<p>asking what is real or not is a worthless question clung to by philosophers addicted to rupa who fail to see that the other aggregates are more important.</p>

<p>What matters is what you do with vedana, sanna, vinnana, rupa and sankharas, ie to view them with sati, right view, panna and so on.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T12:34:39.370Z
2019-05-28T12:34:39.370Z
user12901
<p>Cheeseburger is nama pannatti. Ideas about a particular cheeseburger is santhana pannatti. The physical cheeseburger is dathu which lasts only momentarily. Pannatti lasts longer than the object itself as it is not subjected to 3 characteristics as they are not real. So the pannatti lasts longer. The sanna about the cheeseburger lasts only momenterity and lasts much shorter. Same for the physical cheeseburger. Perception in your question can fit with both sanna and pannatti.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T09:41:42.660Z
2019-05-31T10:49:05.053Z
2019-05-31T10:49:05.053Z
Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
<p>Asking what is real or not is a worthless question clung to by philosophers. The suttas say:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble,
  unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
  cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding —
  i.e., talk about kings, robbers &amp; ministers of state; armies, alarms,
  &amp; battles; food &amp; drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, &amp; scents;
  relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women &amp;
  heroes; the gossip of the street &amp; the well; tales of the dead; tales
  of diversity, the creation of the world &amp; of the sea; <strong>talk of whether
  things exist or not</strong>.' In this way he is alert there.</p>
  
  <p>MN 122</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The questions the Lord Buddha asked about cheeseburgers were: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Are cheeseburgers permanent or impermanent?</p></li>
<li><p>Do cheeseburgers bring lasting happiness or are they unsatisfactory? </p></li>
<li><p>Should cheeseburgers be regarded as 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?. </p></li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T13:47:26.760Z
My impression of Buddha is he was concerned with "real happiness". Kind regards
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T20:06:44.887Z
You seem to be inferring Samana Johann is a philosopher?
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T20:37:21.597Z
@Dhammadhatu I think Peter is inferring that he himself is a philosopher -- and that you seem to be "denigrating" philosophers and philosophy.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-01T13:17:25.070Z
@PeterJ I think the early suttas (i.e. pre-Nagarjuna) have a theme of accepting only certain questions as being useful -- see e.g. [The unanswered questions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions) ... the [Parable of the Poisoned Arrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow) ... the [Simsapa Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html) ... also some concepts like "empty speculation is a fetter". I guess "real" comes from a "real..ideal" philosophical split (duality), or "subjective..objective"?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-01T13:21:00.243Z
Without wanting to be rude to philosophers, I admire what I understand to have been the Buddha's attitude, his "solution" to that (that kind of) "problem" -- it reminds me of the famously incisive Gordian Knot solution, i.e. to dismiss or undo the problem.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-01T13:29:16.910Z
@PeterJ Personally in the past I found naive or inept introductions to Buddhism -- not Nagarjuna's, but modern paraphrases -- "X isn't real" or "X doesn't really exist" -- to be just confusing or patronising or other-worldly. So I'm grateful to have been introduced since then to the texts of the suttas, which I find relatively practical and prescriptive,
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-01T13:57:42.690Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/94386/discussion-between-chrisw-and-peterj).
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T19:58:20.670Z
2019-05-28T19:58:20.670Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>What lasts longer: the Cheesburger or a perception of it?</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/bozeF.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/bozeF.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>What's more real? Where to put into de-veloping?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T13:26:05.237Z
This question "What lasts longer: the Cheeseburger or a perception of it?" will last longer than both the cheeseburger and the perception of it.
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-01T06:34:58.450Z
I see so many user accounts by the same name. Any reason why?
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-01T07:21:38.173Z
@SankhaKulathantille He has said that he doesn't want to register an account, because an account is "not offered" and also perhaps because he disapproves of this site. With an unregistered account, the account depends on cookies in the device's browser (instead of depending on the user's email address), and a new account is created every time he clears the device's cookies (which is frequently).
ChrisW
<vipassana>
What lasts longer: the Cheesburger or a perception of it?
# What lasts longer: the Cheesburger or a perception of it?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-28)

What lasts longer: the Cheesburger or a perception of it?

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/bozeF.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/bozeF.jpg)

What's more real? Where to put into de-veloping?

**Tags:** vipassana

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question "What lasts longer: the Cheeseburger or a perception of it?" will last longer than both the cheeseburger and the perception of it.  
> **username_2**: I see so many user accounts by the same name. Any reason why?  
> **username_3**: @SankhaKulathantille He has said that he doesn't want to register an account, because an account is "not offered" and also perhaps because he disapproves of this site. With an unregistered account, the account depends on cookies in the device's browser (instead of depending on the user's email address), and a new account is created every time he clears the device's cookies (which is frequently).  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2019-05-28. Score: 3

Asking what is real or not is a worthless question clung to by philosophers. The suttas say:

> I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble,
> unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
> cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding —
> i.e., talk about kings, robbers & ministers of state; armies, alarms,
> & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents;
> relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women &
> heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales
> of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; **talk of whether
> things exist or not**.' In this way he is alert there.
>
> MN 122

The questions the Lord Buddha asked about cheeseburgers were:

1. Are cheeseburgers permanent or impermanent?
2. Do cheeseburgers bring lasting happiness or are they unsatisfactory?
3. Should cheeseburgers be regarded as 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: My impression of Buddha is he was concerned with "real happiness". Kind regards  
> **username_6**: You seem to be inferring username_0 is a philosopher?  
> **username_3**: @Dhammadhatu I think Peter is inferring that he himself is a philosopher -- and that you seem to be "denigrating" philosophers and philosophy.  
> **username_3**: @PeterJ I think the early suttas (i.e. pre-Nagarjuna) have a theme of accepting only certain questions as being useful -- see e.g. [The unanswered questions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions) ... the [Parable of the Poisoned Arrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow) ... the [Simsapa Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html) ... also some concepts like "empty speculation is a fetter". I guess "real" comes from a "real..ideal" philosophical split (duality), or "subjective..objective"?  
> **username_3**: Without wanting to be rude to philosophers, I admire what I understand to have been the Buddha's attitude, his "solution" to that (that kind of) "problem" -- it reminds me of the famously incisive Gordian Knot solution, i.e. to dismiss or undo the problem.  
> **username_3**: @PeterJ Personally in the past I found naive or inept introductions to Buddhism -- not Nagarjuna's, but modern paraphrases -- "X isn't real" or "X doesn't really exist" -- to be just confusing or patronising or other-worldly. So I'm grateful to have been introduced since then to the texts of the suttas, which I find relatively practical and prescriptive,  
> **username_3**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/94386/discussion-between-chrisw-and-peterj).  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-05-28. Score: 2

asking what is real or not is a worthless question clung to by philosophers addicted to rupa who fail to see that the other aggregates are more important.

What matters is what you do with vedana, sanna, vinnana, rupa and sankharas, ie to view them with sati, right view, panna and so on.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-05-31. Score: 0

Cheeseburger is nama pannatti. Ideas about a particular cheeseburger is santhana pannatti. The physical cheeseburger is dathu which lasts only momentarily. Pannatti lasts longer than the object itself as it is not subjected to 3 characteristics as they are not real. So the pannatti lasts longer. The sanna about the cheeseburger lasts only momenterity and lasts much shorter. Same for the physical cheeseburger. Perception in your question can fit with both sanna and pannatti.


---

