Is there an objective world?

[soaring crane]

 

Matter manifests itself through our perception and through our awareness of perception.

 

Funny, I would tend to phrase that the other way around.

[thuscomeone]

Why believe anyone at all? Does the Dali Lama hold more authority than you, me, or anyone else? In one sense, sure he's experienced and has knowledge. But in the other sense, he's human, just like we are.

 

About things 'pointing' to reality... yes, we label our experiences of our senses, completely agree... but what are those experiences? I experience this chair as solid matter holding me up but we've discovered that most matter is in fact space. Matter manifests itself through our perception and through our awareness of perception. I think the simple answer is: we cannot know what is outside of our own personal consciousness/experience one way or the other, we can only suggest a model for what we perceive.

I believe the dalai lama not just because he is an authority on the subject (that is one reason though). I believe him because what he says aligns with what I have come to know from personal experience. That personal experience tells me that he is a better source of knowledge on buddhism than GIH is. Yes though, I do agree in some sense that all we can ever know is our own consciousness so even if there were an objective world, we would not be able to know it. That does not mean the rejection of an objective world. It just means that the sentient beings experience is never apart from the mind so that we can never be outside of the mind. It does not mean as far as I know that mind is the only reality. For us it is, but not for everything.

 

If we are talking in terms of Buddhism here, it is primarily concerned with sentient beings and sentient beings understanding of their true nature. Yet sentient beings are not the only things in the universe, they are just one piece. There are insentient things. I do not see that solving one part of the puzzle solves the whole thing.

Edited December 21, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Unconditioned]

Funny, I would tend to phrase that the other way around.

 

Go for it, same result

 

It's like saying the heat created the fire or the fire created the heat.

[soaring crane]

[ralis]

One of my favorite authors (Robert Anton Wilson) talked extensively about the local tunnel reality. This is nothing more than a primitive tribal reality, that meets the needs and sets limits on each participant.

 

Examples are: Buddhism, Dalia Lama says so, political parties, Jungian analysis, all religions, all belief systems (BS) and any other ism that limits one's perspective of reality.

 

 

ralis

[Unconditioned]

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

I just want to state here that I am not going to get into an arguement of Taoist vs Buddhist concepts of reality. We have already done that and I didn't enjoy it all that much.

 

So I present to y'all that I do understand that I see this concept differently than most (but not all) Buddhists do.

 

However, I must totally disagree with this: Matter manifests itself through our perception and through our awareness of perception.

 

To say this would be for you to say that nothing existed before you became aware of the Manifest. There is absolutely no logic to this statement. As I mentioned earlier, this physical universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. How old are you?

 

Peace & Love!

[soaring crane]

where does this 'model' come from? Human conciousness... round and round we go!

 

Well, and I hope I don't come off as debating because I really don't want to do that, I just want to clarify. I don't think Qi or the model of Dao/Qi/Yin/Yang comes from human consciousness. Every western scientific "Law" is up for grabs, at least the ones that don't just restate yin/yang ("for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction..."). The "Law" of gravity is falling apart at the seams and so are many others. They'll be replaced by more shaky laws...

 

But Yin/Yang? Qi? No, no chance. They're the real law in town. The Lawmakers. They brought us into this world, and they'll take us out (yes, I remember my Bill Cosby, lol).

 

Goodnight from CET

 

xi xi

[Unconditioned]

Well, and I hope I don't come off as debating because I really don't want to do that, I just want to clarify. I don't think Qi or the model of Dao/Qi/Yin/Yang comes from human consciousness. Every western scientific "Law" is up for grabs, at least the ones that don't just restate yin/yang ("for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction..."). The "Law" of gravity is falling apart at the seams and so are many others. They'll be replaced by more shaky laws...

 

But Yin/Yang? Qi? No, no chance. They're the real law in town. The Lawmakers. They brought us into this world, and they'll take us out (yes, I remember my Bill Cosby, lol).

