Is there an objective world?

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

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

 

Be well..

Energy from what I understand means manifestation. All that manifest/appears in our experience is energy. And what appears has no independent existence of its own, it interdependently originates, which means it is empty of any independent or inherent existence.

 

Was just reminded of the Dzogchen teachings. It teaches the three aspects of a being -- Dharmkaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya, which are known as the three bodies of a Buddha. In certain systems of Buddhism these bodies are to be cultivated and attained in a very long distant future. In Dzogchen these three bodies are discovered to be spontaneously perfected from the beginning as the true nature of each individual.

 

It corresponds to Essence, Nature, and Energy.

 

Essence = Emptiness

Nature = Luminosity (Awareness/Clarity)

Energy = Manifestation

 

These aspects are a inseparable unity which is the nature of oneself and everything.

 

It is not that energy has an independent essence, it's essence is empty, it's nature is luminous, vivid presence. My friend Thusness views it slightly differently... the nature is empty, its essence is luminous. This is subtly different in some ways. In any case 'energy' is not synonymous with an independent essence.

 

If Vajrahridaya is around he could clarify more since he has practiced in the tradition for years.

Edited December 28, 2009 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Everything is relative and interdependent. What is interdependent is empty, not non-existence, but empty of any graspable essence, inherent existence, characteristics, shape, form, any kind of independent essence or nature. Though it appears clearly in our experience, can you actually locate and pinpoint a certain existence or characteristic or 'thingness' of things?

 

For example, all humans (almost) observe that a rose is red in colour. This is due to our shared karma and biological makeup, our common conditions. It may be 'scientifically acceptable' that rose is 'red'.

 

However, as in the previous explanation, not all animals see rose as red. They could see it as something else. Certainly, dogs see it as black. Who knows what a fly see it as. If we have quantum vision, we see 99.999% void.

 

A more accurate statement is "under certain conditions, it is observed that rose is ....'

 

It is not that 'Rose is inherently ...'

 

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.

 

Good try. Hehehe. However, you have failed to convince me of the validity of your arguement.

 

But first, much of what you said is true. Our perception is limited by the capacities and capabilities of our senses. And I agree, some animals 'see' redness and others do not. And I agree that 'redness' does not have a tangible essence.

 

I have roses that are red, pink, yellow & white. I can 'see' these colors (light refraction) where other animals would see only shades of grey. To the best of my knowledge all birds have color vision that is actually better than human's.

 

But, the rose itself does have thusness. It is occupying space that would otherwise be empty (well, not really empty but absent of thusness). Is it permanent and eternal? Heck no! But it exists in the moment.

 

The chair I am sitting on exists in the moment. Yes, prior to being a chair the components were other things. But all the components, assembled in the way they were assembled gave those components a chair thusness. Eventually the components will deteriorate and the collective components will loose their chair thusness.

 

I do understand what you mean by 'dependently originated' and 'emptiness' and I understand that these are concepts of the Buddhist base philosophy but we Taoists view these concepts differently.

 

So I assure you that I will continue to look at my roses and detect the different colors of the flowers of the various plants but I will not be grasping the stems of the plants lest I become painfully aware of their true thusness.

 

That darn "Big Bang"!!! Were it not for the "Big Bang" none of us would be here disagreeing on the concept of 'objective reality'. Yep. All arguements are dependently originated.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Greetings..

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

 

Be well..

 

Seeing that last phrase from you was a surprise for me!

 

It is my understanding that Tzu Jan is the weaver.

 

But I agree with the rest of what you said in your last two posts. (And I disagree with what Xabir said in the last post.)

 

Peace & Love!

Edited December 28, 2009 by Marblehead

[C T]

Love this quote from Ken Wilber:

 

"We babyboomers have to be on guard against the belief that we are the only ones who

ever got it right. The truth is that we are just another group of nutcases."

 

A life manifests like fragrant vapors from a cup of hot tea. Smell the aroma quickly, before it

disappears back into itself.

 

Too much contemplation, and we miss the fragrance altogether..

Edited December 28, 2009 by CowTao

[3bob]

[3bob]

From Marblehead, (blue text):

 

"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"

 

It or the Tao always was, is and will be now - there really is no, "does not yet exist objectively" limit for the Tao - such a concept has basis when one's mind is using time and space to try and get some sort of handle on what it can not really get a handle on.

 

"...To be great is to go on,

To go on is to be far,

To be far is to return..." from T.T.C. 24

 

which sounds like being in the limits of time and space but - this really means to me being everywhere at once, both in time and beyond time - which is whole different ball game.

 

"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."

 

Partly agreed, talk does have limits but, "we" realized as the Tao can know the Tao, and thus be finished with the guesswork and doubts of the mind.

