Is there an objective world?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

"WuWei".. trusting your 'nature'.. letting experiences reveal their result, not 'forcing' a result..

acts or reacts to stimulus without conscious thought. That is 'wu wei'.

It is possible to have 'conscious thought' that is perfectly resonant with the unfolding experiences, that too, is

WuWei..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

It is possible to have 'conscious thought' that is perfectly resonant with the unfolding experiences, that too, is

WuWei..

 

Be well..

 

Yes, I see I did not express myself properly in my last post because it did not include what you just mentioned.

 

I agree, we have the 'wu wei' experience then we oftentimes consciously consider and put into thought what was experienced.

 

And also, the experience, or inspiration, to act or react is immediately followed by conscious thought to dertemine the best way to act or react. Of course, if the experience, or awareness, does not call for action then more often than not no thought follows.

 

Peace & Love!

[rex]

Really, the only thing we can honestly talk about is the Manifest (objective) universe because that is all we can observe in the manifest. This is true however I must add that we can experience the Mystery when we are in the state of 'wu'. This is referring to the understanding that the Manifest universe is called 'yo' and the unmanifest 'all else' (potential every and any-thing) is the Mystery which is called 'wu'.

 

Generally speaking 'wu' cannot be spoken about but it can be experienced. 'Yo', on the other hand, is what we experience with our conscious mind and our senses and therefore we can speak to these things.

Thanks for taking the effort to respond Marblehead, and in the spirit that you did it, it is greatly appreciated. I see parallels with other traditions in what you wrote - wisdom is wisdom regardless of the coat it wears.

 

TzuJanLi, thanks too.

 

Namaste!

[ralis]

It seems to me from reading these posts and participating in the rather lengthy Vajraji posts, the Buddhist ideology misses the point. Why? Buddhist ideology only focuses on the relative processes that are obvious to anyone that obverses life. The realization of these processes is not some unexcelled realization. Dogmatic use of the term unexcelled, will psychologically prevent anyone from experiencing that so called level of realization.

Furthermore, the concept of emptiness being used as a way to describe impermanence is a misuse of the term. These concepts i.e, talking points, are just parroted about in an attempt to convince the reader of a Buddhist transcendent experience, posited by the writer.

 

What is missing from Buddhist ideology is the wizard behind the curtain. Or, what I would call the unmanifest i.e, life force. Buddhists only focus on the effects and not the cause and are convinced the effects are all in their minds. Maybe their heads are empty.

 

 

ralis

Edited December 23, 2009 by ralis

[thuscomeone]

It seems to me from reading these posts and participating in the rather lengthy Vajraji posts, the Buddhist ideology misses the point. Why? Buddhist ideology only focuses on the relative processes that are obvious to anyone that obverses life. The realization of these processes is not some unexcelled realization. Dogmatic use of the term unexcelled, will psychologically prevent anyone from experiencing that so called level of realization.

Furthermore, the concept of emptiness being used as a way to describe impermanence is a misuse of the term. These concepts i.e, talking points, are just parroted about in an attempt to convince the reader of a Buddhist transcendent experience, posited by the writer.

 

What is missing from Buddhist ideology is the wizard behind the curtain. Or, what I would call the unmanifest i.e, life force. Buddhists only focus on the effects and not the cause and are convinced the effects are all in their minds. Maybe their heads are empty.

ralis

It is certainly not wrong to equate impermanence with emptiness. They are one in the same. That is because things are impermanent/always changing, they are not truly existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. Emptiness is just this freedom from these extremes of existence. Because things do not truly exist, they can change/are impermanent. And impermanence is not nothingness. It is just changing form/appearances. Impermanence and dependent arising are emptiness.

 

Yeah they are obvious to anyone who observes life. So what? In a sense, the fact that they are obvious to anyone who observes life is what makes them wonderful. You don't need to be some guy with a million degrees in astrophysics to know that things change, things arise dependently from causes and conditions and all our actions have causes and effects. All you have to do is look around you. I think one problem with our society now is that people think that nobody can possibly know anything worth knowing unless they are a scientist closed off in a lab someplace. If you're just some normal everyday guy without credentials who is observing things, people will not believe you. They'll say "oh that's too simple" as if the answer just has to be complex and indecipherable. Simple as you may think them to be, the realization of these processes from the Buddhist perspective is liberation itself (the realization of emptiness which leads to freedom from grasping). Eh I should say that realization of emptiness is one half of liberation...as xabir would say, luminosity or non dual presence is the other half.