 

Goodnight from CET

 

xi xi

 

Great point again: discovering what's there or making models that work well enough for human minds? I'm all set with debating that one too... take care!

[forestofclarity]

Peace & Love!

Yes, the pain is experienced by the individual experiencer. However, scientific analysis can define the coldness of a thing, water, air, etc. without an individual experiencer. So therefore the heat that the fire produces is real without an observer. Just as the tree exists without an observer.

 

Scientific experiments all take place within consciousness. Perceiving the thermometer is a mental phenomenon. This is like arguing that dream fire is objective because you can conduct dream scientific experiments on it.

 

My question to all of you who accept an "objective" world outside of consciousness: have you ever seen it?

[Marblehead]

Scientific experiments all take place within consciousness. Perceiving the thermometer is a mental phenomenon. This is like arguing that dream fire is objective because you can conduct dream scientific experiments on it.

 

My question to all of you who accept an "objective" world outside of consciousness: have you ever seen it?

 

You too, my friend, in this discussion, have lost your ability to use logic.

 

A good scientific experiment can be made with no humans observing and the results recorded before any human views the results.

 

Of course I have seen the objective world. I saw the bed I was born in. My mother and father had sex on it before I was born. It didn't require my birth for that bed to exist.

 

Let's get real now, please. That are many things that exist that you are totally unaware of. The world does not need you in order for it to be real. The tree does not need you in order to exist.

 

I have seen a tree that was five hundred years older than I was at the time.

 

Manifest reality exists without any human consciousness. And it will continue to exist after you and I die.

 

Do you believe that dinosaurs once walked the Earth? There were no humans then to imagine then or to be consciously aware of them. How did they manage to exist? Cheeezzzee!!!

 

Peace & Love!

[thuscomeone]

Matter manifests itself through our perception and through our awareness of perception. [/color]

I don't get this either, yet I hear people say it or imply it over and over again. I don't even know where to start with it. I agree that the mind has a hand in bringing forth some matter. For instance, a building is conceived of in the mind before it is built so without that mental conception it would not have come to be. Yet even that does not come completely from the mind. And take something like the sun rising, rain falling from the sky. That is a natural process that the mind has absolutely no part in. Ok so the mind labels it "sky", "rain" etc. So what? Instead of "the sky" you can call the sky a "bear", "a house" "a frog", whatever. Those words are all still pointing to something which is there and which I don't believe would just disappear if these labels went away or if the mind went away. Unless somebody can convince me otherwise.

 

 

Do you believe that dinosaurs once walked the Earth? There were no humans then to imagine then or to be consciously aware of them. How did they manage to exist? Cheeezzzee!!!

 

Peace & Love!

This is a perfect example.

 

I think that this topic definitely relates to this Zen koan:

"Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.

 

While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"

 

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

 

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[C T]

One person can walk into a forest a thousand times and leave the forest each time with a "new world",

yet another person can walk into the same forest, the same number of times, and each time this person leaves,

leaves with nothing new... Objective and Subjective worlds? Its not that clear-cut i think.

 

Our senses are limited. What we do not perceive within the limitations of the senses we normally tend to

assume do not exist. Yet, thankfully, there are ways in which these senses can be enlivened, expanded,

transformed, and/or transcended.

 

The question is, when the senses are enlivened, expanded, transformed and/or

transcended, do we then see another reality(world) - a world where previously we thought was not there?

My limited understanding tells me the answer is yes. Yet in essence its the same world, although underlying

this sameness i believe lies a myriad other worlds, as many as there are levels of consciousness.

 

I do not believe the world ceases when the body dies. For as long as there remain the subtlest of consciousness,

cause and effect remain; for as long as cause and effect remain, worlds of all different manifestations and

dissolutions will continue to shape and reshape. How these worlds appear, however, would be beyond the grasp

of our present levels of consciousness.

 

 

My view on the matter. Its limited.

