Is there an objective world?

[3bob]

 

Well, sure, Bob. If we go back to the beginning all was one and there was no objective universe.

 

Of course, we can also deny the passage of time and the movement of space and pretend that all is still One.

 

But then, I could also pretend that it is warm outside and go wading in my fish ponds but I think my physical, objectively existent body would object to that.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Hello Marblehead,

Putting things into time lines has it uses or purposes...and we do relate to such in practical 2d & 3d ways. But there is no pretense to me when it comes to the -One- that includes ALL OF TIME and ALL OF SPACE that all beings exist within, and which can not be fully related to or objectified with only 2d or 3d type maps of perception, or as is often translated into only the so called "normal" human objective viewpoints. (of the past that is gone and a future that is not yet come)

 

Om

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead,

 

Om

 

Okay.

 

Hehehe. I have nothing to say. Just wanted to let you know I read the post.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Just checking to make sure my objective world is still here and sure enough, it still exists.

 

I thank all the gods and goddesses for that.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

Just checking to make sure my objective world is still here and sure enough, it still exists.

 

I thank all the gods and goddesses for that.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Ok, so you since you saw this thread yesterday, and you came back today and see it again, that confirms an objective world? I don't think you understand what 'objective world' means for if you do, and if it does exist, then you would have no way of confirming that belief since you are forever trapped in your own subjective world.

[goldisheavy]

Ok, so you since you saw this thread yesterday, and you came back today and see it again, that confirms an objective world? I don't think you understand what 'objective world' means for if you do, and if it does exist, then you would have no way of confirming that belief since you are forever trapped in your own subjective world.

 

He can't hear this. It's like there is a muffler on his ears or something. He just can't face it.

 

But he gave us a clue as to why not. And you know what it is? Marble said that if you dismiss the notion of the objective world, it makes you apathetic. To Marble, saying, "I don't believe in an objective reality" is equivalent to saying "I don't care about anything." Of course it's not equivalent. I think most people in this thread know this. But Marble doesn't. This is a clue about his state of mind. I think Marble is pretty old/mature too, so my guess is that his beliefs are pretty solidified by this point and are not subject to change. The opportunity to try to understand a different belief system will come for him only in the next life at best. He's pretty set in his ways now and he seems to be happy as is. Why should he examine what you or me or anyone else is saying? He's set.

[Marblehead]

Ok, so you since you saw this thread yesterday, and you came back today and see it again, that confirms an objective world? I don't think you understand what 'objective world' means for if you do, and if it does exist, then you would have no way of confirming that belief since you are forever trapped in your own subjective world.

 

I may well be trapped in my subjective world but I damn sure am not trapped in yours. My subjective world and objective world are one and the same except for my delusions I have previously mentioned. My delusions are subjective but not objective.

 

So if you believe I do not understand what "objective world" means please enlighten me. I have for the past fifteen years or so understood it to be the Manifest of Taoist philosophy. If I am wrong please set me straight.

 

I will await your enlightened truths.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

He can't hear this. It's like there is a muffler on his ears or something. He just can't face it.

 

But he gave us a clue as to why not. And you know what it is? Marble said that if you dismiss the notion of the objective world, it makes you apathetic. To Marble, saying, "I don't believe in an objective reality" is equivalent to saying "I don't care about anything." Of course it's not equivalent. I think most people in this thread know this. But Marble doesn't. This is a clue about his state of mind. I think Marble is pretty old/mature too, so my guess is that his beliefs are pretty solidified by this point and are not subject to change. The opportunity to try to understand a different belief system will come for him only in the next life at best. He's pretty set in his ways now and he seems to be happy as is. Why should he examine what you or me or anyone else is saying? He's set.

 

It's soooo good to hear you GiH!!!!

 

No, I did not say that rejecting objective reality makes you apathetic. I said it leads to that.

 

I am so glad you are able to read my mind and thoughts and that you have such a wonderful understanding of how I think! You should go into show business!

 

So you think you know what most people in this thread know, do you? WoW!!! What fantastic mental powers you have!

 

You are correct in opne of your statements: I am pretty old/mature and yes, my beliefs are very well solidified and they are very unlikely to change any time soon.

 

I understand many different belief systems. Don't go pretending how much you know about me. You know only what I have told you and it all might be nothing but a game I am playing and nothing is true.

 

Yes, I am happy, content, and at peace with my Self. Have you ever felt that Oneness? Have you ever experienced total Wu? Have you ever killed anyone so that you know what it is to take a life and extinguish it? It's a horrible feeling. Have you ever saved someone's life? It's a wonderful feeling.

 

Have you ever gone for a walk in the wilderness and lost yourself to your surroundings and became one with all else?

