How do EBTs establish the reality of other people?

Discussion
21

Knowledge of the division between conventional and ultimate is essential to navigate the beginnings of insight. Conventional reality is a limited truth that has been arrived at by the authority of common consensus. CR begins when an arbitrary name is conferred at birth, and extends to the network of institutions based on name. The problem with CR is that it purports to be ultimate, so there needs to be a complete reprioritization, “untangling of the tangle”, in the mind of the Theravada practitioner.

The most explicit descriptions of the two realities are commentarial, but there are some sutta references, including the differentiation between the chariot (name) and its component parts, and similarly the body and its parts so two realities exist concurrently:

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There’s the convention 'a being.”—SN 5.10

“Name oppresses everything.
Nothing’s bigger than name.
Name is the one thing
that has everything under its sway.”—SN 1.61 SC

“these are the world’s designations, the world’s expressions, the world’s ways of speaking, the world’s descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them.”—-DN 9

“An arahant monk,
one who is done,
effluent-free, bearing his last body:
He would say, ‘I speak’;
would say, ‘They speak to me.’
Skillful,
knowing harmonious gnosis
with regard to the world,
he uses expressions
just as expressions.”—-SN 1.25

5 Likes
22

The verses from the Sedaka Sutta are very much on point, protecting self and others, though it does sound like a variation on enlightened self-interest - perhaps this is the EBT being pragmatic? I think a distinguishing feature of the Mahayana is a greater emphasis on compassion than in Theravada - or at least a more obvious one.

1 Like
23

I would think of the me/other distinction in terms of the distinction between “internal” and “external” in the EBT, which appears to mean inside and outside the body (see MN140 and MN10).

2 Likes
24

Perhaps it is being pragmatic,

Purified or defiled depend on oneself
No one can purify another

In EBT, I think the training for ‘protect oneself’ (establishment of mindfulness) is regarded higher than ‘protect other’, so I feel this is enlightened-other-interest, that it is best for other if we cultivate ourself.

In sedaka sutta, Buddha praise the apprentice rather than her teacher, that is protect oneself we protect other.

(Perhaps bodhisattva vow is already anticipated :smile:)

2 Likes
25

[“you” in my speech is not directed to anyone in particular, just a figure of speech]

Now let alone the distinction between self and others, think in terms of your own existence; what’s so important about that, independently from the quest of deliverance?

There are many people who once existed and who exhibited a fabulous degree of concern and care for others :innocent: … they are all dead! :skull_and_crossbones: And who knows where is their oblivious consciousness residing right now; what flavours of suffering it is tasting of as we speak!

Why does preoccupation with others not deliver one beyond death? Because it is not even a subtle form of egotism; it is gross, too gross! It doesn’t mean that we should rejoice when someone suffers, or not do anything to help them if we can – but only that whatever comes to pass to ourselves or others, it continues to be void of any meaning or significance until it has been regarded as a means and opportunity to develop wisdom and reach deliverance. The same with others; even children: go ahead and remove every challenge and experience of suffering a young one is faced with, and watch him or her growing into an immature, fragile, and incompetent adult. And the Deva that experiences no suffering, is oblivious not only to pain, but also to nibbana.

This world is presently full of people who will themselves state, and proudly, that they “cannot live without helping/loving/caring for others”. Well, whatever it is that you think you cannot live without; precisely that is your deepest delusion and self-obsession! Deprive yourself of it and observe the deadly suffering that will immediately ensue. Then, if there is a trace of humility left in your heart; you might then ask yourself “why do I suffer, now, if it was really just about others?!”; and then it might dawn on you how it is all but a profound emotional need of yours, and nothing more. It makes you feel good and its absence makes you feel terribly bad; you junkie!!

This keeps coming up; endlessly! I have encountered people who regard themselves as “Buddhists” for no reason aside from “metta”! Hey! Metta is all over the place; there is no religion in which there is no emphasis on “metta”. Why do you choose the metta of Buddhism? What is it that is in the “E, B, & T” which is not in the other religions and doctrines? Do you know?! Does it have to do with something like “nibbida”? No? Just “metta”?!

It’s everywhere! To the extent that soon devoted practitioners will have to be so apologetic for doing precisely what they are supposed to do:

Go ahead in your pursuit after "good feelings", for yourself and others; no one is judging you for that. But whether such pursuit has anything to do with "Buddhism" and the "E B T", well … that is a different story. And you don’t get to be a Bodhisattva either! The Bodhisattva is far from this emotional needy human state! And the Mahayana is a heavily cosmological tradition. There is a transcendental "reason" as to why emancipation must engulf all beings in this doctrine; it is not just "let’s care for each other" sort of message!

Awakening is that precisely to what feels bad within; the discernment of its causes and transcendence of its power. The Bodhisattva knows this first hand, just as the Arahat. That, is the teaching of the Buddha; Adoration to those who follow in his path.

3 Likes
26

So how do you explain the 8-fold path including Right Intention, Right Action, Right Speech, etc? Why is there an emphasis on ethical behaviour, observing precepts and developing non-harm? Why are the brahma vihara practices included? It seems to be about more than sentimentality, more than just making ourselves feel good, or whatever. I would also like to think its about more than enlightened self-interest, though I don’t think that is immediately obvious from the EBT.