 

Best wishes, Bob

[Marblehead]

Hi Bob,

 

Getting technical on me, are you? Hehehe.

 

Yes, Tao is, always has been, and always will be. I generally say that about the energy of the universe. Of course, if there were no manifest things then that is all there would be. The above conversation about energy fits here. I honestly do not know if there is anything in the universe except for energy.

 

Yes, when I am in a complete state of 'wu' (which is very rarely) I can think beyond time and space but these thoughts have no relativity to my manifest world (at least not directly).

 

But I still cannot know the unknowable. That is why it is said that we should stop with what we can know. To try to know the unknowable is futile. I cannot imagine 'oneness' because it is still me doing the thinking and that makes 'oneness' and me. That's two.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

[Marblehead]

NIGHTMARES!

 

May I suggest a search for the condition where there are no more nightmares? (That is, the condition of being at peace with your inner Self.)

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

May I suggest a search for the condition where there are no more nightmares? (That is, the condition of being at peace with your inner Self.)

 

Peace & Love!

Did you mean to say the 'subjective' inner Self, MH?

 

Thanks for the reminder anyway! Nice one!

 

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

 

Hey Lucky.. love your sense of serious humor man.. love it!

Wish i had some of it..

[3bob]

Hi Marblehead,

 

Two in Oneness, and unity in diversity is wonderful.

 

Oops, the excerpt from the T.T.C. that I recently quoted was from chapter 25, not 24.

I think Chapter 25 is an excellent type of - pointing towards - and relates to many

of the well stated posts shared in this string.

 

What do you think or feel about chapter 21 of the T.T.C.?

For myself I hear no mention of or an agreed upon meaning given to the supposition of

not being able to know the so called unknowable; and considering the import of the last

two sentences of the chapter I'd say an opposite supposition is implied.

 

"How do I know the ways of all things at the beginning?

By what is within me."

 

Obviously Buddhists use the term "mind" differently than some other "eastern" systems, so I see some problem in translation and correlation there; regardless of that I do appreciate many of its sayings!

 

The Zen saying that goes something like, "when the many is reduced to one, to what is the one reduced?"

comes to mind and granted that is an unknowable to a tool that automatically sees and cuts into two.

[3bob]

Lucky7strikes,

 

"Have you then crossed the river? Can you now let go of the raft?"

 

- I've been around some of the rafts and parts of the river and bank, but have a very long haul to go. -

 

"Xabir only posts replies, he just clarifies".

 

- his interpretation or view which is fine -.

Edited December 28, 2009 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Did you mean to say the 'subjective' inner Self, MH?

 

Thanks for the reminder anyway! Nice one!

 

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

 

Hey Lucky.. love your sense of serious humor man.. love it!

Wish i had some of it..

 

Good eye, my Friend. It would almost seem as though I had suggest that but, no, what I am referring to is our spiritual essence. Perhaps better referred to as our unconscious mind. It is, afterall, the unconscious mind that is active during sleep if there is activity.

 

How does that go? To sleep without dreams and to awake without worries.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Good eye, my Friend. It would almost seem as though I had suggest that but, no, what I am referring to is our spiritual essence. Perhaps better referred to as our unconscious mind. It is, afterall, the unconscious mind that is active during sleep if there is activity.

 

How does that go? To sleep without dreams and to awake without worries.

 

Peace & Love!

Sounds good to me!

 

Personally, i'd rather be awake without dreams as well!

[Marblehead]

[C T]

Yes MH, to be totally present, without a 'projector at the back of my head' screening a sub-drama

while i am trying to direct my own! I think that many of us can relate with that scenario eh?

[Marblehead]

Yes MH, to be totally present, without a 'projector at the back of my head' screening a sub-drama

while i am trying to direct my own! I think that many of us can relate with that scenario eh?

 

Yes, I am well acquainted with that condition. I have given up most of that stuff except for what I mentioned in the "Delusions" thread.

 

And you are absolutely correct, it is very difficult and sometimes impossible to be totally in the present while we are living in the past.

 

What's this got to do with whether or not there is an objective world? I have no idea unless we say we are considering this idea objectively.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited December 28, 2009 by Marblehead

[Lucky7Strikes]

Lucky7strikes,

 

"Have you then crossed the river? Can you now let go of the raft?"

 

- I've been around some of the rafts and parts of the river and bank, but have a very long haul to go. -

 

"Xabir only posts replies, he just clarifies".

 

- his interpretation or view which is fine -.

 

Then perhaps you might try Xabir's raft out. His blog is something to explore: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/. Writings by Thusness are also very concise and practical.

 

It's important to question and contemplate held beliefs and not hide behind the curtain of "ah, words and contemplation and mind tricks and worthless." A yogi may be in samadhi for years and never attain liberation, just as a sedated person is also not in meditation. I think, the raft should be examined over and over again to see why it hasn't gotten one across, also with rigorous rowing/application.

