“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.” You may well instantly recognize these three sentences as the opening of the Dhammapada, and you may wonder what could possibly be wrong with them. Isn’t this just what the Buddha taught? Didn’t the Buddha teach that the world is an illusion? Didn’t the Buddha say things like “We become what we think?”
Well, let’s step back for a moment and look at what the first line of the Dhammapada actually says. In Pali that line is Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā. I’d translate this as “All experiences (dhammā) are preceded by mind (manopubbaṅgamā), having mind as their master (manoseṭṭhā) created by mind (manomayā).” The only part of this translation likely to be contentious is the word dhamma, (dhammā is the nominative plural), which can have many meanings, including “condition,” “moral quality,” “law,” “practice,” or “teaching.” So rich in meaning is this word that its entry in the Pali Text Society’s dictionary runs to several pages. In this context dhamma doesn’t mean the Buddha’s teachings, but refers to mental factors. Dhammā in the context of these verses has variously been translated as “mental states,” “mental phenomena,” and simply as “phenomena.” I like the word “experiences” because it’s more, well, experiential.
Since the first two verses of the Dhammapada discuss how suffering (dukkha) arises from an impure mind and joy (sukha) from a pure mind, it makes sense to assume that dhammā here refers to those mental states, or to mental states more generally. The essential message is that the qualities of our mind determine whether or not we suffer. There’s nothing in the Pali original that mentions “thoughts” or “the world” at all, never mind that that we are what we think, or that our thoughts create the world.
This particular translation is from a well-loved version of the Dhammapada, by Thomas Byrom. According to his US publisher, Shambhala, Byrom was an Englishman who taught history and literature at Harvard, and Old English, Middle English, and Victorian and modern literature at Oxford. There’s no mention of his having taught or studied Pali, which may explain the poetic, but very non-literal nature of his Dhammapada. it may also explain why the publisher calls Byrom’s version a “rendering” rather than a translation.
Byrom’s religious affiliations seem to have colored his rendering of the Buddha’s words. He was a Hindu, of the non-dualist Advaita Vedanta persuasion, and spent the last years of his life in an ashram in California. Of course a Hindu can faithfully translate a Buddhist text or a Buddhist a HIndu text, but in this case it’s hard to conclude that Byrom, for whatever reason, was moved to present Buddhist teachings as if they were Hindu. Although the Dhammapada doesn’t say that we are what we think, or that we’re created by our thoughts, the Ashtavakragita, which Byrom translated (and perhaps didn’t just “render”) toward the end of his life, says “You are what you think” (1:11). Although the Dhammapada doesn’t say that the world is created by our thoughts, the Ashtavakragita says “All creation, streaming out of the Self, Is only the Self” (2:4), and “When the world arises in me, It is just an illusion” (2:9).
But didn’t the Buddha himself teach that the world is an illusion? I’m sure some Buddhists believe he did, and the existence of Hindu-Buddhist hybrid texts like Byrom’s Dhammapada is no doubt one reason they do. But while the Buddha said that we have delusion (moha) about the nature of the world, and that we have cognitive distortions (vipallasas) he did not say that the world was an illusion, or māyā — an important term in Hunduism, which is found in the Pali scriptures but only to mean something like “deceit,” “fraud,” “hypocrisy,” etc. He didn’t deny the existence of the world, although he did point out that we make gross errors of interpretation regarding the nature of the world, seeing permanence where there is only change, seeing sources of suffering as sources of joy, and believing there is a separate and permanent self when no such entity does or can exist.
Nor did the Buddha teach the notion that we are what we think. He did say, “Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking and pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness,” although it’s clear from the context that he meant simply that indulging in certain kinds of thought — for example sensuous thought — the mind is shaped by that habit. If there was anything that the Buddha thought shaped us on a more profound level, if was not thought, but kamma, or intentional action, which he said we are “born of.”
I’m all for poetry, and Byrom’s Dhammapada is certainly poetic. But for a more poetic version that’s more faithful to the original, I’d suggest that by Gil Fronsdal, which makes no attempt to mold the Buddha’s teaching into a Hindu form.
This article was originally published in Tricycle magazine.
87 thoughts on ““We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.””
A fruitful take on the subject. However I would argue that B saw certain kinds of thought as intentional actions (kammas), so I see some overlap there. The line about “whatever a monk keeps pursuing” supports this reasoning.
I completely agree. The Buddha viewed physical actions, speech, and thought/intention as kamma (action). The point I was trying to make is that it’s not just or even principally thought that shapes who we are, but our physical, verbal, and mental activity as a whole.
The Anatta Sutta together with a stronger understanding of The Noble Eightfold Path often offers further insights which help to align back onto track.
Words and printings are simply “ink on paper”, they are just materials and nothing beyond.
Buddha went through uncountable rebirths and practiced for thousands and thousands of lives before he eventually attained enlightenment.
Without discussion and exchange of views, we do not know our mistakes and cannot improve from it. However, it may be of interest to scriptures translators to read up on the discipline required and the Karma effects of mistranslating even a single Buddha’s words.
May wisdom grows.
Just A Thought
“However, it may be of interest to scriptures translators to read up on the discipline required and the Karma effects of mistranslating even a single Buddha’s words.”
I’d go further than that.
To some extent it is surely possible to translate Buddhist scriptures without an understanding gained from practice, but I think that for a really good translation you need to have a deeper understanding that comes from having meditated and having lived the teachings. As I continue to practice I keep catching glimpses of deeper meanings behind the texts. Those meanings would not be apparent without the insights that come from meditative experience.
What I can relate to the scriptures, reflect only my current understanding and wisdom of what Buddha was trying to teach. Followers should know that, because over the years, as we practice, the same scriptures brings us to different levels of understanding from time to time.
