible object, 6. dhamma cognizable object. -- For details as regards connotation & application see Dhs trsl. introduction li sq. Cpd. 90 n. 2; 254 sq. -- Approximately covering this meaning (3) is Bdhgh's definition of āyatana at DA i.124 as sañjāti and as kāraṇa (origin & cause, i. e. mutually occasioning & conditioning relations or adaptations). See also Nd2 under rūpa for further classifications. -- For the above mentioned 12 āyatanāni see the foll. passages: D ii.302 sq.; iii.102, 243; A iii.400; v.52; Sn 373 (cp. SnA 366); Ps i.7, 22, 101, 137; ii. 181, 225, 230; Dhs 1335; Vbh 401 sq.; Nett 57, 82; Vism 481; ThA 49, 285. Of these 6 are mentioned at S i.113, ii.3; iv.100, 174 sq.; It 114; Vbh 135 sq., 294; Nett 13, 28, 30; Vism 565 sq. Other sets of 10 at Nett 69; of 4 at D ii.112, 156; of 2 at D ii.69. -- Here also belongs ākāsɔ ānañcɔ āyatana, ākiñcaññ˚ etc. (see under ākāsa etc. and s. v.), e. g. at D i.34 sq., 183; A iv.451 sq.; Vbh 172, 189, 262 sq.; Vism 324 sq. -- Unclassified passages: M i.61; ii.233; iii.32, 216, 273; S i.196; ii.6, 8, 24, 72 sq.; iii.228; iv.98; v.426; A i.113, 163, 225; iii.17, 27, 82, 426; iv.146, 426; v.30, 321, 351, 359; Nd1 109, 133, 171, 340; J i.381 (paripuṇṇa˚); Vbh 412 sq. (id.).
-- uppāda birth of the āyatanas (see above 3) Vin i.185. -- kusala skilled in the ā. M iii.63. -- kusalatā skill in the spheres (of sense) D iii.212; Dhs 1335. -- ṭṭha founded in the sense -- organs Ps i.132; ii.121.

------
As can be seen above, there are both "inner" and "outer" aspects of senses, which seems right in line with the two Objectivist positions in which the OP has interest.
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby deepbluehum » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:31 am

There is absolutely no mention of inner and outer in the Sutras. This dualistic thinking is in opposition to the Buddha's true intent. FYI. For the Buddha, "the All," is merely the skandhas. It is exactly these dictionaries that have perverted dharma, are the primary reason Western Buddhism is degenerate.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby viniketa » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:51 am

deepbluehum wrote:There is absolutely no mention of inner and outer in the Sutras. This dualistic thinking is in opposition to the Buddha's true intent. FYI. For the Buddha, "the All," is merely the skandhas. It is exactly these dictionaries that have perverted dharma, are the primary reason Western Buddhism is degenerate.


Actually, the concept is there in the Pali suttas, as noted in the passage from the Pali Dictionary, above; there are "objects" associated with each of the senses. However, it is not dualistic; the words 'inner' and 'outer' in the explanation are there for our poor Western minds because in our Western definition, consciousness itself is dualistic.

However, the pertinent question, for the OP, is: "How does one explain this non-dualism to an Objectivist?"

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: AynRand's "objectivism" compared with dharma

Postby deepbluehum » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:23 am

viniketa wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:There is absolutely no mention of inner and outer in the Sutras. This dualistic thinking is in opposition to the Buddha's true intent. FYI. For the Buddha, "the All," is merely the skandhas. It is exactly these dictionaries that have perverted dharma, are the primary reason Western Buddhism is degenerate.


Actually, the concept is there in the Pali suttas, as noted in the passage from the Pali Dictionary, above; there are "objects" associated with each of the senses. However, it is not dualistic; the words 'inner' and 'outer' in the explanation are there for our poor Western minds because in our Western definition, consciousness itself is dualistic.

However, the pertinent question, for the OP, is: "How does one explain this non-dualism to an Objectivist?"

:namaste:


Pali dict no reflect true picture. to OP: This is all a dream.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Previous

Return to Academic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

>