Edited December 22, 2009 by CowTao

[goldisheavy]

Gold, when it comes to Buddhism, I believe the Dalai lama a lot more than I believe you.

 

First, let me say, "At least I am in the running." I am joking, of course. I am laughing at you and myself simultaneously. I gave you a link to a precious Tantra text, which in Tibetan Buddhism is considered Buddha nirmanakaya itself. It's far more authoritative than the Dalai Lama. Do yourself a favor and read it. It's worth your time, I promise. I don't recommend some garbage to you. I offer you a precious jewel. "Buddhahood without Meditation" is a profound text. This is the last time I will suggest you read it. If you don't want to read it, your karma is just not ripe for it, that's all.

 

Secondly, and more seriously, it is obvious that your understanding is still wobbly in that you need to lean on an authority for support. I know you won't accept this line and will argue against it, so don't bother wasting your time. We both know how this goes, and this isn't the most interesting part anyway.

 

As to your assertion about sentience and insentience apart from the mind. Well see my problem is this.

 

Exactly. Why is it the problem is yours and not mine? Because we have different mindsets. I take it you won't be so arrogant as to say that your position is objective while mine is subjective, right? If you agree to put your cognition of this topic on the same level as mine, then you prove my point: there is nothing to know outside of mind itself. Even if something external to mind existed, you would have no way to validly infer it, and you'd simply have to take it on faith (exactly the same as Christian belief in God, or as I like to say, physical matter and physical energy is physicalist's God).

 

Those words sentience and insentience point to things in the world/reality.

 

Well that's your intended meaning. You want the words to point to something outside of themselves. That's the meaning you want and intend your words to have. I understand that. But that doesn't mean there is anything that your words actually refer to. That still remains to be proven.

 

They are mere labels for dependently orginated things.

 

The labels and the things "themselves" are dependent upon each other within the interdependent co-arising. In fact, things have no self, and neither do labels. That's the whole point of Buddhist logic -- there is no such thing as a "thing in itself". This point is fundamental. Delineation is a certain type of mind activity. Take away delineation and there are no more things.

 

You might say that even if your mind is in a non-delineating state, things still exist outside the mind and "wait" to be discovered as soon as your mind comes out of that state. If that's your intent, then I counter it like this: This is nothing more than the evidence of your own bias. You can equally successfully say that "Only undifferentiated basic space exists outside the mind. When the mind enters into a delineated state, things appear inside the mind. But even as things appear, the real and objective non-delineated reality is 'waiting' to be discovered as soon as your mind comes out of that state." See what I did there? I just flipped around what you consider to have ground-level primacy and what is adventitious. So if you consider non-delineated meditative states to be adventitious and external things to be more fundamental, more basic, more essential, more lasting, to have ground-level primacy -- that's just your bias. You can equally successfully consider the reverse of this to be true. You can consider the undifferentiated reality to have ground-level primacy, and thing-appearances to be adventitious.

 

In reality Buddhism goes even beyond this though. This argument, which doesn't represent the fullest extent of Buddhist insight, is all I need to counter your silly assertion. The fullest extent of the Buddhist insight is even more radical.

 

So our conceptual labeling is not all there is. If there were not processes that happened "out there", we would have no basis for conceptual thinking.

 

It's precisely because things do not exist "out there" that our conceptual labeling is called baseless in Buddhist logic. If you think that Buddhists believe our labels have basis, I have a surprise for you:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn...5.207.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...4.024.than.html

 

That is first there is the appearance and then there is the label.

 

Absurd. When does the ability to distinguish labels from appearances arise? If it arises before the appearance, then mind pre-exists appearances. If the ability to distinguish appearances from labels arises after appearances arise, then how can one determine that "appearances arose?" That's one counter.

 

Another equally good counter is to say that labels are appearances themselves and to distinguish appearances from labels is without meaning in the final analysis. Your argument foolishly depends on the idea that appearances are inherently different from labels.

 

Ok, I've had enough for now.