Hypothetically speaking, if a follower would to translate what he or she can understand at this moment into scriptures; a translated version of the Buddhism Scriptures, someone may read and may base that as Buddha’s teaching. Afterall, like all of us, sentient beings are ignorant.
20 years from now, as the follower continue to practice, hopefully, his or her understanding of the same scriptures will bring them to another level or to an enhanced meaning. How do they then come back to correct those who had already read their initial translated scriptures? What about those who had spread it further and what happened to those who had already heard from them? Namo Amitabha.
While interpretation and exchange of views are personal, scriptures are scriptures. Once written, it cannot be undone. Once read, they are spread.
The Buddha, The Dhamar and The Sangha.
The Dhamar comes along with a list of very strick rules for followers. Buddha spoke of the effects of misrepresenting the Dharma.
Whilst all that exists are temporary, including any form, feeling, perception(thoughts), action and consciousness, The Law of Cause of Effect is an endless cycle.
May I humbly share:
Sentient Beings fear Effects, while Bodhisattvas fear Cause.
Buddha spoke of 84000 roads (Dharma) to attending Buddhahood, respectfully, I afraid mistranslation of the Dharma may be a road to no return.
May wisdom grows.
Just A Thought
The larger issue raised by your post is the Western misunderstanding of Buddhism as making philosophical, ontological assertions about the external world, in the manner of Western thinkers. When I realised, halfway through the suttas, that that was not at all what B was doing, the scales fell from my eyes. It’s a point that needs constantly to be emphasised. I appreciate your work.
Right! When the Buddha, for example, is saying “sabbe sankhara anicca,” he’s not saying that everything in the universe is impermanent. That’s simply not a provable statement. What he’s saying is every experience we have is constantly changing, which is demonstrable because we can look at the nature of the mind and of the senses and see that they depend upon change to function. If there did happen to be something in the universe that was unchanging, we still wouldn’t experience it as such because our sensory/mental apparatus would give us an ever-changing experience.
For another example of a supposed ontological/philosophical of the Buddha vanishing upon closer examination, you might want to look at my article on the three forms of dukkha.
This is actually way more fascinating than I thought. Thank you for sharing.
It’d be extra cool to include links that support this though because someone like me who’s learning, has no idea what the translations could mean. Just helps nail it home.
“If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters. The whole Buddhist practical doctrine and discipline, which has the attainment of Nibbana as its final goal, is based on the recognition of the material world and the conscious living beings living therein.”
-Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 14, 172
“At Sāvatthī. “Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me (Nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, lokena vivadāmi, loko va mayā vivadati). A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.”
Note 185 “This portion of the sutta offers an important counterpoint
to the message of the Kaccānagotta Sutta (12:15). Here the
Buddha emphasizes that he does not reject all ontological
propositions, but only those that transcend the bounds of
possible experience. While the Kaccānagotta Sutta shows
that the “middle teaching” excludes static, substantialist
conceptions of existence and nonexistence, the present text
shows that the same “middle teaching” can accommodate
definite pronouncements about these ontological issues.
The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as
impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist
theories, which hold that the world lacks real being.”
-Commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi
“If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.” “Now there comes a time when the external water element is disturbed. It carries away villages, towns, cities, districts, and countries.”
-Bodhi, Bhikkhu, “The Long Discourses”, Wisdom Publications, 1995, chapter 28
So, it’s not just Westerners that think the Buddha taught that there is an ontologically real world, Y. Karunadasa agrees, and so does the Buddha himself. It is not a Western misunderstanding. The idea that the Buddha strictly never confirmed the existence of the external world is simply not supported by the suttas. And, for all intents and purposes, he confirmed it in ways perfectly compatible with, again, Western thinkers. Not to mention the fact that the entire Theravada tradition is based on philosophical realism, which, of course, confirms an ontologically real world, again, perfectly compatible with Western thinking.
“What emerges from this Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas
is a critical realism, one which (unlike idealism) recognises the distinctness of the world from the experiencing subject yet also distinguishes between those types of entities that
truly exist independently of the cognitive act and those that owe their being to the act of cognition itself.
-Y. Karunadasa, The Dhamma Theory, Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma, 1996, pages 38-39
What emerges from the dhamma theory is best described as dhamma realism, for, as we have seen, it recognizes only the ultimate reality of the dhammas.
…the dhammas are ultimate existents with no possibility of further reduction.
-Y. Karunadasa, The Theravada Abhidhamma, 2016, pages 42, 49
Although the dhamma theory is an Abhidhammic innovation, the antecedent trends that led to its formulation and its basic ingredients can be traced to the early Buddhist scriptures which seek to analyse empiric individuality and its relation to the external world.
-Y. Karunadasa, The Dhamma Theory, Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma, 1996, page 9
“It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…
Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions…
…the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as “things which bear their own intrinsic nature” (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).
…concretely produced matter…possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.
Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.”
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 15, 26, 235, 260
Excellent, thanks for the link!
The writer whose piece you critique in that link also repeats what is probably the single most widely distributed Fake Buddha Quote: “Life is suffering.”
In the Diamond Sutra it says that the world is a bubble in a stream, a dream.. Buddha spoke of Emptiness as the underlying reality of all things, both in the mind and the universe. Emptiness due to Interdependence and therefore Impermanence, not just experience but also dhamma in the sense of phenomena.
“With our thoughts we make the world” essentially agrees with what Buddha said about the effects of karma, thought being the precursor of action.
While Buddha said the universe and mind were beyond the duality of existence and nonexistence, or any other duality for that matter.
Not really. Our actions may shape our interpretation of the world, but they don’t create it.
