Is there an objective world?

[C T]

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

Three quotes.

 

"Everything that rises must converge."

 

"Science, philosophy and religion must converge as they draw nearer to the Whole."

 

"We are one, after all, you and I. Together we suffer, together we exist, and forever will recreate each other."

 

(Teilhard deChardin)

 

................

 

Without the principle of dependent origination, do you realize that you will not even be able to play your guitar,

nor will it even emit a single sound. Think about it.

Edited December 25, 2009 by CowTao

[3bob]

Hello Marblehead,

 

I can't nail down everything regarding the Kierkegaard quote but I appreciated the feeling of the connotation that it conveys...

 

...not unlike not being able to nail down everything of the second half of the St. Francis of Assisi quote that follows:

 

"...O divine Master,

grant that I may not so much

seek to be consoled as to console;

To be understood as to understand;

To be loved as to love;

For it is in giving that we recieve;

It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

And it is dying that we are born to eternal life".

 

Regards, Bob

 

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

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead,

 

I can't nail down everything regarding the Kierkegaard quote but I appreciated the feeling of the connotation that it conveys...

 

...not unlike not being able to nail down everything of the second half of the St. Francis of Assisi quote that follows:

 

1. "...O divine Master,

2. grant that I may not so much

3. seek to be consoled as to console;

4. To be understood as to understand;

5. To be loved as to love;

6. For it is in giving that we recieve;

7. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

8. And it is dying that we are born to eternal life".

 

Regards, Bob

 

Hi Bob,

 

I added line numbers so I could speak to them.

 

There is a passage in the TTC or Chuang Tzu that is similar to lines 3 - 7.

 

Considering the source of your quoted passage I can understand the lines 1 & 8 being there.

 

Yes, even Chuang Tzu questioned if there is a higher plane of existence, perhaps eternal, upon death. But he didn't give us an answer, only questions.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

...well as has often been said (more or less), the right question is half the answer. :-)

Don't know much about various planes of existence but more importantly - it is death that dies.

 

Om

 

 

Hi Bob,

 

I added line numbers so I could speak to them.

 

There is a passage in the TTC or Chuang Tzu that is similar to lines 3 - 7.

 

Considering the source of your quoted passage I can understand the lines 1 & 8 being there.

 

Yes, even Chuang Tzu questioned if there is a higher plane of existence, perhaps eternal, upon death. But he didn't give us an answer, only questions.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sarnyn]

asking a person to verify objective reality through the use of the senses, is like asking a person to see without eyes, hear without ears, taste without a tongue, smell without a nose, or feel without skin. We cannot verify objective reality by way of the subjective senses. Its like hearing the color blue, seeing the sensation of softness, smelling a sound, or tasting a beautiful scene. The problem arrives in false comparisons.

 

However the limitation of the senses should not be an argument, for dismissing the reality of the objective world. No we can't experience or verify the obejctive reality, but that is merely because our sensation is limited to the subjective world.

[goldisheavy]

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

 

Suppose what you say is true? What then? Surely, the devil (and conversely, God) is in the details, n'est pas? You should pick something in particular that thuscomeone is saying and try to argue against it. If you want to argue, that is. And if you don't want to argue, it makes little sense to make vague comments.

 

asking a person to verify objective reality through the use of the senses, is like asking a person to see without eyes, hear without ears, taste without a tongue, smell without a nose, or feel without skin. We cannot verify objective reality by way of the subjective senses. Its like hearing the color blue, seeing the sensation of softness, smelling a sound, or tasting a beautiful scene. The problem arrives in false comparisons.

 

However the limitation of the senses should not be an argument, for dismissing the reality of the objective world. No we can't experience or verify the obejctive reality, but that is merely because our sensation is limited to the subjective world.

 

People say the same thing about God too. Or pink elephants. Or Zeus. Or the flying spaghetti monster, may his noodly appendage touch us all, ramen.

[Sarnyn]

People say the same thing about God too. Or pink elephants. Or Zeus. Or the flying spaghetti monster, may his noodly appendage touch us all, ramen.

 

Association fallacy

[Marblehead]

...well as has often been said (more or less), the right question is half the answer. :-)

Don't know much about various planes of existence but more importantly - it is death that dies.