Edited December 22, 2009 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

First, let me say, "At least I am in the running." I am joking, of course. I am laughing at you and myself simultaneously. I gave you a link to a precious Tantra text, which in Tibetan Buddhism is considered Buddha nirmanakaya itself. It's far more authoritative than the Dalai Lama. Do yourself a favor and read it. It's worth your time, I promise. I don't recommend some garbage to you. I offer you a precious jewel. "Buddhahood without Meditation" is a profound text. This is the last time I will suggest you read it. If you don't want to read it, your karma is just not ripe for it, that's all.

 

When did I ever say the book wasn't right for me? Stop acting like I'm refusing to read it.

 

 

Secondly, and more seriously, it is obvious that your understanding is still wobbly in that you need to lean on an authority for support. I know you won't accept this line and will argue against it, so don't bother wasting your time. We both know how this goes, and this isn't the most interesting part anyway.

 

I don't need to "lean" on an authority figure for support. I don't just believe the dalai lama because he is an authority figure. I believe what he says because I have seen what he says is true. And most other Buddhists teachers worth their salt say the same things that he does. But as to the argument from authority thing, if you wanted to know about a particular subject, wouldn't you go to a well known authority on it?

 

Exactly. Why is it the problem is yours and not mine? Because we have different mindsets. I take it you won't be so arrogant as to say that your position is objective while mine is subjective, right? If you agree to put your cognition of this topic on the same level as mine, then you prove my point: there is nothing to know outside of mind itself. Even if something external to mind existed, you would have no way to validly infer it, and you'd simply have to take it on faith (exactly the same as Christian belief in God, or as I like to say, physical matter and physical energy is physicalist's God).

There is nothing outside of mind itself for sentient beings. I agree. For us, there is nothing but mind itself. Yet does that mean that mind is the ultimate reality of the universe? Is mind the ultimate truth for insentient things? There is a big universe out there. We are just one piece in it.

 

Well that's your intended meaning. You want the words to point to something outside of themselves. That's the meaning you want and intend your words to have. I understand that. But that doesn't mean there is anything that your words actually refer to. That still remains to be proven.

The labels and the things "themselves" are dependent upon each other within the interdependent co-arising. In fact, things have no self, and neither do labels. That's the whole point of Buddhist logic -- there is no such thing as a "thing in itself". This point is fundamental. Delineation is a certain type of mind activity. Take away delineation and there are no more things.

I know all this. This is emptiness. I've been over this. You do not agree that there are dependently arisen mere appearances that are merely labeled? That the labels refer to? Sure ultimately there is no thing in itself yet there are relative appearances which can have relative identities/beings which we can distinguish from one another with labels (conventionally). If you do not agree with this, you do not agree with buddhism - form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

 

In reality Buddhism goes even beyond this though. This argument, which doesn't represent the fullest extent of Buddhist insight, is all I need to counter your silly assertion. The fullest extent of the Buddhist insight is even more radical.

It's precisely because things do not exist "out there" that our conceptual labeling is called baseless in Buddhist logic. If you think that Buddhists believe our labels have basis, I have a surprise for you:

Of course they have a basis. Dependently originated, relative mere appearances. Again, this is basic buddhism. Denying appearances and their relative functioning is nihilism.

 

Absurd. When does the ability to distinguish labels from appearances arise? If it arises before the appearance, then mind pre-exists appearances. If the ability to distinguish appearances from labels arises after appearances arise, then how can one determine that "appearances arose?" That's one counter.

 

Another equally good counter is to say that labels are appearances themselves and to distinguish appearances from labels is without meaning in the final analysis. Your argument foolishly depends on the idea that appearances are inherently different from labels.

I'm not talking about anything inherent. So a concept in your mind is the same thing as as the mere appearance of a tree? Sentience (awareness) and insentience are the same thing? Appearances have relative identities that come out of dependent arising which are not true, actual identities (things in themselves). They have different relative natures. In fact without having relative identity (dependently arisen identity) they would not be ultimately identityless.