 

Just because somebody may have never felt that transcendent experience, just because somebody may not have realized from that experience for the first time that it is possible to completely and finally wipe away anger, dissatisfaction, fear, hate, pride, greed, ignorance, envy, attachment, etc. does not mean that transcendent experience is not possible.

Edited December 23, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Marblehead]

My head hurts.

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

Impermanence is a result of emptiness. If things were not empty, they would not constantly be in flux. It may sound odd at first blush, but not so if you work with it. Compare TTC Chapter 11. Even more, try to capture the redness of red, the hardness of hard, the sound of sound.

 

There is nothing mystical here, or transcendent. Things either are this way, or they are not. This is where the crucible of experience must come in. Look and see for yourself. If things are not so, reject it and move on.

There are levels of understanding. Intellectual understanding is only scratching the surface.

 

There is an unborn, unmanifest in Buddhism.

 

Furthermore, the concept of emptiness being used as a way to describe impermanence is a misuse of the term. These concepts i.e, talking points, are just parroted about in an attempt to convince the reader of a Buddhist transcendent experience, posited by the writer.

 

What is missing from Buddhist ideology is the wizard behind the curtain. Or, what I would call the unmanifest i.e, life force. Buddhists only focus on the effects and not the cause and are convinced the effects are all in their minds. Maybe their heads are empty.

ralis

Edited December 23, 2009 by forestofemptiness

[Marblehead]

Compare TTC Chapter 11. Even more, try to capture the redness of red, the hardness of hard, the sound of sound.

 

While this may be true, if you try to capture the tree-ness of a tree you have a totally different outcome. Yes, it is true that concept words have no physical manifestation but the manifest (objective) world does have thus-ness.

 

We must not confuse mental concepts with physical reality. Just as we should not confuse the Manifest with the Mystery.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

We must not confuse mental concepts with physical reality.

 

That's just it. If it requires mental effort to keep mental concepts and "physical reality" separate, then you know both concepts and the so-called "physical reality", are of the mind.

 

If physical reality was real in and of itself, it would maintain itself effortlessly and constantly and no two people would ever be in disagreement about physical qualities of anything.

 

What we have instead is a consensual reality. Within the framework of the consensual reality we have an approximation of what looks like at first blush as "physical reality." However if you try to seriously find what exactly is "physical" in the so-called "physical reality," you can't find it. So-called "physical reality" appears physical only if you don't examine it closely. So if you don't want your illusion of physicality to break, you are better off not thinking about it too much Marblehead.

Edited December 24, 2009 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

It is certainly not wrong to equate impermanence with emptiness. They are one in the same. That is because things are impermanent/always changing, they are not truly existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. Emptiness is just this freedom from these extremes of existence. Because things do not truly exist, they can change/are impermanent. And impermanence is not nothingness. It is just changing form/appearances. Impermanence and dependent arising are emptiness.

 

Yeah they are obvious to anyone who observes life. So what? In a sense, the fact that they are obvious to anyone who observes life is what makes them wonderful. You don't need to be some guy with a million degrees in astrophysics to know that things change, things arise dependently from causes and conditions and all our actions have causes and effects. All you have to do is look around you. I think one problem with our society now is that people think that nobody can possibly know anything worth knowing unless they are a scientist closed off in a lab someplace. If you're just some normal everyday guy without credentials who is observing things, people will not believe you. They'll say "oh that's too simple" as if the answer just has to be complex and indecipherable. Simple as you may think them to be, the realization of these processes from the Buddhist perspective is liberation itself (the realization of emptiness which leads to freedom from grasping). Eh I should say that realization of emptiness is one half of liberation...as xabir would say, luminosity or non dual presence is the other half.

 

Just because somebody may have never felt that transcendent experience, just because somebody may not have realized from that experience for the first time that it is possible to completely and finally wipe away anger, dissatisfaction, fear, hate, pride, greed, ignorance, envy, attachment, etc. does not mean that transcendent experience is not possible.

 

Since you parrot the same Buddhist talking points, I assume you have no realization and only book knowledge. My point is, you don't or can't think out of the box. Put your experience or realization in your own words.

 

ralis

[thuscomeone]

Since you parrot the same Buddhist talking points, I assume you have no realization and only book knowledge. My point is, you don't or can't think out of the box. Put your experience or realization in your own words.