 

Om

 

Yeah. I have often said that I don't expect to find all the answers but I do try hard to understand the questions.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

asking a person to verify objective reality through the use of the senses, is like asking a person to see without eyes, hear without ears, taste without a tongue, smell without a nose, or feel without skin. We cannot verify objective reality by way of the subjective senses. Its like hearing the color blue, seeing the sensation of softness, smelling a sound, or tasting a beautiful scene. The problem arrives in false comparisons.

 

However the limitation of the senses should not be an argument, for dismissing the reality of the objective world. No we can't experience or verify the obejctive reality, but that is merely because our sensation is limited to the subjective world.

 

Hi Sarnyn,

 

I understand what you are saying and would agree with it if I held to the idea that we cannot sense the objective world but I do not hold that understanding. My physicality prevents me from walking through the tree. Therefore I conclude that I exist objectively and the tree also exists objectively. The physicality of stuff is the proof of its objectivity.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

People say the same thing about God too. Or pink elephants. Or Zeus. Or the flying spaghetti monster, may his noodly appendage touch us all, ramen.

 

Dear GiH,

 

You have gone to extremes once again and you are confusing logic and rationality with illusion and delusion.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

The existence or not of an objective world is an interesting problem and is given much attention to in Western philosophy, specifically post-Kant who referred to the real world as noumena and the observed world phenomena. As soon as you have any idea about the real world, let alone sense it, it becomes phenomena because it's interpreted through the limited human faculties. Noumena can only be held as a representation, but there is a problem with this view because the noumena is held to be unknowable by the subject, and this is true in a sense because nobody becomes enlightened, but this only depends on the existence of a subject, which is in-itself just a thought-form. We must stop seeing thought-forms as existing in themselves and not existing solely in the mind.

 

The nondual mystical traditions address this problem by eliminating the dichotomy between 'objective' vs 'subjective' by either collapsing onto the subject (Vedanta) or negating the existence of subject/object due to their interdependency (Buddhism). How can an objective world exist, truly? How can a subjective world exist, truly? You can imagine your dreams as a purely subjective world but all your dreams are just ideas brought on through experiences in the world.

 

You can say that an objective world exists because you believe a tree does fall when nobody is there to hear it. You will say argue: A tree is standing today, tomorrow the tree is on the ground therefore it fell. Rightly so, but who is examining? who is inquiring? All observations of the objective world depend on subjects since they are the ones experiencing the world. Is there 'treeness' in a tree, truly? Or is 'treeness' constructed by the human mind and superimposed upon the thing-in-itself? When you inquire into the truly objective world you are not asking if a tree still falls when nobody is there, no you're actually asking what, in essence, is a tree? I think the very same question must be asked of the subject. The whole issue of 'subjective vs objective' world depends on a strictly defined subject and the existence of separate objects, or at least a separate world from the subject. But the very world before us only becomes the world when experienced through us, and we become ourselves only when in play with the world. Both 'world' and 'I/We/Us' are thought-forms existing only in the human mind. The real world is completely beyond any concept. Nothing can be said of the Dharmakaya. Our only Way then is to negate ideas and experience the non-conceptual groundless ground for ourselves.

 

When we ask "Is there an objective world outside of the subject" we must first ask what objective means and how that differs from the subject. Secondly we must ask how these two ideas can exist without each other. And thirdly, we must see that both are interdependent ideas and cannot exist absolutely.

[Marblehead]

Hi Mikaelz,

 

Good arguement. Of course, I don't agree with it but that doesn't change the fact that it is a nice arguement.

 

If we equate objectiveness with physicality then there is no question in my mind that the objective universe existed before there were any observers to observe it.

 

Now I will agree that it is probable that you and I will view the tree differently. But how we each view the tree does not, in any way, change the essence of the tree. It is still the same tree whether you look at it or when I look at it.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited December 27, 2009 by Marblehead

[xabir2005]

Edited December 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[3bob]

"Consciousness is empty of any ontological essence, for consciousness is not a perceiver but the perception"

 

And there is also this part of the Udana sutra listed below, that points to beyond conciousness, but both are getting VERY far ahead of the steps where almost all of us are at... thus tripping by not taking the steps in between is more or less assured.