 

Have you ever looked death directly in the face and not know if you were going to be taken that instant or if you were going to be allotted more time? That is a truely wierd feeling.

 

Tell me about myself, would you please. Tell me about how I have had no expreiences with other ideas other than the one I hold to. Tell me about how many countries I have lived in and how I observed who they lived and learned their culture.

 

I so much really enjoy your telling me what kind of a person I am and what and why it believe what I do.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

He can't hear this. It's like there is a muffler on his ears or something. He just can't face it.

 

But he gave us a clue as to why not. And you know what it is? Marble said that if you dismiss the notion of the objective world, it makes you apathetic. To Marble, saying, "I don't believe in an objective reality" is equivalent to saying "I don't care about anything." Of course it's not equivalent. I think most people in this thread know this. But Marble doesn't. This is a clue about his state of mind. I think Marble is pretty old/mature too, so my guess is that his beliefs are pretty solidified by this point and are not subject to change. The opportunity to try to understand a different belief system will come for him only in the next life at best. He's pretty set in his ways now and he seems to be happy as is. Why should he examine what you or me or anyone else is saying? He's set.

 

yes I believe you are right, Gold. the older someone is the less likely they are to question their firmly held views.

 

 

 

I may well be trapped in my subjective world but I damn sure am not trapped in yours. My subjective world and objective world are one and the same except for my delusions I have previously mentioned. My delusions are subjective but not objective.

 

So if you believe I do not understand what "objective world" means please enlighten me. I have for the past fifteen years or so understood it to be the Manifest of Taoist philosophy. If I am wrong please set me straight.

 

I will await your enlightened truths.

 

Peace & Love!

 

why so defensive? i'm not trying to make you defensive, it's your attachment to your views that are making you defensive, buddy. so relax since those views are simply thoughts and have nothing to do with you. i'm sure, having had experiences of Oneness, you know this already to be true.

 

well if we are talking about objective world then we should settle on a definition shouldn't we? at least I can hope we can agree on a definition at the very least. what is your definition of objective world?

 

I think a good example of an objective world is your house, when nobody is there to observe your house, the rooms in it, and the things inside those rooms, with their various forms, colors, shapes, substances, etc, when nobody is there to observe your house, is it still there? You would say yes your house exists outside of your perception of it, right?

Edited January 4, 2010 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

yes I believe you are right, Gold. the older someone is the less likely they are to question their firmly held views.

 

And why would I want to change my views when what I hold to works perfectly well? Wouldn't that be like throwing a perfectly good, operational electric drill in the trash just because it is now older than its warranty?

 

why so defensive? i'm not trying to make you defensive, it's your attachment to your views that are making you defensive, buddy. so relax since those views are simply thoughts and have nothing to do with you. i'm sure, having had experiences of Oneness, you know this already to be true.

 

I am not getting defensive. I am becoming insistant. There is a difference. You and Gold have been saying the same thing over and over using different words and I am trying to express my understanding in a manner that y'all will understand. You guys want me to change but I have no reason to change because any change will make my life worse. I have what I consider a perfect life at this point in time. Why would I even consider changing?

 

well if we are talking about objective world then we should settle on a definition shouldn't we? at least I can hope we can agree on a definition at the very least. what is your definition of objective world?

 

Yes, let's do talk about the objective world and stop talking so much about me. You guys keep feeding my ego then I have to spend time getting it back under control again.

 

I think a good example of an objective world is your house, when nobody is there to observe your house, the rooms in it, and the things inside those rooms, with their various forms, colors, shapes, substances, etc, when nobody is there to observe your house, is it still there? You would say yes your house exists outside of your perception of it, right?

 

That is a perfect example for a definition of an objective world. I agree that we can use this as our standard for discussion.

 

I will add that my understanding of the objective universe is what in Taoism is called the Manifest realm. There are three major components (pardon the word but it really is the best word to use) of Tao (All, everytheng, One, whatever we call it) and these are Chi, Mystery and Manifest. Chi is the energy of the universe, Mystery is all potential, and Manifest is the 'ten thousand things'.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

yes I believe you are right, Gold. the older someone is the less likely they are to question their firmly held views.

 

 

And you don't question your firmly held beliefs?

 

 

ralis

Edited January 4, 2010 by ralis

[Marblehead]

Shhhhh.

 

The children are sleeping. You don't want to wake them do you?

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

In general, the lack of good communication skills on this and other threads is appalling. Poor syntax, the prolific use of non-sequiturs and the general lack of clear thinking is in general, the norm. What about the misuse of absolute statements without any factual basis? Absolute statements are usually formed by the use of the verb (is).

E.g., "The Buddhas realization is unexcelled". By using the verb (is), the reader is led to believe that there is no other view in the entire cosmos that is higher than the Buddha. There are no facts to base that argument on.