 

ralis

You can assume whatever you want. Look, I have been digging into Buddhism non stop for about ten months now. I did not just read what somebody said about Buddhism and then accept it as truth. What kind of moron would do that? No, I took the principles of buddhism and observed the world to see if they were true. Turned out that they are. So I accepted them. Now, having realized the same truth about the same things that Buddhists talk about, don't you think my words are going to sound similar? Or should I just reject all that now in order to continue thinking outside the box? This extreme need to be skeptical and to not conform is just as bad as the other extreme of not thinking for yourself at all. Personally, I am fine with "parroting the same buddhist talking points" because I know they are true. In order to see that these points were true, I had to start by thinking outside the box. I had to start by questioning what I thought I knew about reality. The conclusions that one derives from emptiness are completely, 100% different than what most people believe. But now that I have seen that these things are true, I am completely comfortable and safe within my box and I have no problems being within it.

Edited December 24, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

You can assume whatever you want. Look, I have been digging into Buddhism non stop for about ten months now. I did not just read what somebody said about Buddhism and then accept it as truth. What kind of moron would do that? No, I took the principles of buddhism and observed the world to see if they were true. Turned out that they are. So I accepted them. Now, having realized the same truth about the same things that Buddhists talk about, don't you think my words are going to sound similar? Or should I just reject all that now in order to continue thinking outside the box? This extreme need to be skeptical and to not conform is just as bad as the other extreme of not thinking for yourself at all. Personally, I am fine with "parroting the same buddhist talking points" because I know they are true. In order to see that these points were true, I had to start by thinking outside the box. I had to start by questioning what I thought I knew about reality. The conclusions that one derives from emptiness are completely, 100% different than what most people believe. But now that I have seen that these things are true, I am completely comfortable and safe within my box and I have no problems being within it.

 

I think some amount of "parroting" is unavoidable. But it's sad if you contemplate for 5 years and don't have even one insight of your own that doesn't sound like it was cut-n-pasted from some Sutra. I'm picking the 5 year mark purely arbitrarily. The point is that some parroting is natural but it would be sad if we were only capable of parroting and nothing more.

 

Oh, and by the way, parrots are actually intelligent. Parrots can use what they learn in creative and intelligent ways. So even parrots are not "just parroting."

[thuscomeone]

I think some amount of "parroting" is unavoidable. But it's sad if you contemplate for 5 years and don't have even one insight of your own that doesn't sound like it was cut-n-pasted from some Sutra. I'm picking the 5 year mark purely arbitrarily. The point is that some parroting is natural but it would be sad if we were only capable of parroting and nothing more.

 

Oh, and by the way, parrots are actually intelligent. Parrots can use what they learn in creative and intelligent ways. So even parrots are not "just parroting."

I have had insights of my own if by own you mean insights that are not just what others before me have learned on the path. Off the top of my head, I've learned of the dangers of disregarding someone's words because of their personality. I've learned that age does not always equal wisdom, or in the most important areas it does not. I've learned that their just may be one right answer to the way things are whereas before I felt that nobody was really right and you could just believe whatever you wanted, sing kumbya and be ok. I've learned that religion is not all bad and I have come to re define religion in my own terms. I've learned that, if one truly wants to be happy than temporary pleasures and material pursuits should never, ever be the highest goal of one's life. Yet even these are insights which others have certainly had at some time or another, so there I go parroting again...

Edited December 24, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

I have had insights of my own if by own you mean insights that are not just what others before me have learned on the path. Off the top of my head, I've learned of the dangers of disregarding someone's words because of their personality. I've learned that age does not always equal wisdom, or in the most important areas it does not. I've learned that their just may be one right answer to the way things are whereas before I felt that nobody was really right and you could just believe whatever you wanted, sing kumbya and be ok. I've learned that religion is not all bad and I have come to re define religion in my own terms. I've learned that, if one truly wants to be happy than temporary pleasures and material pursuits should never, ever be the highest goal of one's life. Yet even these are insights which others have certainly had at some time or another, so there I go parroting again...

 

All these insights are wonderful (at least in my opinion). Parrots are intelligent birds though:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6KvPN_Wt8I

 

So the whole idea of "parroting" is kind of a misnomer.

[Marblehead]

That's just it. If it requires mental effort to keep mental concepts and "physical reality" separate, then you know both concepts and the so-called "physical reality", are of the mind.

 

If physical reality was real in and of itself, it would maintain itself effortlessly and constantly and no two people would ever be in disagreement about physical qualities of anything.