 

"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pushing objective and subjective around with our feet... perhaps?

 

"...Consider life as a revolving wheel set upright with man walking on its tire. As he walks, the wheel is revolving toward him beneath his feet, and if he is not to be carried backward by it and flung to the ground he must walk at the same speed as the wheel turns. If he exceeds that speed, he will topple foward and slip off the wheel onto his face. For at every moment we stand, as it were, on the top of a wheel; immediately we try to cling to that moment, to that particualr point of the wheel, it is no longer at the top and we are off balance. Thus by not trying to seize the moment, we keep it, for the second we fail to walk on we cease to remain still. Yet within this there is still a deeper truth. From the standpoint of eternity we never can and never do leave the top of the wheel, for if a circle is set in infinite space it has neither top nor bottom. Wherever you stand is the top, and it revolves only because you are pushing it round with your own feet."

 

Quoted from Alan Watts

[Marblehead]

Hi Xabir2005,

 

I accept that what you presented is how Buddhist view this concept.

 

Regretfully (or luckily, depending how one looks at it) I am not a Buddhist. I am a Taoist and we Taoists veiw this concept very differently.

 

We will never agree on this concept because the philosophies are different. Buddhists should continue with the understanding that they have if it works for them. But understand, please, that we Taoists will continue with the understanding we have because it works for us.

 

This subject has been argued by greater minds than mine are even they never attained agreement on the subject. I doubt that I and any of the Buddhists here will ever attain an agreement either.

 

I can agree that no thing is permanent, no thing is eternal. What we view today may not exist tomorrow. But while it exists it is real in a physical sense. You are real just as I am real. One day we will no longer exist in the physical. I don't know anything beyond that regarding what our essence becomes when we no longer exist in the physical.

 

So once again I will state that the universe existed before there were observers to observe it and it will surely exist after I die even though it has been changing every since its formation (Manifestation) and it will surely continue to change after all observers has ceased to exist.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

all concepts and systems at best may help us to reach a certain threshold but such concepts and systems can not cross that threshold...

[thuscomeone]

It's interesting, I was watching that show "life after people" today that is about what changes the earth would go through after humans died off/left. So if there is no objective world, is this just all BS? If there is no objective world, the earth would disappear and cease to go through natural changes if there were no humans?

[Sunya]

It's interesting, I was watching that show "life after people" today that is about what changes the earth would go through after humans died off/left. So if there is no objective world, is this just all BS? If there is no objective world, the earth would disappear and cease to go through natural changes if there were no humans?

 

No. but the world as you think of it, yes. What is 'objective world' ? To a human this means a reality filled with things, a 3 dimensional reality full of stars, planets, oceans, animals, various elements, atoms, chemicals, etc. That world will cease to exist because that world is a representational world made up of thoughts. None of those things truly exist. They depend on us for their existence because they are just ideas that we have, just labels and conjectures based on metaphysical assumptions that cannot be proved. In fact, there are no 'things' in nature, much less any distinct separation between anything. It is humans that make the distinction. It is humans that observe (through limited senses), categorize, name, and make conclusions and base their world-view off of these conclusions. When we talk about the "Real World" we are talking about the actual world that exists separate from the subject, but what I'm getting at is that you have to be careful here because we tend to objectify the world based on assumptions. The assumption that 'things' and 'objects' exist as separate independent things, that our perception is correct and not tainted, and that the subject is in fact different, distinct, from world. Read some Nietzsche, he wrote very interesting stuff about this and was no doubt inspired by Buddhism. When we discuss objective world, we are actually trying to get at absolute truth but through the human medium. Saying that the objective world exists and saying that it doesn't exist are both wrong since they both carry many assumptions. What does exist mean? What does objective mean? What does world mean? There's nothing that can be said about the real world that isn't false, much like there's no way for an ant to communicate to another ant the plot of Sherlock Holmes. Anything the ant says will be wrong because there's no way for it to grasp the complexity of the tale. It's impossible.

