Is there an objective world?

[forestofclarity]

As above, so below.

 

As the principles of emptiness and so forth take root deep in the mind, it subtly transforms all your life. Thus, harsh, solid problems become fluid opportunities for harmony. If you recognize the emptiness of all things, then problems such as cancer, death, physical pain; or job-related stress, paper cuts, and traffic jams--- lose much of their power.

 

If you live in a solid, unchanging world, essentially you are in a prison. If you live in a constantly fluid, dynamic world, then there is freedom. So this is not idle metaphysics.

 

 

Hi Forest,

 

While what you say is true regarding change, I think you have taken this idea to the very extreme and it has no place in a discussion of everyday life. Sure, any living thing changes - that is a given. But even though that tree has grown 1 1,000 of an inch during the past 24 hours doesn't mean that it is not the same tree. It is the same tree, it is just that it has gotten one day older and the processes of life has caused growth.

 

You are still your parents' child. Nothing will ever change that. Even if they disown you, you are still their child. Even when your parents pass on you are still the child of those two people.

 

The tree is still a tree and it still stands in the same place and will continue to do so until it is removed from existence.

 

And the moon is still the same moon even though it will be in a different place in the heavens from one moment to the next.

[Marblehead]

Depends which one we're talking about;-)

I was born yesterday;-)

 

Hi Kate,

 

I laughed. Good to know you are reading the thread.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

For anyone who believes that objective physical reality only exists in the mind, check this out.

 

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

As above, so below.

 

As the principles of emptiness and so forth take root deep in the mind, it subtly transforms all your life. Thus, harsh, solid problems become fluid opportunities for harmony. If you recognize the emptiness of all things, then problems such as cancer, death, physical pain; or job-related stress, paper cuts, and traffic jams--- lose much of their power.

 

If you live in a solid, unchanging world, essentially you are in a prison. If you live in a constantly fluid, dynamic world, then there is freedom. So this is not idle metaphysics.

 

Oh My Goodness!!! The typical Buddhist response. I am not empty. I am full of stuff. (Don't you say it!)

 

So are you, just as many other Buddhists have, suggesting that we all just pretend we don't exist so that we can pretend that cancer is not a cause for pain (and suffering)? If you fall and break your arm you are just going to pretend that your arm doesn't exist therefore you will experience no pain?

 

Now, surely, I know that I think that is so far from the truth that even if Buddha had said anything like that, which I am sure he didn't, I would believe that the Buddha was very far from being enlightened.

 

Your second paragraph is suggesting that I have said something that I have not said. In Taoist philosophy 'change' is one of the most important concepts one learns as they progress toward understanding. So, I will suggest that it is you and those who believe that they are empty who are in a prison.

 

You talk about freedom but you are imprisoned by the dogma of emptiness. You think nothing matters? You can't possibly convince me of this because why would you be involved in this discussion if nothing mattered?

 

Yes, this objective universe is a fluid existence. One day we are born and one day we die. What we do between those two days is rather important, I think.

 

BTW One of my favorite translations of the Tao Te Ching is titles "Dynamic Tao".

 

However, it is true what you said about recognizing the emptiness of all things, that is, if you don't give a darn about anything (apathetic) then nothing will matter. So dig yourself a hole and jump in and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to offer you some dirt to cover you from the cold.

 

Okay, I will apologize for that last paragraph but it just seems to me that when the Buddhists get on their high horse and talk about how they are above and beyond the trial and tribulations of the manifest world I just can't help but think "What a bunch of crap".

 

Emptiness has its place. It is in its emptiness that the cup is useful. It is its emptiness that the house is useful. But without the clay the cup would not exist; without the brick, windows & door the house would not exist. So it is the objective world that gives emptiness its utility.

 

Peace & Love!

[thuscomeone]

Oh My Goodness!!! The typical Buddhist response. I am not empty. I am full of stuff. (Don't you say it!)

 

So are you, just as many other Buddhists have, suggesting that we all just pretend we don't exist so that we can pretend that cancer is not a cause for pain (and suffering)? If you fall and break your arm you are just going to pretend that your arm doesn't exist therefore you will experience no pain?

 

Now, surely, I know that I think that is so far from the truth that even if Buddha had said anything like that, which I am sure he didn't, I would believe that the Buddha was very far from being enlightened.