“Our actions may shape our interpretation of the world, but they don’t create it.”
Really? Then your actions never made anything, not even breakfast? You only “interpreted” breakfast?
I can certainly make toast, but I don’t make the wheat that goes into making the toast, or the metal that goes into making the toaster. In short, there’s an entire world out there that I interpret and exist in, but don’t in any real sense “create.”
Maybe not you, but it is somebody’s job to make the bread and the toaster. And it is you who is giving them the money to make them, through their employers. If you and everyone suddenly decided you did not want toast, then toasters would not exist for very long, now would they, law of supply and demand?
Emptiness means everything is interdependently related, and without all the conditions coming together.. a thing would not exist by itself.
OK, you’re just waffling now. I’m glad we can agree that my thoughts don’t create the world, and don’t even create toasters (which exist, incidentally, even if I don’t give people the money to make them). Did I create you?
You don’t create it from scratch, but your karma and obscurations project a reality onto things which they do not have.
And please don’t say I’m waffling, that is very disrespectful and not at all Buddhist in demeanor!!
“your karma and obscurations project a reality onto things”
Onto things that you did not create. Now, can we abandon this rather pointless discussion now that you’ve painted yourself into a corner?
openview: dhamma never means external object, in the modern materialist, scientific sense. “Phenomenon” is actually close in meaning, in its original sense of “appearance”.
Also, the Diamond Sutra was not spoken by the historical Buddha.
To Buddha “dharmas”, phenomena and appearances are the same.
There are so many references where Buddha says life is full of suffering, first among these the First Noble Truth.
Reread the texts. The First Noble Truth is not “Life is full of suffering.” The First Noble Truth is “There is suffering.” In Pali there’s not even a verb: “Dukkham ariyasaccam” = “Suffering Noble Truth”.
Well, there are many specific things in life that are mentioned as examples of suffering:
“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.”
However “life is suffering” gives the impression that there’s nothing but suffering in life, which isn’t accurate.
“..in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.”
That means all the elements that make up our body and the conditioned contents of the mind and all objects, lead to suffering. Make no mistake. There are three main kinds of suffering mentioned: 1. the suffering of suffering. 2. the suffering of change, impermanence. 3. the suffering of conditioned states.
That means we suffer all the time, especially since we don’t even know we are suffering, because of the underlying suffering of impermanence which does not stop. Happiness is temporary, so there is a built in suffering, wanting happiness, wanting happiness to stay, wanting happiness to come back. Yes, underlying the temporary states of happiness is suffering. Life is suffering, and part of fundamental ignorance (avidya) is not realizing this.
I’ve critiqued that interpretation, Openview, in an article called Three Forms of Suffering, Reinterpreted.
You’d think that if the Buddha had meant to teach “Life is Suffering,” he would have actually said that somewhere 🙂
“Those with children
because of their children.
Those with cattle
because of their cows.
A person’s grief
comes from acquisitions,
since a person with no acquisitions
from the Nandana Sutta – Delight
“Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such woe as the mind that is untamed, uncontrolled, unguarded and unrestrained. Such a mind indeed brings great woe.
“Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such bliss as the mind that is tamed, controlled, guarded and restrained. Such a mind indeed brings great bliss.”
from the Adanta Sutta – Untamed
These two show that (1) even things that we think are pleasurable are not, and (2) the mind that is not enlightened inevitably suffers.
“Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such bliss as the mind that is tamed, controlled, guarded and restrained. Such a mind indeed brings great bliss.”
Let’s get to work taming our minds then.
Incidentally, this quote is not saying, “Life is suffering.”
“How do you construe thus, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”
“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘this is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”
from The Anattalakkhana Sutra,
The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
Does this make it clearer that all of ordinary consciousness is considered suffering or stressful as it’s sometimes translated?
Saying that viññāṇa is dukkha here doesn’t mean that our experience is one of constant suffering. It means that consciousness, as a basis for happiness, is unsatisfactory (dukkha), because it’s constantly changing. This doesn’t mean that happiness can’t arise within consciousness. Obviously it does, and Dharma practice helps that to happen more and more in both ordinary life and in meditation.
So, no, “life” is not suffering. Life contains suffering, but also happiness. Life is a mixture. The point of practice is to stop giving rise to the unnecessary suffering caused by clinging, aversion, and delusion.
You may say that “life is suffering.” The Buddha never made that claim.
“openview: dhamma never means external object, in the modern materialist, scientific sense. “Phenomenon” is actually close in meaning, in its original sense of “appearance”.
My response to that is:
“That’s actually exactly what it means frequently:
“It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,… … Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions… … …the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as “things which bear their own intrinsic nature” (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma). … …concretely produced matter…possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight. … Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned, and unsurpassed. Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities— consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana. -Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 15, 26, 235, 260 What emerges from this Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas is a critical realism, one which (unlike idealism) recognises the distinctness of the world from the experiencing subject yet also distinguishes between those types of entities that truly exist independently of the cognitive act and those that owe their being to the act of cognition itself. -Y. Kunadasa, The Dhamma Theory, page 38 dhamma theory is best described as dhamma realism -The Theravada Abhidhamma: Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality By Y. Karunadasa, chapter 2 “”If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters. The whole Buddhist practical doctrine and discipline, which has the attainment of Nibbana as its final goal, is based on the recognition of the material world and the conscious living beings living therein.” -Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 14, 172 Also, you didn’t source your quote.
I have to say I don’t find this copying and pasting of massive amounts of quotes very helpful, Moose.