[lino]

This is an interesting subject to me. Do you think there is an objective world? Objective meaning a world/reality apart from our minds (mindstreams in buddhism)? In Buddhism, the true nature of the mind is empty and non dual yet I still do not think that this denies that there are things which are independent of our minds. Now I don't mean objective as in inherently existing, I mean it as if our minds were not here, everything we see around us would not be here. I do think there is a reality independent or our minds. There is insentient matter and natural dependently originated processes that we can observe taking place that happen without any aid from our mind. I see no reason for those processes to somehow "dissapear" if our minds were not here. I have a hard time expressing myself on this. What do you think?

 

That depends on what you call an "objective world". I prefer to call it experiencing existence by getting as close to "real time" as possible by concentrating, the three trainings, and using the three characteristics.

 

Shakyamuni advocated "wholesome indifference" as an emotional state, which I think is stripping all negative emotions and the heavier positive emotions in order to not disturb concentration.

[3bob]

T.T.C. 1:

 

Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.

Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.

 

As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless:

As "the Mother" of all things, it is nameable.

 

So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:

As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.

 

These two flow from the same source, though differently

named;

And both are called mysteries.

 

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.

[Marblehead]

It's interesting, I was watching that show "life after people" today that is about what changes the earth would go through after humans died off/left. So if there is no objective world, is this just all BS? If there is no objective world, the earth would disappear and cease to go through natural changes if there were no humans?

 

I saw that when it first aired. So yes, if there is no objective world that entire program would be BS. However, what was presented in the program has a very sound scietific foundation because there is an objective world.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

When we discuss objective world, we are actually trying to get at absolute truth but through the human medium.

 

I think you have hit on the cause of our continued disagreement. I am not searching for the "absolute truth", I am discussing only relative truth as it applies to my life.

 

Before I was bornh nothing mattered to me and after I die nothing will again matter to me. But while I am here everything matters.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.

 

Yep. We can talk about the Manifest after it has been manifested. But we cannot talk about the unmanifested (the Mystery) before it has been manifested because it is only potential - it does not yet exist objectively.

 

Really, the only thing we can talk about is the objective universe - all else is only guesswork - the presuming that we can know the unknowable.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Edited December 28, 2009 by xabir2005

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

If we realise dependent origination, then everything, our consciousness, is just an appearance, a mirage, a phantom, a magic show, vividly appearing but without anything of substance, graspable, locatable, even right now.

IF.. IF we stop masturbating our imaginations, the reality of existence is right here, right now.. the issue is that people prefer to play with their imaginations where they can avoid responsibility for the lives they live.. Life in the manifested reality requires honesty, clarity, and radical responsibility.. the notion that Life is a mirage or a magic show is hogwash. Look and see for yourself.

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Edited December 28, 2009 by xabir2005

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

There is no inherent rose, only dependently originated vision, which appears vividly as the most clear pristine Presence, and yet without any substance or graspable essence. There is no graspable rose, no inherent red-ness or rose-ness or anything-ness.

No, there is no inherent "Rose", but.. there is a cohesive unit of Energy with form, shape, and mass in a discernable pattern we have named "Rose", the 'name' has no essence, but it refers to the essence of the discernable 'cohesive unit of energy'.. we can interact with (see, touch, smell, etc..) the object described by the name "Rose".. you 'can' name it Goodyear 3-ply radial mud tire, but.. the cohesive unit of discernable Energy with the form, shape, and mass of something also named "Rose", remains.. names may change, but the essence remains..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

No, there is no inherent "Rose", but.. there is a cohesive unit of Energy with form, shape, and mass in a discernable pattern we have named "Rose", the 'name' has no essence, but it refers to the essence of the discernable 'cohesive unit of energy'.. we can interact with (see, touch, smell, etc..) the object described by the name "Rose".. you 'can' name it Goodyear 3-ply radial mud tire, but.. the cohesive unit of discernable Energy with the form, shape, and mass of something also named "Rose", remains.. names may change, but the essence remains..

 

Be well..

And what is this abstract energy you're talking about?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

And what is this abstract energy you're talking about?

"Abstract"? are you unfamiliar with Energy? It is the fabric of the Universe, Consciousness is the weaver..

 

Be well..