 

Your second paragraph is suggesting that I have said something that I have not said. In Taoist philosophy 'change' is one of the most important concepts one learns as they progress toward understanding. So, I will suggest that it is you and those who believe that they are empty who are in a prison.

 

You talk about freedom but you are imprisoned by the dogma of emptiness. You think nothing matters? You can't possibly convince me of this because why would you be involved in this discussion if nothing mattered?

 

Yes, this objective universe is a fluid existence. One day we are born and one day we die. What we do between those two days is rather important, I think.

 

BTW One of my favorite translations of the Tao Te Ching is titles "Dynamic Tao".

 

However, it is true what you said about recognizing the emptiness of all things, that is, if you don't give a darn about anything (apathetic) then nothing will matter. So dig yourself a hole and jump in and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to offer you some dirt to cover you from the cold.

 

Okay, I will apologize for that last paragraph but it just seems to me that when the Buddhists get on their high horse and talk about how they are above and beyond the trial and tribulations of the manifest world I just can't help but think "What a bunch of crap".

 

Emptiness has its place. It is in its emptiness that the cup is useful. It is its emptiness that the house is useful. But without the clay the cup would not exist; without the brick, windows & door the house would not exist. So it is the objective world that gives emptiness its utility.

 

Peace & Love!

No it's not like that. Buddhism is not nihilism and it does not ignore the relative world in which there are clear distinctions between pain, pleasure, etc. A buddhist would not pretend that their cancer doesn't exist. They just would not psychologically suffer from it maybe as much as some other people would because they would not be attached to it. Being unattached doesn't mean ignoring it. Heck, it is emptiness as constant change and the ability for change that makes overcoming cancer possible!

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Marblehead,

 

You are not really participating in this discussion. No offense. You just came in a few times to say objective world exists and to "thumbs up" this or that quote. Which is fine. Just be aware that you're not really engaged. The same is true for most others. There are only a few people here who are seriously considering the topic of this thread.

Edited December 22, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

No it's not not like that. Buddhism is not nihilism and it does not ignore the relative world in which there are clear distinctions between pain, pleasure, etc. A buddhist would not pretend that their cancer doesn't exist. They just would not psychologically suffer from it maybe as much as some other people would because they would not be attached to it. Being unattached doesn't mean ignoring it. Heck, it is emptiness as constant change and the ability for change that makes overcoming cancer possible!

 

Thank you for that very thoughtful and valid response. And what you just said is the Taoist view as well.

 

Taoism teaches non-attachment as well. And yes, we hold to the concept of constant change.

 

I will always get involved in a discussion such as this because I think it is important that we do not preach or recommend apathy. Everything matters even though nothing matters.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Thank you for that very thoughtful and valid response. And what you just said is the Taoist view as well.

 

Taoism teaches non-attachment as well. And yes, we hold to the concept of constant change.

 

I will always get involved in a discussion such as this because I think it is important that we do not preach or recommend apathy. Everything matters even though nothing matters.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I believe there is unanimous consent on that, Marblehead. Who is apathetic? Who preaches apathy? I don't think your worries about apathy preaching are justified.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

You are not really participating in this discussion. No offense. You just came in a few times to say objective world exists and to "thumbs up" this or that quote. Which is fine. Just be aware that you're not really engaged. The same is true for most others. There are only a few people here who are seriously considering the topic of this thread.

 

You don't exist so just keep your finger off the freaking keyboard!!!!!

 

Why do you act so cocky at times? What are you trying to prove?

 

This is a discussion that I have been involved in from the beginning. Just because I have a life and can't be here all the time does not mean that I am not in the discussion.

 

So do you feel that you are the only one who has anything important to say in this discussion? Or are you limiting your opinion to only Buddhists have something important to say?

 

Go sit in the corner and play with yourself!

 

Peace & Love!

[thuscomeone]

Thank you for that very thoughtful and valid response. And what you just said is the Taoist view as well.

 

Taoism teaches non-attachment as well. And yes, we hold to the concept of constant change.

 

I will always get involved in a discussion such as this because I think it is important that we do not preach or recommend apathy. Everything matters even though nothing matters.

 

Peace & Love!

I like to think that Buddhism and Taoism have a lot in common. The reason I have preferred Buddhism so far is because I always find that it's principles are revealed in a clearer and more straightforward fashion than Taoism. Taoism seems to be presented in a more ambiguous way. But maybe that is just part of it's message...