Fair enough, apologies. It is difficult to find a balance between just saying “Your post is factually incorrect.” and saying that, and also providing sufficient evidence, but without providing too much. The idea that the Buddha taught some form of extreme skepticism, idealism, phenomenalism, or something similar, is very prevalent, and most are loathe to believe that it’s even possible that he taught anything even remotely like realism. With this issue, just saying “Your post is factually incorrect, the Buddha was a realist” is never enough, at least in my experience, and usually demands significant proving documentation, due to many having swallowed a very thorough reinterpretation of the dhamma through a Mahayana lens (though nearly zero will admit, or even understand it is Mahayana, it certainly is not Theravada). In other words, how would anyone believe my critique is correct, unless I support it with sufficient copied and pasted texts?
I understand. The problem, though, is that I don’t think Gruff was putting forward that the Buddha was teaching idealism, skepticism, etc. I think he was making the point (one I agree with) that the Buddha was primarily concerned with our experience rather than trying to describe “the nature of reality,” or anything abstract like that. For example, when the Buddha says that all formations are impermanent, he’s not talking about physics, describing the nature of the universe and the things in that universe, he’s talking about our experience. Even if there were to be something in the universe that was permanent, our experience of that thing would be subject to moment-by-moment change, since that’s the nature of the mind and of our sensory and interpretive apparatus.
Of course things in the universe are subject to change, and the Buddha knew this and pointed out examples. And partly that was practical (what’s the point of being attached to things — they’ll all vanish in time) and partly it was complementary to observing impermanence in our direct experience (see, even whole worlds are impermanent — note how that’s true for you, too).
And it’s always good to hear what you make of those texts, rather than simply to be presented with them.
Sorry about the spacing being stripped. I think it goes back in again by the time the comment is actually published.
“For example, when the Buddha says that all formations are impermanent, he’s not talking about physics, describing the nature of the universe and the things in that universe, he’s talking about our experience. Even if there were to be something in the universe that was permanent, our experience of that thing would be subject to moment-by-moment change, since that’s the nature of the mind and of our sensory and interpretive apparatus.”
I respectfully disagree. If you’ll abide small quotes, that are immediately relevant to the discussion, and the discussion won’t make much sense without them:
“At Savatthi. Sitting to one side, that bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “Is there, venerable sir, any form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself? Is there any feeling … any perception … any volitional formations … any consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself?”
“Bhikkhu, there is no form … no feeling … no perception … no volitional formations … no consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself.”
Then the Blessed One took up a little bit of soil in his fingernail and said to that bhikkhu: “Bhikkhu, there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much form that was permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned. But because there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering is discerned.”
So, it becomes clear the Buddha did rule out things in totality, and did not restrain himself only to experience.
Please compare your statement:
“Even if there were to be something in the universe that was permanent, our experience of that thing would be subject to moment-by-moment change, since that’s the nature of the mind and of our sensory and interpretive apparatus.”
With the Buddha’s:
” If there was this much form that was permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned. But because there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering is discerned.”
Hence, if there were even a fingernail’s worth of, for example, permanent form existing, the holy life could not be discerned. But, the opposite is true. Now, one could make the claim that the Buddha didn’t say this form is all form, and therefore, he was only referencing the form of the human body, not other forms in the universe. But, we need only turn to the Buddha’s definition of what form denotes to clear this up:
“Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of form.”
And likewise for the other aggregates.
Thus, the Buddha did make statements on the aggregates existent status, temporariness, etc. that apply to all things, not just our experience.
Form is not “matter.” It’s a perception. And perceptions are continually changing, because perceiving is by its very nature based on change. So there is no contradiction between the sutta material you quoted and what I said.
All the best,
Buddha referred to himself as Hindu.
Hi, Bhagat. Actually he didn’t. Not only didn’t he, but he couldn’t have, since the term “Hindu” didn’t even exist.
So “physical actions, speech, and thought/intention as kamma (action)” shape our interpretation of our reality, dont create our reality, right? Is it this misunderstanding that has led to all of the modern, new age, “law of attractiony” kinda preaching?
We all create our own subjective world through our actions. For example I might see a large man on the street ahead of me and convince myself he’s a threat. The sense of being threatened is something that arises within me, but I perceive the outside world in terms of that threat. I see the man out there as being dangerous, even if he’s not.
That subjective change may well alter how the external world behaves. For example, I may annoy the large man by looking fearful and taking a detour to avoid him, because he’s fed up with people treating him that way. Maybe my actions even lead to him behaving aggressively.
But I did not create the large man. He’s objectively there. He himself is not a manifestation of my mind, although the perception of him as a threat is. The same is true for the street and everything else around me.
The law of attraction thing takes the idea of us creating our own subjective world, and the fact that our subjective responses, when expressed in actions (even actions as subtle as facial expressions and body language) have an effect on what happens in the outside world, and mashes them together in a rather crude way to produce the notion that everything in the outside world is a manifestation of the mind. There are Hindu ideas along those lines, and I’m sure that they’ve had an effect on the emergence of LOA. Hinduism has been influencing western thought now for well over a century.
Our individual past karma creates the projection of this world. Each of the six realms of rebirth project the world in a different way due to their karma. Our street looks like a different thing to an animal, to a hungry ghost or hell being might be a river of fire, to being in a god realm might be a path of gold strewn with flowers. This is the law of karma in Buddhism. Only a Buddha knows what reality is in itself, because only a Buddha is not projecting past karma, having dissolved their karma. We have no idea of ultimate reality, we see only what we project due to the karma of which we are unaware.
And this is something you know from experience? Or are you just passing on ideas you’ve been taught or have read?
Do you think I am enlightened to know this directly??
