SuttaCentral
Thank you for making this point.
For so many of us, at least in the West, this duality is deeply entrenched. And the pitfall in training to see a lack of ownership of the physical body is to then think ‘I am the mind’.
I don’t really see this dualism in the suttas, rather it seems that humans are spoken about as an inseparable mixture of the mental and the physical. Not one harnessed to another.
It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.
“Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple attends closely and carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. That is, with ignorance as condition… -SN 12.61
With the origination of name-and-form there is the origination of mind. With the cessation of name-and-form there is the passing away of mind. -SN 47.42 (on the origin and passing away of the four foundations of mindfulness)
So there is this body and external name-and-form: thus this dyad. Dependent on the dyad there is contact. There are just six sense bases, contacted through which—or through a certain one among them—the fool experiences pleasure and pain. -SN 12.19
This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.
“This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. -SN 12.15
Indeed, right view descriptions bear little resemblance to most contemporary views, but that is not to say they aren’t comparable to descriptions of wrong view found in the suttas. In fact, they would have to align with what is found in the suttas, generally speaking.
What does this mean?
It seems you are saying right view is comparable to wrong view?
No, what I mean is any contemporary view can be traced back to a general wrong view description in the suttas. So, even though a “western” view may be very wrong, it isn’t so idiosyncratic that it bears no resemblance to what the suttas describe as wrong. It seemed as though your were saying that such wrong view descriptions are not found in the suttas.
Ok thanks.
I don’t think I mentioned ‘wrong view’
I was speaking about how our conditioning affects our way of thinking about ourselves and how we interpret texts.
I also don’t think that “any contemporary view” is ‘wrong view” in a sutta sense.
I was referring to your response to Meggers about the “mind-body split”, which is both wrong and found in the suttas. I think it is important to emphasize that many wrong views are thoroughly described by the Buddha, and it is critical readers find ways to draw comparisons between the many proliferated contemporary views and those found in the suttas. That brings the suttas to life. I’m not suggesting you disagree with any of this, but I thought it was important to note.
Again, I don’t follow you.
Are you saying my response was wrong, or the “mind-body split” is wrong?
You said you don’t see duality in the suttas. Or did I misunderstand you?
In any case, my idea is that a large part of the challenge of understanding what the suttas say, and making a faithful translation, is getting a bit past our preconceived notions, our conditioning.
I don’t think the Western philosophical “dualism” that Meggers was speaking about is the same “duality” that the quote to Kaccana is speaking about, although the same English word ‘duality’ is used. This is part of what I was trying to get at.
The ‘dyad’ quote seems to be speaking about the “inner-outer” problem, (I and thou), not the “body-mind” problem. Etc.
I agree, but my point is that a wide array of views describe separation, and it is highly likely that any contemporary wrong view does have a fundamental alignment with wrong view descriptions found in the suttas.
Contemporary views are not so unique that they can’t be broken down to the basic issue of trying to avoid suffering, so it should not be viewed as specialized undertaking to widdle it down to just that.
I have a feeling we are talking past each other.
So, these kinds of things, these challenges we all grapple with, are what lead to the challenge and debate in understanding what the Pali word ‘rupa’ describes.
I think I have to also push back a little against the idea the suttas contain a kind of hidden truth that readers have to enter into, external to ourselves, out there, separate from our five aggregates.
Of course we strive to better understand the texts, the teachings, but what we find, discover, and learn from the texts all comes from ourselves, our five aggregates.
The process of better understanding the texts comes from a better understanding of who and what we are. The relationship between reader and text is a dynamic one.
Who suggested “the suttas contain a kind of hidden truth that readers have to enter into, external to ourselves, out there, separate from our five aggregates”?
Yes, and this is why I said that Deleuze is notably a Rationalist, because he recognized the bottomlessness of the “cartesian diver” (versus the causal dependency all the way down of Kant) and developed a roughly Spinozan system, which can be collected under the term Vitalism now, of Spirit or Force (we are: thought-extension) that is immeasurably powerful in relation to puny human spirit. AFFECT (power to affect and be affected, from Spinoza) is sort of a central driver in all this and can for practical purposes very roughly be taken to be this Force. Another term more commonly used for this Force is DESIRE.
It seems any text is ‘my text’, there is no way to read it independently of myself.
And so the process of calling up and cross-referencing suttas in a well intentioned effort to glean understanding often is futile.
We can never ‘get to the bottom’ of them this way, step outside of them.
Of course we can’t. I’ve said that many times. When we read the suttas, we are reading about ourselves.
Hurrah. You mentioned Roland Barthes and intertextuality. Of all the post-structuralists he is warmest to my heart, with Foucault producing in me a kind of savage intellectual passion.
Great film for someone who is settled in Barthes and wanders around thinking about the five aggregates:
Here it is online. TRIGGER WARNING.
It has a fascinating relationship with the internet. If I recall it was tossed out there for remash culture, and several “mixes” of it created through internet collab exist. It is only one of two films that I know of that were made available to the public this way. The other being a documentary on 9/11.
Oh yes. And then we can add the Marxists and think about Althusser and interpolation, (sorry interpellation, Freudian slip) become aware and learn to recognize and refuse the call. (Stuart Hall’s three positions of aligned, negotiating, critical opposition)
http://www.longwood.edu/staff/mcgeecw/notesoninterpellation.htm
Yes, I agree.
But would go even further and say we are not only reading about ourselves, but what we are ‘reading’ is ‘ourselves’.
Our consternation, perplexity, glee, frustration with the text is us.