 

Word play has its place in practice. Light is met with light, darkness with darkness. .

 

I love the koan: when many is reduced to one, what is that one reduced to? But it poses two different questions, and may not be so effective when applied. Just my opinion.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[3bob]

Hi Marblehead,

 

I use the John C.H. Wu translation. Don't have much time for the others.

 

Anyway, I think what it boils down to is that suppositions either way (pro or con) are not final,

Some schools use affirmation, some use negation... and some feel that others use affirmation incorrectly and some feel that others use negation incorrectly, etc., etc.

 

 

Hello Lucky7strikes,

The historic Buddha had Hindu teachers who helped him reach the 8th Jhana as recorded in Buddhist writings so I find it somewhat strange that Buddhists sometimes (and apparently you) would make asides about Hindu based (or yogi/yogic) teachings? But I've found such is often the way of vested interests so I have basically given up on such - although I have nothing against any religion that is practiced in a humanly spiritual and noble way, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Jewish, Shamanistic, etc. etc.

 

Good fortune to all

[ralis]

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.

 

Your arguments remind me of the "blind men and the elephant". I studied science and philosophy before you were born. The absolute value you attach to your arguments only applies to your point of view and not a general or cosmic point of view. It is you who make assumptions and proceed to argue from incorrect assumptions. For example, your use of the pronoun "we" incorrectly assumes a collective agreement with your point of view. Furthermore, you incorrectly assume that only humans objectify reality. Animals don't? It is a proven fact that chimps use very basic tools for rudimentary tasks.

 

As long as you defer to an external authority to form your world view, you will never experience the cosmos as it truly is.

 

ralis

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

"Is there an objective world?"... Yes.

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Good try. Hehehe. However, you have failed to convince me of the validity of your arguement.

 

But first, much of what you said is true. Our perception is limited by the capacities and capabilities of our senses. And I agree, some animals 'see' redness and others do not. And I agree that 'redness' does not have a tangible essence.

 

I have roses that are red, pink, yellow & white. I can 'see' these colors (light refraction) where other animals would see only shades of grey. To the best of my knowledge all birds have color vision that is actually better than human's.

 

But, the rose itself does have thusness. It is occupying space that would otherwise be empty (well, not really empty but absent of thusness). Is it permanent and eternal? Heck no! But it exists in the moment.

 

The chair I am sitting on exists in the moment. Yes, prior to being a chair the components were other things. But all the components, assembled in the way they were assembled gave those components a chair thusness. Eventually the components will deteriorate and the collective components will loose their chair thusness.

 

I do understand what you mean by 'dependently originated' and 'emptiness' and I understand that these are concepts of the Buddhist base philosophy but we Taoists view these concepts differently.

 

So I assure you that I will continue to look at my roses and detect the different colors of the flowers of the various plants but I will not be grasping the stems of the plants lest I become painfully aware of their true thusness.

 

That darn "Big Bang"!!! Were it not for the "Big Bang" none of us would be here disagreeing on the concept of 'objective reality'. Yep. All arguements are dependently originated.

 

Peace & Love!

In direct experience, prior to labeling, conceptualizing, grasping etc, there is just the Isness/Thusness of everything.

 

Our idea, concept, label, of flowers as 'inherently red' and inherently existing, that is just a conceptual fabrication. Nothing in our experience tells us that a flower inherently exist and is inherently red. It is delusion to think like that and grasp on forms as having inherent existence.

 

As explained earlier though the Isness of the experience dependently originates, i.e., the Isness of the blue sky is different from the Isness of the sound of bird chirping, due to different conditions and thus different appearances, none of the appearances are actually inherently existing. They're just appearances, like a mirage, vividly appearing yet nothing of substance can be located anywhere.

 

In our direct experience, there is awareness of red flower (just the pure knowing of the shapes and forms even without the labelling of 'red'), but nothing of it tells us that red flower exists objectively and inherently. As explained, it could be experienced in other ways. There's nothing that exists inherently and independently, all is just dependently originated appearances.

 

Also your notion that objects take up space is merely due to our specific conditionings producing an experience of apparent solidity. In fact there is no solidity. What if we observe at a deeper level and find that what we normally think of as forms occupying space is actually itself mostly space? If we were to observe with quantum vision we see 99.99999% void, where's the shapes and forms? So it is just a dependently originated apperance.

 

Isness is not something inherent, just a point of vivid luminous clarity yet empty.

 

As Longchen wrote (a highly enlightened friend of me and Thusness):

 

 

The non-solidity of existence

 

This article describes a spiritual insight. It may be quite hard to understand.