You asked if I think you’re enlightened and whether you know the truth of karma from personal experience. I’m pretty sure you’re not enlightened, that that you’re just passing on things you’ve been taught and can’t verify from your experience. So perhaps it would be wise to stop insisting that it’s reality? To insist that something is true when we can’t possibly know for sure is to cling to views. And as the Buddha said, “Those who cling to interpretations and views go about the world annoying people.” (Saññaca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ / Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loketi.”
Please do not assume where I received what I write. It is certainly not simply from books. It is from the wisest Buddhist teachers.
And do not be insulting, that is not very Buddhist in your approach, although you profess to know so much about “real” Buddhism. You seem never to have heard of the Six Realms. What real Buddhist has never heard of these and the effects of karma?? It boggles my mind. It is you who are clinging to false views, while loudly and insultingly proclaiming that I am. On Saka Dawa no less!!!
Sheesh. What on earth makes you think I haven’t heard of a basic teaching like the six realms? Now there’s an assumption!
And I didn’t say that you were clinging to false views, simply that you’re clinging to views, the truth or falsehood of which you cannot know from your own experience.
Are you yourself enlightened? No. Then you cannot say that another is enlightened or not because you do not have the wisdom to do so. Simple truth.
Do you see the contradiction between declaring on the one hand that I’m not enlightened and saying on the other that you have to be enlightened in order to say whether or not someone is enlightened? You’ve turned yourself around 180 degrees in the space of two sentences. Saying that you know that I’m not enlightened must, by your own words, mean that you’re making a claim that you are enlightened. Good luck with that.
Please stop wasting our time. Life is short.
You are the one who said I’m not enlightened. I’m simply pointing out to you why you cannot say that. Then you are trying out this logic on me. That is truly silly. You should really stop.
You asked me whether I thought you were enlightened or not. I replied. Now, any further comments from you will automatically go into the spam comments folder and deleted unseen. Your comments started off nit-picking and obsessive, and have gotten worse.
Bodhipaksa wrote: “There are Hindu ideas along those lines, and I’m sure that they’ve had an effect on the emergence of LOA. Hinduism has been influencing western thought now for well over a century.”
I loved this entire post. Bravo. Thank you for standing for reason. The whole “It’s all a dream, man.” position of many Buddhists undercuts the entire system, because, if it’s all a dream, then so are the teachings, and then so are the teachings that it’s all a dream, just a dream. Ad infinitum, ad absurdum, results ensue lol! For Buddhism to be valid, the outside world containing the teachings must be just as objectively real as your “large man on the street” is.
As to this specific issue of Hindu ideas, you’re certainly correct. I’d like to add, though, that, humorously, most Hindus are realists, today, and historically. Some how the brand of Hinduism that got the most popular in the West was neo Advaita Vedanta, which is decidedly subjective idealist. But when we actually look at the situation in India, today and throughout history, we see that giants like Ramanuja and Madhvacharya were realists, and extremely critical of Shankara’s Advaita, and today the majority of the most popular schools of Hinduism in India are descended from Vishishtadvaita, and generally promote a form of realism. One can even find, in the foundational work that all Vedanta relies on, the Brahma (Vedanta) Sutra, sections dedicated specifically to refuting idealism. There are also the Mimamsa school, and the Nyaya, which are still influential in some ways today, having been, in part, absorbed by later schools, which were realist as well. The idealist position has always been a minority, quite the opposite of the situation in the West. So much is this true of the West, that I thought Hinduism was entirely an idealist system, as a whole, until very recently, when I stumbled upon all of this info.
I will spare you the quotes demonstrating this lol! 😉
I’ll give a reference though, as a, hopefully, acceptable alternative to quotes, just in case anyone is interested, so here’s just a good starting point: Brahma Sutra 2.2.28. This section also includes a refutation of the extreme nihilism/relativism of the Madhyamaka. It’s an interesting read. Commentary by Ramanuja or Madhvacharya is best. The Shankara commentary is interesting, because he was considered by many, then and now, an idealist, and was commenting on an authoritative text refuting idealism.
Side note: Apologies for my posts coming through as one block of text with no paragraph spacing. I put the spacings in, but after hitting submit, they disappear.
Thank you for this historical background on Hinduism and its different schools. It’s a subject I know very little about.
Hinduism became influential on American culture in the 1800’s, at which time a lot of people were embracing an ethic whereby we create our own outcomes in life by means of our actions, and since those actions spring from our thoughts, all we have to do is to change our thinking and we can change our health, our happiness, and even our world. They called this New Thought, and it evolved into New Age thinking with it’s Law of Attraction and “manifesting.” So I guess those people were looking for a more idealist form of Hinduism, and were less interested in its realist schools.
Well said. And today that came out as “The Secret” and on and on. Silliness. If what you think and believe magically became reality, then gamblers would win big, always, as they always truly believe they’re about to get rich from their absurd pursuit. Not to mention, besides gamblers, the infinite examples of people who had thinking that didn’t generate into reality for them. People always seem to miss, too, that if this position were correct, then it actually would discredit all religion and philosophy, as they’d be merely generated by thought, and thus immediately replaced by whatever else one thought.
Believers in the LOA etc would of course make the claim that the gambler who loses secretly wants to lose. Of course this is unfalsifiable. It’s always handy having a belief system that’s able to dismiss any contrary evidence 😉
Here is a version published by the Pali Text Society and edited by Suriyagoda Sumangala Thera:
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.”
It’s still not an accurate translation 🙂
What is your “accurate” translation and name its source, or did you simply say this as a pat reply??
There are plenty of good translations of the Dhammapada out there, Openview. You can also look at the Pali. Even if you don’t understand Pali grammar, you can see which terms are and aren’t in the original. Buddharakkhita’s translations on access to insight is quite literal:
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Gil Fronsdal’s translation is good too:
All experience is preceded by mind,
Led by mind,
Made by mind.
Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
And suffering follows
As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox.
Narada Thera’s translation is also literal, at least for this verse. In some other verses he tends to me a bit “monkish”:
Mind is the forerunner of [all evil] states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, because of that, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox.
He’s careful to distinguish his own addition from what’s in the Pali.
All three of these can be matched, term-for-term, with the original Pali. You’ll notice that there’s nothing in any of these translations about “All that we are.” Nor is there anything corresponding to this in the Pali. Translations like that are a kind of “hinduization” of Buddhism. Unfortunately that’s a rather common phenomenon.
you are just a fu… idiot, believing in bullish which was good when people knew nothing about the world, how it works etc and believed in funny things
You can be better than this, Adam.
Just stumbled upon this translation today at a meeting with fellow Buddhists, one of whom had this “Shambhala Pocket Classic” with him.
I opened it out of curiosity and was taken aback by this opening line. How anyone could interpret the Buddha’s teachings in this way is quite worrying, and that it could make its way into print, via a Buddhist publishing company…
The Buddha, to the contrary, taught that “Sabbe dhamma anatta” – all phenomena are not-self. In other words, we emphatically are *not* what we think, our thoughts are not what we are. If I believed my thoughts were what I am, I’d be locked up by now.
Even the mind (citta), which the verse states “precedes,” even “makes” all dhammas, is not the self. In fact the Buddha states that it is our identification with it and its activities as “me,” “mine,” and “what I am” that causes us so much suffering, as it is such a changeable and unreliable force:
“”But as for what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness,’ the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’ Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.
“It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.”
Good points, CB.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”
“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real, they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
“Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind].”
Very nice. “With our thoughts we make the world” is still not what the Buddha taught and is still a mistranslation.
Thank you to the author for this article. I have enjoyed mediating on it for some time now.
Thanks also to those who commented with such open hearts and minds.
I found clarity in some of the comments too – from many sources – such as “it’s not just or even principally thought that shapes who we are, but our physical, verbal, and mental activity as a whole,” and also, “Emptiness means everything is interdependently related, and without all the conditions coming together.. a thing would not exist by itself.”
Further clarity is a beautiful thing. I celebrate clarity and improved understanding wherever I find them. Most of all I also celebrate the words, “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world,” and hear the inspiration of enlightenment in them. With a generosity of spirit and openness of mind, I have, through experience, learned was is meant and not meant by the “world” in this statement, and also, what is meant by “thoughts”.
My understanding of this text has always been that we can never underestimate the extent to which our own previous interpretations (or ‘construction’) of reality can influence our present and future perceptions of the reality – or “the world”. Our memories and interpretations of everything about us form our experience of all things – even ourselves. And undeniably, even in addition to this truth, we can also witness our thoughts giving rise to actions – and to a great extent, these influence our reality directly also, sometimes in drastic and unexpected ways. However, it is important not to misunderstand the intention, I believe, behind the focus of the text. But that, I find, has been made ever clear by what shortly follows those opening words, being: “Your worst enemy cannot harm you – As much as your own thoughts unguarded. But once mastered, no-one can help you as much. Not even your own father or mother.”
The idea of thoughts (as interpretation) giving rise to new thought and indeed, new action is also made clear, in context, I find, in the “wheel of the cart following the ox”, and the “unshakable shadow”.
But while poetry may speak volumes to some it can, I admit, elude others. But that itself is another issue to which I will direct my mind – if words lead me to understanding, can I fault the words if they do not need others? The only answer I can find is that looking for new ways of thinking on this subject is a worthy thing, and hence, convey my appreciation to the author for his work in this regard.
Live in peace.
It is in the moments of our pursuit for self-righteousness when we have the greatest opportunity to grow, if only we could lay down our ego and embrace, or at least entertain, real and true humility. I would dare state that nobody here is ‘waffling’ or ‘painted yourself into a corner’. What I observed was delightful, stimulating, and intelligent conversation. It could have served better without the cut-downs or statements of attack, as minor as they may have been, they are obviously present. I wish all a beautiful and fulfilled existence, whatever that may be for you.
Thank you, James.
Merci pour cette clarté
ὁ κόσμος ἀλλοίωσις, ὁ βίος ὑπόληψις.
“The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it.”
– Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Meditations, Vol, 3. (161 to 180 CE)
These days I think we must say “Our thoughts are what our life makes them”.
Why do you think that, Jayarava?
I didn’t see it pointed out so far that this entire post and discussion is thoughts. Practice helps us master these and points us to watch their causation, so as not to get attached to them. Do our thoughts make the world? This is just a thought! The world exist… this is just a thought. The world does not exist… this is just a thought. The world neither exists nor does not exist… this is just a thought… … … endless causations without beginning nor end… … …
Yes, there can be pointless thinking, obviously. But the contents of our thoughts can be helpful or unhelpful, true or untrue, kind or unkind, conducive to awakening or hindrances to awakening. Sometimes we need to weed through thoughts and figure out which are which. Presumably you believe your own thoughts to be helpful and true, or you wouldn’t have shared them…
Didn’t (later) Buddha? say that teachings were a vehicle. Thoughts are a raft that take us somewhere, but we discard the thoughts when the journey is done. So yes our minds take us on a journey, but the vehicle has no absolute value. Eventually I guess we will even discard this teaching of Buddha. In answer to you question I personally spend far too much time in thoughts so am as habituated as the next and sometime I do give more value to my conditioned thoughts than I should. But in jhana we see ultimately what a vain folly that is. I was interested in the original article btw it gave me a shake out of dogmatic complacency.