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Marblehead]

I believe there is unanimous consent on that, Marblehead. Who is apathetic? Who preaches apathy? I don't think your worries about apathy preaching are justified.

 

But they are "MY" worries and I will hold to them if I want to.

 

Apathy is coming from those who say that an objective world does not exist. That is my opinion.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

You don't exist so just keep your finger off the freaking keyboard!!!!!

 

Why do you act so cocky at times? What are you trying to prove?

 

Ahh... finally we get to the real meat.

 

This is a discussion that I have been involved in from the beginning. Just because I have a life and can't be here all the time does not mean that I am not in the discussion.

 

You're only involved in it in your own head. Down here, making a naked assertion does not equal participation.

 

So do you feel that you are the only one who has anything important to say in this discussion? Or are you limiting your opinion to only Buddhists have something important to say?

 

Not at all.

 

Go sit in the corner and play with yourself!

 

Is that the implication of not believing in an objective reality?

 

Apathy is coming from those who say that an objective world does not exist. That is my opinion.

 

Please explain how this is the case. I don't see any such connection.

[Marblehead]

I like to think that Buddhism and Taoism have a lot in common. The reason I have preferred Buddhism so far is because I always find that it's principles are revealed in a clearer and more straightforward fashion than Taoism. Taoism seems to be presented in a more ambiguous way. But maybe that is just part of it's message...

 

Valid thoughts. I would agree that Taoism is not as straightforward as is Buddhism. But on the other hand, Taoism does not have the dogma that Buddhism has. We all have choices. You have opted for Buddhism and I have opted for Taoism.

 

And it is true, there is much in common between the two belief systems. Comparing and contrasting Philosophical Taoism with Buddhism is no different than doing so with Religious Taoism. And truth is, Religious Taoism is much closer to Buddhism than ii is to Philosophical Taoism.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

I like Taoist approach too, and by that I mean the 3 sages, Laozi, Zhuangzi and Liezi, and not anything else. In my opinion Taoists describe exactly the same thing as Buddhists. I think ambiguity is part of the message. It is to train the mind to avoid fixations. But not everything in Taoism is ambiguous though.

 

For example, "long and short define each other" is not ambiguous in the least.

Edited December 22, 2009 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

No it's not like that. Buddhism is not nihilism and it does not ignore the relative world in which there are clear distinctions between pain, pleasure, etc. A buddhist would not pretend that their cancer doesn't exist. They just would not psychologically suffer from it maybe as much as some other people would because they would not be attached to it. Being unattached doesn't mean ignoring it. Heck, it is emptiness as constant change and the ability for change that makes overcoming cancer possible!

 

I think the whole attached, detached argument is emphasized too much. If you are experiencing pain, pleasure, then you are attached. You have this idea of a continuum or various degrees of attachment.

 

In your opinion, does the dogma of dependent origination, no abiding self, no inherent existence infer a nihilistic world view? Does that not make existence meaningless? If you respond no, then how do you reconcile morality and ethics as being permanent. I am referring to the Buddhas teaching on morality and ethical conduct.

 

ralis

[thuscomeone]

I think the whole attached, detached argument is emphasized too much. If you are experiencing pain, pleasure, then you are attached. You have this idea of a continuum or various degrees of attachment.

 

In your opinion, does the dogma of dependent origination, no abiding self, no inherent existence infer a nihilistic world view? Does that not make existence meaningless? If you respond no, then how do you reconcile morality and ethics as being permanent. I am referring to the Buddhas teaching on morality and ethical conduct.

 

ralis

Pain and pleasure, for instance, are dependently arisen. Being dependently arisen from various causes and conditions, they have relative identities as "pain" and "pleasure." Yet because they are dependently arisen, they have no ultimate identities (identities in themselves). As long they continue to be dependently arisen from causes and conditions, they can have continuous identities without being truly and inherently existent. And when the causes and conditions that they depend upon shift themselves, pain and pleasure will change.

 

So this is how we can continuously have "good" and "evil", "suffering" and "freedom", etc, without these things being inherently existent. Thus we can have a continuous and consistent ethics and morality.