 

The things that we experience are registered by all the sense organs. The eye sight registers vision, the ears register sound, the body registers sensations. These perception, sensations and experiences are not happening in some places. They are the experience of the arising of certain conditions. There is no solidity and physicality in the actual experience.

 

What we experienced is not universal and common to all. Here's an example to illustrate that: We know that as human beings, we see in term of colours. Some animals are however colour-blind, thus they see differently from us. But none of us, is really seeing the truth nature directly. The senses of different species of sentient beings experience things differently. So who is seeing the real image of an object? None.

 

Likewise, the various planes of existence are due to different conditions arising. In certain types of meditation, one is said to be able to access these planes of existence. This is because they are not specific locations. They are mental states and are thus non-localised. In these meditations, our consciousness changes and 'aligned' more with these other states or planes of existence.

 

All the planes of existence are simultaneously manifesting, but because our senses are human-based conditioned arisings, we only see the human world and other beings that shared 'similar' resonating arising conditions. But nevertheless, the other planes of existences are not elsewhere in some other places.

 

What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form.

OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.

 

For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

 

These articles are parts of a series of spiritual realisation articles .

 

Greetings..

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..

Realising emptiness does not mean we stop being responsible. Emptiness does not deny cause and effect. It rejects the notion of things existing independently apart from interdependent origination. Karma is part of the truth of interdependent origination. If we realise that everything dependently originates and become more aware of this interdependence, then we might become more responsible in not creating negative and unwholesome conditions for ourselves and others. Edited December 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

In fact there is no solidity.

An self-deception of the highest order.. Consciousness has shaped energy into solid matter, this is clearly experiencable.. creative imaginings and clever semantics will not change this observable reality..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

An self-deception of the highest order.. Consciousness has shaped energy into solid matter, this is clearly experiencable.. creative imaginings and clever semantics will not change this observable reality..

 

Be well..

There is appearance of solidity. But the appearance of solidity is flickering in and out of existence in every single moment, we just aren't aware of impermanence at a deep level. Also, the appearance of solidity is simply sensations and perceptions that are dependently originated, though giving the impression of something solid. Just because we see and feel an appearance of solidity doesn't mean it exists objectively, independently, or permanently. To see something solid is just the awareness of an appearance, but to jump to the conclusion that when you close your eyes, what you see previously is still inherently existing (e.g. an inherently existing flower with a particular shape and colour) apart from you is just an conceptual fabrication. In reality all experiences are vivid but empty.

 

As my friend wrote:

 

What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form.

Edited December 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[Tao99]

There is appearance of solidity. But the appearance of solidity is flickering in and out of existence in every single moment, we just aren't aware of impermanence at a deep level. Also, the appearance of solidity is simply sensations and perceptions that are dependently originated, though giving the impression of something solid. Just because we see and feel an appearance of solidity doesn't mean it exists objectively, independently, or permanently. To see something solid is just the awareness of an appearance, but to jump to the conclusion that when you close your eyes, what you see previously is still inherently existing (e.g. an inherently existing flower with a particular shape and colour) apart from you is just an conceptual fabrication. In reality all experiences are vivid but empty.

 

As my friend wrote:

 

What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form.

 

What if? What if in the 21st century using the Hadron collider science discovers the postulated Boson particle, or "God particle", the particle that gives mass (solidity) to all the other particles? Then we will know there is mass, and where it comes from. Then the Buddhist metaphysical theory will be shown wrong. Will the Buddhists be able to do what the DL suggests and follow science? Does Buddhist metaphysics at that level of theoretical detail (then proven wrong) change the Buddha's supposed core message? From my Chinese Zen (Chan) training, seeing the impersonal (empty) nature of the Tao as spontaneous, dependent origination was a part of the training but not the core, and whether there is mass (solidity) or not was not discussed. I personally don't think the Buddha would care; his concern being at core with the 4 NT. The collider is about to begin experiments on the God particle and we shall see what we see, whether we want to see or want not to see.

[C T]

Greetings..

An self-deception of the highest order.. Consciousness has shaped energy into solid matter, this is clearly experiencable.. creative imaginings and clever semantics will not change this observable reality..

 

Be well..

A 'solid' tea cup depends on the space within it before it can hold any liquid. What is experienced

as solid can only be such when there is an opposing reality/factor that dependently arises. Without

this space, the solidness cannot be. This is not deception - you can see this very clearly yourself by

looking at all solid objects to see if they are not dependent on their apparent subjective aspects in

order to become what they are.

 

Most people only experience one half of what they deem to be 'real' or 'solid'. This can lead to

what is commonly known here as 'delusions', meaning not being able to see the whole process

of causes and effects, and also the causes and effects that underlie those causes and effects,

ad infinitum. There are always two sides to what you label as "observable reality".

 

Consciousness perceives apparent shapes only - it does not shape anything other than itself.

 

Respectfully,

 

CT.