Yes, the Buddha taught in the early scriptures that the Dharma is a raft. The raft is to be discarded when we reach the destination, but obviously it would be a bad idea to decide right at the beginning that because the raft is ultimately to be abandoned, it’s therefore unnecessary. To do that means we don’t go anywhere.
If you think of concepts or thoughts as being the movements of our paddle, then our task is to learn which of those are taking us in the direction we want to go in, and which are taking us in wrong directions. A good illustration of that principle is the Dvedhavitakka (Two Kinds of Thought) sutta, which is from the same collection of scriptures as the sutta I linked to above.
So in the meantime, here we are, sorting through what is useful (or not) in our thinking and in our understanding. Your original point that these are all just thoughts is important, because we can tend to take concepts as things that we have to defend, perhaps because we see them as being absolute truths or because we see them as part of our identity (“I am a good Buddhist and I believe X”) and thus cling to them.
Thank you, very clear, am in complete agreement. I didn’t know until reading this that Byrom had made such a poor translation. Which troubled me because in another way I had managed to understand it thus. Within the context of the issue of “make the world” isn’t the “world” itself a raft. In that what one person gets from life, is quite different from another and the difference is therefore in the mind and particularly the thoughts. So there is no fixed world of “objective” existence bur rather what our karma brings to the party? With our thoughts we make the world. Certainly we hope to refine our thoughts as we purify and gradually use more “skillful” ones but in the end thoughts and the “world” themselves become the limitation. The fact we can watch thoughts and conceptions arise in vipassana suggests they are conditioned existence themselves, and that the mind and present moment are beyond these. That famous parable of the man confusing the rope in the shadows with a snake: watching a situation like this unfold we can see our brain struggling to think and conceive. But once we see conditioned existence happening like this we are definitely liberated from thoughts. Conversely when we don’t fully see conditioned existence happening “its a snake!” then we are still bound to thoughts and we also see a “world” and “self” that is independent, solid and existing unconditioned. I assumed “with our thoughts we make the world” was referring to the mundane view of world. So had always assumed not a bad translation.
Thanks for explaining how you used to see things. Those are common perspectives.
Yes, this is obviously true. We all have our own individual brain structure, conditioning, experiences, and so on, and so we all perceive the world in different ways — sometimes in radically different ways, although there will always be a lot of commonalities.
This on the other hand is a non sequitur. It simply wouldn’t follow at all that because we each interpret the world in a different way, there is not objective external existence — i.e. an existence that is, regardless of whether there are conscious beings to perceive it.
One thing the Buddha did say was that not everything that happens to us is the result of our karma. If our karma creates the world, that would mean there are things that are happening to us that are not the result of karma. I don’t think that makes sense. There’s also, as far as I’m aware, absolutely nothing in the Buddha’s teaching suggesting this kind of pure subjectivity. He simply didn’t teach that the world was an illusion. Or that we create the world, through our karma or anything else.
He did talk about this entire world being found within this fathom-long body, but what I think he meant by that is that all we can know of the world is our experience of it, filtered through our senses and mind. And since his intention was to help us free ourselves from suffering, this had the point of directing us toward looking at how we experience (and respond to) the world so that we can see how our experiential mechanism (or the “mind” component of that mechanism) can act in ways that either cause suffering or bring us happiness. That is what the first two verses of the Dhammapada (the real words of the Buddha, not Byrom’s Hinduized version) are referring to.
I’m going to leave aside the whole “conditioned existence” versus some kind of transcendental mind and present moment thing. I’m not convinced the Buddha talked about a “conditioned existence” or that mind or consciousness stood outside of conditionality.
Trying to divine what the Buddha taught is pretty damn tricky! He himself described it as subtle and hard to comprehend. That task of divination is made harder by the fact that we take on these interpretations that really don’t bear any resemblance to what he did teach and that even contradict it. (This is assuming that the early scriptures do reflect what he taught.) We all have a lot of unlearning to do in order to make ourselves receptive to his perspectives. Most Buddhists, I’ve found, are not even vaguely open to unlearning anything. They’ve taken on board teachings developed long after the Buddha’s time, and get very angry at the suggestion that they try to let go of that and try to see things the way the Buddha did.
Approaching Thomas Byrom’s rendering, “with our thoughts we make the world”, from the other direction, so to speak:
The modern English word “world” derives from the Old English word “woruld” meaning “human existence” — from “wer” (man) plus “ald” (age), literally “the age of man”. Thus “world” orginally referred not to the “external” world, but to the “world” of human experience.
If we take the word “world” in its original sense, then Byrom’s rendering can be understood as “with our thoughts we make our experience”, which I think is closer to the meaning of the Dhammapada verse.
Yes, but virtually no one is going to read Byrom through the lens of Old English etymology, and his other inaccuracies can’t be explained away by using that approach. Even though he was a scholar of Old English I suspect this is a coincidence.
It is very sad to see such post, to say this translation is Hindu not Buddhist.. Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism. When a someone like the writer of this blog or translator with limited understanding of deep spirituality that all leads to one will end up with post like this.. this is mine that is yours, it is Pali not hi do not English and all that. Idea is to be inspired and not make it religion based. This article/post is everything Buddha taught against. Finding truth for ourselves…
“Finding truth for ourselves” can involve comparing translations with the original material and seeing whether or not those translations are accurate, Manvi. This is “finding the truth for ourselves” about what scriptures actually say. Hinduism, on the whole, has a very different outlook and philosophy from Buddhism. And yes, certain translators who identify with Hinduism have mistranslated Buddhist texts in order to erase such differences — as in this case.
Who said buddhism is an offshoot of hinduism? Actually hinduism didn’t exist in the Buddha’s time and the Buddha was a Samana/Sramana meaning he rejected the vedas.