1 Like
27

If the OP is so inclined, there is already a Buddhist text written on this matter specifically, but it is not an EBT. Venerable Dharmakīrti wrote his Saṁtānāntarasiddhināmaprakaraṇa (Treatise on Proof of Others’ Continua) in the 5-600s. He is quite common-sensical with the matter. A highlight:

The Cittamātra perspective also accepts that those representations, in which other’s actions and speech appear to us, would not have existed, if the special processes of other consciousnesses were not there […] Having known, through this inference, the existence of the other mind, the mind as subject successively produces the effects which lead to the desired aim.

1 Like
28

I have certainly learned from later Buddhist texts as well, and I am grateful for the pointer.

My sense has been that, as with solipsism elsewhere, the solipsist objection I’ve raised here is met by seeing the value pragmatism: Whether or not I can properly infer from percepts the existence of an entity similar to myself, still, it behooves me to act exactly as if my percepts indicate that people are real. Such an inference hasn’t failed me yet; others appear real in all the ways that count (though in Buddhism they are said to have only a conventional reality).

A different question, particular to Buddhism: I can observe directly the impermanence of my own “self.” Assuming that I’ve made such observations, I am warranted in saying “I am not this.” But others – might others be more real than I am? I’ve never observed their minds from the inside, nor can I! Might they have more reality than I do?

1 Like
29

Why would other people be more real than you? Can you contextualise this a little bit?

1 Like
30

Thank you for these two.

Internal and external in MN10 is difficult for me to understand at the moment. I’ll need to get a better handle on the terminology used before I can work with this sutta I think.

MN140 is pitched with the right tone for me though.

As part of a series of ‘spiritual exercises’ (sorry, I don’t know what the equivalent term is in EBT language) MN140 asks us to consider “The interior earth element and the exterior earth element are just the earth element.” And then the same for water, fire, air and space. Thus knocking down the boundaries between internal and external, between you, me and the gap between us, leading to an understanding of the inherent irrelevancy of these concepts - “When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the space element, detaching the mind from the space element.” (Same for water, fire, air and space) leaving just this “consciousness, pure and bright.”

I am looking forward to further engagement with this very lovely sutta. Thank you. :slight_smile: :anjal:

3 Likes
31

You could wonder if ‘whether the Selves exists externally or internally and absolutely’ is a question to be put aside, unknowable and not relevant to the ending of suffering.

But as far as what can be known by observation the aggregates, sense bases, and elements don’t exhibit signs of Self-hood.

2 Likes
32

I think the point of the elements analysis in MN140 is to reduce attachment to the body. They are just the same elements as “out there”, they are not MY elements, they don’t belong to me. I guess that could also decrease the sense of me-other separation, recognising that others are made of the same elements - including consciousness in MN140.
As for MN10, I can’t see any other sensible interpretation of “internal” and “external”, given the distintinction is also applied to vedana and citta, which logically must refer to other people. IMO this is a neglected aspect of satipatthana, and there is much we can learn from observing others. In any case, the 8-fold path factors like Right Action, Right Speech and Right Intention strongly suggest that how we treat others is important. The assumption of self and other might just be a convention, but it appears to be a valid and relevant assumption in the context of the path.

3 Likes
33

It seems very relevant to me, given that our relationships with others can be a source of both happiness and suffering. Craving and aversion apply to people too!

1 Like
34

It might be the case that not-self applies to me, but that others have a permanent, metaphysical, captal-S Self, such that they are a higher order of being than I am.

35

What does that mean for you, then?

36

I suppose by the above logic it’s also possible that there is a super-consciousness above and beyond all that is not-self (i.e. above all people, i.e. “God”), but is there any objective proof? Similar to proofs for the souls of others, we find hard proofs for God absent, so its ultimately a matter of if we think there are justified inferences that can be made in that direction.

Is there anything that you find would cause you to wisely infer that others had an internal unchanging core to their being that did not change from moment-to-moment, perhaps life-to-life? I think the only way this could be done is by observing others and looking for signs of their permanency.

37

I’m not looking for affirmative proof of this idea. It’s just that I can observe my own inconstancy, so I’m warranted in saying that the “I” is an illusion. Yet among the large majority of the world’s population, this claim is not matched by a similar claim on the part of others. And what’s worse, I can’t look into their being and detect the absence of a strong, capital-S Self. (And some folks actively affirm that they have one, and that they’ve experienced it directly.)

The idea that there are different types of human experience – some Self and some not-Self – is really weird. It’s also not very parsimonious. But it’s what one might conclude by taking all humans at their word. Most Buddhists will say, whether from experience or faith, that they have no permanent Self. Most Christians and Muslims will say that they do, as will many (most?) Hindus. An alien looking at this situation might say, “Well, it could be that there are two different types of human…”

1 Like
38

Yes, and the problem is that it’s all so subjective. Two people might have a similar “spiritual” or meditative experience and come up with quite different explanations, depending on their beliefs or starting assumptions.

1 Like
39

Does AN6.38 support the distinction between self and other?

40

The Mahācunda Sutta addresses this question, implying that both ‘absorption meditators’ and
‘discerners of principles’ practice for the sake of ‘the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of devas [other sentients] and humans.’ Many other places in the Suttas also spell out the wellbeing ethic (both for self and others) as the purpose of the path & practice, ignoring questions about any supposed irreality of the sensed world (and there were folk theories in the Buddha’s day about the irreality of the sensed world).

The book Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, by cognitive scientist George Lakoff and philosopher Mark Johnson, seems in decent enough agreement with the teachings of the Buddha, on the subject of ‘reality of sentient creatures’ and others, to shed some light on the question.

2 Likes