 

What we have instead is a consensual reality. Within the framework of the consensual reality we have an approximation of what looks like at first blush as "physical reality." However if you try to seriously find what exactly is "physical" in the so-called "physical reality," you can't find it. So-called "physical reality" appears physical only if you don't examine it closely. So if you don't want your illusion of physicality to break, you are better off not thinking about it too much Marblehead.

 

Of course, you know I disagree with this except the last phrase of your last sentence.

 

Again I will state, the tree was a tree before I saw it. I did not create the tree. No matter who walks blindly into the tree will get a broken nose. It doesn't take a conscious mind to get a bloody nose from walking into a tree.

 

The moon exists without my seeing it. The are many hours of the day that I cannot even see the moon but somewhere on this planet there are some who can see it. But whether or not we can see it, it still exists. It existed before the were any living, conscious beings on this planet.

 

I, personally, do not need anyone to verify the fact that I have a fish pond in my back yard. It exists because I labored many hours to construct it.

 

However, I do agree with you and others that it is only temporary. It will probably be destroyed after I die. I understand that. Nothing is permanent except for Tzu Jan (the processes of change and beingness (or not) of its own nature).

 

So I actually agree with you regarding the non-permanence of all 'things' but while they are things, they are things.

 

That is why in Philosophical Taoism there is a distinction between the Manifest (yo) and the Mystery (wu).

 

So we must not confuse the term 'Manifest' with the concept 'Permanence'. Doing so would be an error.

 

And remember, this universe existed for about 13.7 billion years before humankind came on the scene. Sure, it has changed over time. That is an inescapable process (Tzu Jan). But then, what was one thing at one point in time became something else upon its death (destruction). And things will continue to change throughout the life of this universe.

 

I understand that if we break something down into its component parts you no longer have the thing you had before we started breaking it down. The first act of breaking it down destroyed its original essence. Similar to the uncarved block (the uncarved piece of wood). In the forset it had no significant qualities except for what it was - a piece of wood. But once the artist found it and carved it into a beautiful figurine it had lost its original essence. But this doesn't necessarily mean the act was something negative. We would consider this act an act that is beyond good and evil.

 

But even after the carving, the figurine exists objectively, in and of itself. But one day it too will be destroyed and become something else.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I've never owned a parrot.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited December 24, 2009 by Marblehead

[goldisheavy]

Of course, you know I disagree with this except the last phrase of your last sentence.

 

Again I will state, the tree was a tree before I saw it.

 

You accept it on faith. I understand.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

However if you try to seriously find what exactly is "physical" in the so-called "physical reality," you can't find it.

Physical reality isn't 'found', it is experienced continuously.. you became aware of the pre-existing physical reality as your individuality emerged and matured.. If someone sedates you and puts you in a cabin on a huge ship, your first awareness when waking up is only of the cabin.. you can't realize or know of the rest of the ship, but you might 'speculate'.. after an interval the cabin is opened and your awareness expands into passage-ways and other cabins.. finally you reach the deck.. it is without merit to sit in the cabin and assume there is no ship.

 

If i try to find the essence of an automobile by taking it apart piece by piece, soon the essence is lost.. the essence of all things is in their relationship with all things.. the automobile's essence is in its existence, not its components.. each component has its own essence, but.. to discover the battery's essence and conclude it invalidates the automobile's essence is a simple error of limited perception an mental confinement..

You accept it on faith. I understand.

No, the existence of the tree prior to my physical manifestation is documented by evidence, photographs, stories, and Clarity.. to suggest that it didn't exist prior to my observation of it is a leap of 'faith' unsupportable from any perspective.. physical reality exists, people like 'Buddha' couldn't deal with its undesirable aspects, so.. they contrived a "Plausible Denial", hence 'it's an illusion'..

 

Be well..

[ralis]

It is certainly not wrong to equate impermanence with emptiness. They are one in the same. That is because things are impermanent/always changing, they are not truly existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. Emptiness is just this freedom from these extremes of existence. Because things do not truly exist, they can change/are impermanent. And impermanence is not nothingness. It is just changing form/appearances. Impermanence and dependent arising are emptiness.

 

Yeah they are obvious to anyone who observes life. So what? In a sense, the fact that they are obvious to anyone who observes life is what makes them wonderful. You don't need to be some guy with a million degrees in astrophysics to know that things change, things arise dependently from causes and conditions and all our actions have causes and effects. All you have to do is look around you. I think one problem with our society now is that people think that nobody can possibly know anything worth knowing unless they are a scientist closed off in a lab someplace. If you're just some normal everyday guy without credentials who is observing things, people will not believe you. They'll say "oh that's too simple" as if the answer just has to be complex and indecipherable. Simple as you may think them to be, the realization of these processes from the Buddhist perspective is liberation itself (the realization of emptiness which leads to freedom from grasping). Eh I should say that realization of emptiness is one half of liberation...as xabir would say, luminosity or non dual presence is the other half.