Thank you sir. I am ditching my Thomas Byrom translation for the Gil Fronsdal translation as you recommend. I truly appreciate what you are doing here 🙂
You’re very welcome!
Thank you for writing this article!
This makes so much more sense to me!
I have been meditating with Anapana and Vipassana since the beginning of the year 2007 and everything that I have learned about Buddha’s teaching has proven to be true for me. The only thing that didn’t fit was this quote about the thoughts. It always irritates me when I hear or read it somewhere, because it does not make sense to me and I know for a fact that the more one meditates the clearer Buddhas teachings become, just as everything else in life. It is also no coincidence, that the word “Vipassana” means “To see things as they are”.
It made a lot of sense to me when I first found out that Pali was a very rich language and that one word could have many different meanings and that these “Quotes” had been translated differently by different interpretors.
The interpretation “mental states” makes a lot more sense to me.
That is at least what my experience has taught me.
Life is like a mirror, it mirrors our inner state of being – our mental state.
Our mental state governs our perception of our reality and how we react to it, how we interpret what happens to us in our life.
That is where delusion (moha) about the nature of the world and our cognitive distortions (vipallasas) come into the picture, unless we learn “to see things as they are”.
But this is not necessarily impacted by our thoughts.
I was taught that the mind is made up out of many parts and most of these we are completely unaware of. But with meditation we can calm down and purify the mind on a subconscious level. In other words we make it strong and happy. When the mind is strong and happy you could still think negative thoughts, but it won’t really make a difference, it’s like your mind doesn’t take these thoughts very seriously anyway, since you’ve elevated your mental state. In the same sense, positive thinking doesn’t really make that big of a difference when you are in suffering mental state.
In my experience, the mental state that we are in, not necessarily the thoughts, shape our life and our interpretation of its events.
This is simply my limited understanding though and the mind holds many more facets that I personally have yet to receive insight in at this time.
All the best and thank you! 🙏🏼
Re: “But didn’t the Buddha himself teach that the world is an illusion?”
In fact, the Buddha pointedly refused to answer such questions as whether the universe is real or not, whether the universe is infinite or not, whether time has a beginning or an ending or not, etc. because such metaphysical speculations were an irrelevant distraction from his teachings, which presented a method for attaining enlightenment, not a theory about the universe. He often said that when you see and know how things really are, you will cease to ask such questions.
May 10, 2022 at 8:23 am
Form is not “matter.” It’s a perception. And perceptions are continually changing, because perceiving is by its very nature based on change. So there is no contradiction between the sutta material you quoted and what I said.
All the best,
Respectfully, you are incorrect. Form is matter. The Buddha spoke of form that is present when unobserved. He also defined form as being made up of the four great elements, which can be internal or external, and can cause natural disasters. Thus, it is false to declare all form as merely a perception. Buddhism is realism, not phenomenalism.
Please forgive the quotes, but I can’t expect you to just take my word on it, can I?
“The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. ”
“All form is that which is…
void of idea,
neither feeling, nor perception, nor synthesis,
disconnected with thought,”
“form exists which is not due to karma having been wrought”
“If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.”
“Now there comes a time when the external water element is disturbed. It carries away villages, towns, cities, districts, and countries.”
“Points of Controversy
9.3 Of Matter as Subjective
Controverted Point: Whether matter should be termed subjective or objective.
Theravādin: If that is so, you must also affirm of matter or body, that it has the mental features of “adverting”, ideating, reflecting, co-ordinated application, attending, willing, anticipating, aiming—things which you would, on the contrary, deny of matter.
All, or any of them you can rightly affirm of mental properties, such as contact (mental reaction), feeling, perception, volition, cognition, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, understanding, lust, hate, illusion, conceit, erroneous opinion, doubt, mental inertia, distraction, immodesty, indiscretion—all of which you admit as subjective. But matter is not one of these, and therefore such things may not be affirmed of it.
You deny in the case of matter all those mental features—adverting, etc.—but claim for it the term “subjective”, which is really applicable to “contact”, sensation, etc. These, as you admit, do not lack those mental features named.
Uttarāpathaka: But is not matter correlated (as an object)? Of course you assent. Then as correlated it is surely right to apply the term “subjective” to matter, etc. since “object” is one of the twenty-four (causal) relations.”
“Student, suppose there were a man born blind who could not see dark and light forms, who could not see blue, yellow, red, or carmine forms, who could not see what was even and uneven, who could not see the stars or the sun and moon. He might say thus: ‘There are no dark and light forms, and no one who sees dark and light forms; there are no blue, yellow, red, or carmine forms, and no one who sees blue, yellow, red, or carmine forms; there is nothing even and uneven, and no one who sees anything even and uneven; there are no stars and no sun and moon, and no one who sees stars and the sun and moon. I do not know these, I do not see these, therefore these do not exist.’ Speaking thus, student, would he be speaking rightly?”
“No, Master Gotama. There are dark and light forms, and those who see dark and light forms…there are the stars and the sun and moon, and those who see the stars and the sun and moon. Saying, ‘I do not know these, I do not see these, therefore these do not exist,’ he would not be speaking rightly.”
“So too, student, the brahmin Pokkharasāti is blind and visionless.”
-Subhasutta, MN 99
I hope it becomes clear that the phenomenalist interpretation is not supported by the Pali Canon, without some serious textual gymnastics. The Pali Canon is a realist document. Form does not strictly denote perception, but also physical, mind independent objects.
“…in order for there to be seeing there must be eye sensitivity, and there must be visible forms that really exist, are realities that genuinely exist, are personally experienced, and are ultimate reality.”
-Mahasi Sayadaw, Manual of Insight, page 98