 

This very relative identity is the basis for ultimate identitylessness which is where detachment/ungraspability comes from. Only because things are dependently arisen and have relative identities/beings do they have no ultimate identities. So pain and pleasure because they are dependently arisen are already of the nature of liberation. Their very arising is liberation/detachment.

 

In a sense, attachment to the relative world of dependent arisings and distinctions means detachment ultimately. Gold may hate me for saying that but it's true. So if cancer arose dependently in you, that very arising of it would be it's ungraspability and in being unable to grasp it your psychological suffering would be reduced. Now you would still suffer physically of course.

 

Emptiness is absolutely not nihilistic. Without emptiness nothing could happen because change would be impossible and arising would be impossible. All there would be would be fixed entities with fixed identities/essences in themselves that could not change.

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Marblehead]

 

Please explain how this is the case. I don't see any such connection.

 

I consider those who say an objective world does not exist to be apathetic. That is how I feel. It is my opinion.

 

If an objective world does not exist then nothing matters. We can do whatever we want. But if nothing matters why do anything.

 

This is the same problem that can be found in Taoist Philosophy with the term 'wu wei', as interpreted by some to mean do nothing. So they sit on their rear and suck off the efforts and labor of others. And they see nothing wrong in doing it because they tell others that they should not be attached to what they have worked hard for.

 

Yes, there is a lot of good in Buddhist teachings. But the way some understand the concept of emptiness, in my opinion, is not one of them.

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

It is no surprise that there is so much confusion about certain notions.

 

First, there is no Buddhist truth or Taoist truth. There is simply truth.

 

Second, emptiness does not equal non-existence. If something is empty, that means:

a. It lacks a permanent substance or essence;

b. It is subject to change;

c. It is not separate from the rest of the universe.

 

This is not to say that the thing does not exist.

 

Third, Buddhism does not teach apathy; quite the opposite. Non-attachment means to not cling, to grasp, to try to hold onto what is constantly changing; or to accept what is there in front of you instead of wishing for something else.

 

Yet these things are all asides from the central question. For all the denials, emotional appeals, and begging the question, no one as yet answered the question: have you ever experienced anything apart from the mind?

[goldisheavy]

I consider those who say an objective world does not exist to be apathetic. That is how I feel. It is my opinion.

 

Sharing feelings has value, but still, I would appreciate a real explanation.

 

If an objective world does not exist then nothing matters. We can do whatever we want. But if nothing matters why do anything.

 

Excellent question. Absence of objective world does not imply absence of cognizance. Since cognizance is present, there are pleasurable, painful and neutral perceptions. Beings naturally incline themselves toward pleasure and away from pain. That's plenty of motivation right there.

 

You must also keep in mind that avoiding action is still a choice, thus is still passion. So if you lay around and do nothing, that's an example of passion. That's not an example of apathy. It's a clear preference toward rest, assuming you've consistently declined all friendly and beneficial offers to become active.

 

On the other hand, if you do believe in an objective world, there is no reason why you couldn't be apathetic. You can be perfectly indifferent to life and still believe that objective world exists. Indifference is your attitude toward phenomena and that attitude is not directly connected to your belief about the ultimate status of phenomena.

 

If you think that the ultimate status of phenomena is impossible to establish, yet if you have love of life, you are in no danger of apathy. If anything, there is danger you might become even more passionate, because you'll perceive fewer limitations on making your dreams come true.

 

For all the denials, emotional appeals, and begging the question, no one as yet answered the question: have you ever experienced anything apart from the mind?

 

Some people have answered this pretty clearly, although not directly by a "yes" or "no" answer. I am pretty satisfied with the answers I've received (to the question in your quotation).

Edited December 22, 2009 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

Yet these things are all asides from the central question. For all the denials, emotional appeals, and begging the question, no one as yet answered the question: have you ever experienced anything apart from the mind?

I quote what I said before again for you:

 

But if I have never been outside my own mind, how can I know that there isn't rain outside of my own mind? See, if I have never been outside of my own mind, how can I know if rain is or isn't outside of my own mind? To know at all I would have to go outside and see. I cannot go outside (100% certain on that) so I cannot say that it is or it isn't there when my mind isn't there. So right now, I would have to say that it is impossible to know...

And if I were to go outside my mind in order to know if there was a world outside of my own mind, that very knowing would mean that I was still inside my own mind. It is impossible to know if there is or isn't an objective world outside the mind because to know you would always have to be within the mind! This is damn confusing but my conclusion is still that it is impossible to know if there is or isn't an objective world outside of the mind.