 

Just because somebody may have never felt that transcendent experience, just because somebody may not have realized from that experience for the first time that it is possible to completely and finally wipe away anger, dissatisfaction, fear, hate, pride, greed, ignorance, envy, attachment, etc. does not mean that transcendent experience is not possible.

 

My point is, anyone can accept any given set of postulates and be absolutely convinced as to the validity of. The use of language in a certain way, can have a very powerful effect in creating belief systems that seem to be the absolute truth. A general reading of history will prove my point.

 

Escapist belief systems are probably the easiest to simulate. Why? In general, humans usually want a way out of hard core reality. Religion and drugs are the most obvious escapist tools.

 

 

ralis

[ralis]

completely[/i] and finally wipe away anger, dissatisfaction, fear, hate, pride, greed, ignorance, envy, attachment, etc. does not mean that transcendent experience is not possible.

 

Why do you have a problem with so called neg. emotions that you find distasteful? Why not find a way to use all emotions for constructive purposes! Just because the Buddha postulated a point of view regarding emotions, does not make it so. If you think that getting rid of these emotions will save you, then that is just more BS!

 

 

ralis

Edited December 24, 2009 by ralis

[Marblehead]

You accept it on faith. I understand.

 

You know GiH, we are both saying amost the same thing except that we are using different words and have placed them in a different order.

 

It is obvious that you prefer your words and their order and I prefer mine.

 

We will never agree on wordage and terminology but I accept what you have said as being what and how you believe and, believe me, I have absolutely no desire to change your beliefs.

 

But then, I really don't expect anyone to convince me that I should change mine.

 

No, faith has nothing to do with it. What I hold to are facts. I can look out my window and see all I need to see in order to confirm my beliefs. The tree is always right there where I planted it. Now the moon is a different story because it is drifting away from Earth.

 

Peace & Love!

[thuscomeone]

Why do you have a problem with so called neg. emotions that you find distasteful? Why not find a way to use all emotions for constructive purposes! Just because the Buddha postulated a point of view regarding emotions, does not make it so. If you think that getting rid of these emotions will save you, then that is just more BS!

ralis

The way that I see it is that, being mental states, anger, fear, dissatisfaction, jealousy, etc. are not so much ended as they are transformed. It's just that if you examine you can see that often times these negative states come about through ignorance (of emptiness) which leads to strong grasping. Transforming ignorance through recognizing emptiness = natural transformation of these mental states.

 

Like one Buddhist master, Atisha, said "The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything."

Edited December 25, 2009 by thuscomeone

[3bob]

"Most people are subjective toward

themselves and objective toward all

others, frightfully objective sometimes--

but the task is precisely to be objective

toward oneself and subjective toward

all others".

 

- Soren Kierkegaard

[ralis]

The way that I see it is that, being mental states, anger, fear, dissatisfaction, jealousy, etc. are not so much ended as they are transformed. It's just that if you examine you can see that often times these negative states come about through ignorance (of emptiness) which leads to strong grasping. Transforming ignorance through recognizing emptiness = natural transformation of these mental states.

 

Like one Buddhist master, Atisha, said "The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything."

 

Are you able to transform emotions? If so, to what end?

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

"Most people are subjective toward

themselves and objective toward all

others, frightfully objective sometimes--

but the task is precisely to be objective

toward oneself and subjective toward

all others".

 

- Soren Kierkegaard

 

Hehehe. I try to be objective toward all. (Not always an easy task.)

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

The way that I see it is that, being mental states, anger, fear, dissatisfaction, jealousy, etc. are not so much ended as they are transformed. It's just that if you examine you can see that often times these negative states come about through ignorance (of emptiness) which leads to strong grasping. Transforming ignorance through recognizing emptiness = natural transformation of these mental states.

 

Like one Buddhist master, Atisha, said "The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything."

 

 

You, like all other Buddhists merely posit a belief system that you have been told is true. Therefor, you accept it.

 

BTW, I have done the whole Buddhist trip from the so called lowest to the so called highest. 20 yrs. to be exact. It is just another exotic belief system.

 

 

ralis