Lastly, as to the appearances/labels thing, you misinterpret me. All I'm saying is that without something that the label is referring to, there would be no label. So the label/concept depends on that which it refers to (the mere appearance) in order to be.

[3bob]

the price is very high

 

but all can pay by leaving everything at the entrance for,

 

"Only Nothing can enter into no-space".

 

Om

[innerspace_cadet]

I think there is such a thing as consensus reality. If I am at a party, and I am the only person in the room who sees an elf dancing on the table, I am either 1) hallucinating or 2) in possession of an ability to perceive what others cannot. But if 2) is true, then how did I acquire this perception and why do others not perceive as I do? If this elf has broken into our reality from some parallel dimension, then my fellow party goers would perceive it as well, because the elf is in our reality.

 

Just because we perceive everything through our senses, it does not necessarily follow that there is no objective world. Stating that "there is no such thing as an objective world" is not the same as being agnostic about it. We can only be gnostic about what we perceive, as long as others in the same time and place perceive the same object.

[goldisheavy]

I think there is such a thing as consensus reality. If I am at a party, and I am the only person in the room who sees an elf dancing on the table, I am either 1) hallucinating or 2) in possession of an ability to perceive what others cannot. But if 2) is true, then how did I acquire this perception and why do others not perceive as I do? If this elf has broken into our reality from some parallel dimension, then my fellow party goers would perceive it as well, because the elf is in our reality.

 

There is an enormous difference between consensual reality and objective reality.

[innerspace_cadet]

There is an enormous difference between consensual reality and objective reality.

 

How so?

[goldisheavy]

When did I ever say the book wasn't right for me? Stop acting like I'm refusing to read it.

 

Oh good. Turns out I don't have any reason to act like you're ignoring my own pick for an authority.

 

There is nothing outside of mind itself for sentient beings. I agree.

 

You are a sentient being. You agree there is nothing outside of mind for you. Since I am talking to you and not to non-you, you don't have the standing to present the non-you's case for non-you. Let non-you speak for itself and you speak for yourself. So when you speak for yourself, which is the only honest thing you can do, you have to admit that there is nothing outside mind.

 

For us, there is nothing but mind itself. Yet does that mean that mind is the ultimate reality of the universe?

 

Where do you get the idea of the universe from? Did universe tell you about herself or is it your mind that's telling you about it?

 

There is a big universe out there. We are just one piece in it.

 

We all can make any number of statements. So you are making a statement. How exciting and novel.

 

I know all this. This is emptiness. I've been over this.

 

You're a moron. I have no respect for you.

 

How so?

 

Objective world is said to exist independently of observers.

 

Consensual reality is said to exist as a function of consensus between observers.

 

Objective world doesn't depend on observers. Consensual reality does.

[innerspace_cadet]

 

Objective world is said to exist independently of observers.

 

Consensual reality is said to exist as a function of consensus between observers.

 

Objective world doesn't depend on observers. Consensual reality does.

 

In that case, then there is no way to know that there is an objective world at all. We should just resort to agnosticism about it then.

 

If living, conscious observers are relatively recent in the history of the universe, then there there could be something called "objective reality" indepedent of observers. But we don't have any evidence of that yet.

[thuscomeone]

Oh good. Turns out I don't have any reason to act like you're ignoring my own pick for an authority.

 

You are a sentient being. You agree there is nothing outside of mind for you. Since I am talking to you and not to non-you, you don't have the standing to present the non-you's case for non-you. Let non-you speak for itself and you speak for yourself. So when you speak for yourself, which is the only honest thing you can do, you have to admit that there is nothing outside mind.

 

Where do you get the idea of the universe from? Did universe tell you about herself or is it your mind that's telling you about it?

We all can make any number of statements. So you are making a statement. How exciting and novel.

You're a moron. I have no respect for you.

Objective world is said to exist independently of observers.