[goldisheavy]

And if I were to go outside my mind in order to know if there was a world outside of my own mind, that very knowing would mean that I was still inside my own mind. It is impossible to know if there is or isn't an objective world outside the mind because to know you would always have to be within the mind! This is damn confusing but my conclusion is still that it is impossible to know if there is or isn't an objective world outside of the mind.

 

Excellent! Knowing is a function of mind.

[3bob]

"My mind, the mind", etc., speculations and thoughts can not give one the answer because they are not capable of doing so.

 

but one is often driven to keep looking there just in case they missed something - gosh darn it...

 

Tao is not the mind, although all of the mind is born of Tao.

 

Om

[JustARandomPanda]

 

 

AH HA! I HAVE WEPT, I HAVE WEPT!

 

In realizing, in realizing....

 

I CAN I CAN!!!

 

the bliss, the bliss, the bliss, the bliss... . ...

 

T.T

 

Man, I miss Vaj. Well sort of.

 

Um...sure?

 

Is he gone for good or what?

 

 

Talked to him the other day and for now it appears yes. He's vacated the TaoBums premises. His new wife accomplished what many angry TaoBummers could never do - get him to leave. He might be back someday but never like the mega-poster he once was.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

 

Yet these things are all asides from the central question. For all the denials, emotional appeals, and begging the question, no one as yet answered the question: have you ever experienced anything apart from the mind?

 

Yes, i have experienced reality apart from the mind.. you will not understand this, you will ask for proof.. and, that 'asking' IS the 'proof'..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Hi GiH,

 

Sharing feelings has value, but still, I would appreciate a real explanation.

 

I doubt that I will ever be able to give you a satisfactory answer to the question because it is really just a feeling I have based on many experiences in life. I honestly wish I could come up with the words to express my feelings because I really do feel badly about the association I have unwantedly made between Buddhism and apathy. I really did not intent for that association to be made.

 

Excellent question. Absence of objective world does not imply absence of cognizance. Since cognizance is present, there are pleasurable, painful and neutral perceptions. Beings naturally incline themselves toward pleasure and away from pain. That's plenty of motivation right there.

 

Yes, I used to hold to the idea of "maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain". I have tempered that thought a bit over the past few years. More and more over the years I have leaned more toward just "minimization of pain" and not placed much emphasis on pleasure.

 

You must also keep in mind that avoiding action is still a choice, thus is still passion. So if you lay around and do nothing, that's an example of passion. That's not an example of apathy. It's a clear preference toward rest, assuming you've consistently declined all friendly and beneficial offers to become active.

 

I almost agree with you here except for my holding to the concept of 'wu wei' wherein there really no choices being made. There really is a condition where one simply acts or reacts to stimulus without conscious thought. That is 'wu wei'.

 

On the other hand, if you do believe in an objective world, there is no reason why you couldn't be apathetic. You can be perfectly indifferent to life and still believe that objective world exists. Indifference is your attitude toward phenomena and that attitude is not directly connected to your belief about the ultimate status of phenomena.

 

Totally agree. You had to say that because of the error of my speaking to the concept earlier. That is my fault. I just don't like apathy in any form. If there is something one can do to make conditions better, especially for others who are in need, then I believe action should be taken in order to do so (within limits, of course). (Hey, I still have not attained unconditional love for all of the ten thousand things.)

 

If you think that the ultimate status of phenomena is impossible to establish, yet if you have love of life, you are in no danger of apathy. If anything, there is danger you might become even more passionate, because you'll perceive fewer limitations on making your dreams come true.

 

I know GiH. Sure, I over-reacted. But that's who and what I am. My passions sometimes lead me to excess. I believe the way I do because of my belief system and past experiences in life and you believe the way you do because of what you believe in and your past experiences.

 

We will continue to disagree on various subjects and concepts. That's just the way it is. But hopefully somewhere along the line we will find common ground and I think this is of great importance.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Greetings..

Yes, i have experienced reality apart from the mind.. you will not understand this, you will ask for proof.. and, that 'asking' IS the 'proof'..

 

Be well..

 

I agree. There is knowing outside the mind. But that is a Taoist thing and most others would not understand it.

 

Peace & Love!