 

Consensual reality is said to exist as a function of consensus between observers.

 

Objective world doesn't depend on observers. Consensual reality does.

Moron? Because I am curious as to whether or not there is an objective world? A question which has been asked by great philosophers throughout history?

It's easy to call somebody a moron on the internet isn't it gold? You don't have to look them in the face. Gives you a feeling of power doesn't it?

 

You think I care if I have your respect? You can keep it, I don't want it.

 

Ehh, I have to clarify what I mean when I say that there is nothing but mind for us. The mind (individual mindstream) as non dual, empty presence expands and encompasses everything in one's field of experience. In a sense it is like a field which is undivided from everything in the field. Yet, though undivided, it is not the same as everything in the field. The mind is sentient, there are things which are insentient. They are different.

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

In that case, then there is no way to know that there is an objective world at all. We should just resort to agnosticism about it then.

 

Exactly my point. If you accept the existence of an objective world, it's only on blind faith that you can do so.

 

If living, conscious observers are relatively recent in the history of the universe, then there there could be something called "objective reality" indepedent of observers. But we don't have any evidence of that yet.

 

Not only do we lack any evidence for this, but there is absolutely no way to even begin gathering such evidence. You either accept the pre-existence of the objective world on faith, or you don't. There is no way to convince someone who has no faith in the objective world to change his or her mind. It's worse than that even. There is no way to convince someone with no faith in the objective world that having faith in the objective world could possibly have merit or improve the quality of life in any way. If anything, as beings accept faith in the objective world, their quality of life declines.

 

Moron? Because I am curious as to whether or not there is an objective world?

 

No. It's because you claim to understand emptiness.

 

Your question in the beginning was actually very good, but you don't have what it takes to investigate it honestly.

 

It's easy to call somebody a moron on the internet isn't it gold?

 

Actually, it is very hard. You must be ready to accept the consequences.

Edited December 22, 2009 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

Exactly my point. If you accept the existence of an objective world, it's only on blind faith that you can do so.

Not only do we lack any evidence for this, but there is absolutely no way to even begin gathering such evidence. You either accept the pre-existence of the objective world on faith, or you don't. There is no way to convince someone who has no faith in the objective world to change his or her mind. It's worse than that even. There is no way to convince someone with no faith in the objective world that having faith in the objective world could possibly have merit or improve the quality of life in any way. If anything, as beings accept faith in the objective world, their quality of life declines.

No. It's because you claim to understand emptiness.

 

Your question in the beginning was actually very good, but you don't have what it takes to investigate it honestly.

Actually, it is very hard. You must be ready to accept the consequences.

"I claim to understand emptiness." What do you mean by this and what am I missing with emptiness? Or are you saying that the very fact that I claim to know what emptiness is makes me a moron because emptiness isn't anything? It is actually no-thing. The absence of things. That's true, but there is still right view. There is still correct knowledge. I believe that right view is not this "no view" nonsense. Everybody has a view. It is correct view that matters. Emptiness as the viewless view is still a viewless view.

[goldisheavy]

"I claim to understand emptiness." What do you mean by this and what am I missing with emptiness?

 

You claim the objective world exists. However Buddha has taught a path beyond the 4 extremes of existence. Emptiness of phenomena is beyond the 4 extremes of existence. The second you claim "objective world exist", you no longer hold the view that is beyond the extremes of existence.

 

Or are you saying that the very fact that I claim to know what emptiness is makes me a moron because emptiness isn't anything? It is actually no-thing. The absence of things. That's true, but there is still right view. There is still correct knowledge. I believe that right view is not this "no view" nonsense. Everybody has a view. It is correct view that matters. Emptiness as the viewless view is still a viewless view.

 

I am not convinced you understand what you're talking about. It seems like you are repeating words that are way beyond your actual practical understanding. Kind of like a donkey carrying a Sutta on its back. The donkey is able to faithfully deliver the words of the Buddha, but has no clue about what it is delivering.