 

One more recent statement by Mikaelz was to the effect, Nietzsche was influenced by Buddhism and therefor just what does that prove? It only proves Nietzsche was influenced by Buddhism and nothing more. Just more circular arguments. Are well thought arguments not used in Philosophy 101 anymore?

 

 

ralis

Edited January 4, 2010 by ralis

[Marblehead]

One more recent statement by Mikaelz was to the effect, Nietzsche was influenced by Buddhism and therefor just what does that prove? It only proves Nietzsche was influenced by Buddhism and nothing more. Just more circular arguments. Are well thought arguments not used in Philosophy 101 anymore?

ralis

 

He does that because he knows I have a lot of respect for Nietzsche's writings. I'm not even sure it is a valid statement because Nietzsche held strongly to the Jewish God and this alone would contradict any thought of his being influenced by Buddhism. The two religions are at opposites.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

In general, the lack of good communication skills on this and other threads is appalling. Poor syntax, the prolific use of non-sequiturs and the general lack of clear thinking is in general, the norm. What about the misuse of absolute statements without any factual basis? Absolute statements are usually formed by the use of the verb (is).

E.g., "The Buddhas realization is unexcelled". By using the verb (is), the reader is led to believe that there is no other view in the entire cosmos that is higher than the Buddha. There are no facts to base that argument on.

 

One more recent statement by Mikaelz was to the effect, Nietzsche was influenced by Buddhism and therefor just what does that prove? It only proves Nietzsche was influenced by Buddhism and nothing more. Just more circular arguments. Are well thought arguments not used in Philosophy 101 anymore?

ralis

 

Insightful post rails. I also appreciate the following saying from the T.T.C. #8

 

"The highest form of goodness is like water.

Water knows how to benefit all things without

striving with them.

It stays in places loathed by all men.

Therefore, it comes near the Tao.

 

In choosing your dwelling, know how to keep to

the ground.

In cultivating your mind, know how to dive in

the hidden deeps.

In dealing with others, know how to be gentle and kind.

In speaking, know how to keep your words.

In governing, know how to maintain order.

In transacting business, know how to be efficient.

In making a move, know how to choose the right

moment.

 

If you do not strive with others,

You will be free from blame".

 

Om

[goldisheavy]

Yes, I am happy, content, and at peace with my Self.

 

In my opinion, there is a lot right with that, Marblehead. You're content. That's great. I believe you on this totally.

 

So here's our situation between you and I: you like to believe that there is an objective reality and it seems like this belief is essential to the quality of your life. Exactly the opposite of this is true for me. I started out in life believing in objective reality too. I then questioned that belief over the period of many years, with a lot of lucid dreaming, meditation and contemplation practice. Eventually I understood, for myself, with both reasoning and experience, that there is no such thing as objective reality.

 

You ignore every argument. When you hear something that challenges the view of objective reality, you don't answer the challenge directly. Instead you sweep it aside and assert your view on top of it. I feel like I am not actually talking with you. I am trying to talk with you, but what ends up happening in our case is what feels like I talk in your general direction. While I do that, your ears are closed. Then you talk in my general direction. I respond by directly challenging what you said (as opposed to ignoring what you're saying and asserting my view on top of you, which is what you are doing all the time). Then you ignore the meat of my argument and assert your view again.

 

You know where I see this behavior a lot? I see this a great deal with religious Christians. This is exactly what happens if I challenge anything from the Bible, for example. They just don't listen. They ignore whatever I am saying and assert their view right on top of any argument I had, no matter how much thought I'd put into it, etc. It just doesn't matter, because before we even start discussing those Christians know what the outcome of the discussion will be.

 

I started life as a strong physicalist with a full view of objective reality and I have spent a significant portion of my life believing that way. So I have been on both sides of this fence, not just a tiny bit, but a lot. I know exactly how and what you believe when it comes to objective reality.

 

In any case, I don't want to argue with you because I don't think you are interested in a real argument. I've argued this topic with a lot of people a lot of times and I've never come across anyone more deaf than you are. You are right up there at the top with the deaf Christians, etc. Right at the top with the O'Reilley's (from the FOX network) of the world, who simply cut the mike, because you know what? From those guys point of view, "idiots shouldn't speak." So they cut the mike, or they don't bother actually listening.

 

I have a lot of disrespect for you and my opinion of you is very low for the reasons I am so carefully and politely describing here. I am polite because I know you value decorum above all else in life. It's your number one value.

Edited January 4, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

E.g., "The Buddhas realization is unexcelled". By using the verb (is), the reader is led to believe that there is no other view in the entire cosmos that is higher than the Buddha. There are no facts to base that argument on.

 

No Ralis. Wrong. I'm surprised to hear you say this. I thought you were smarter than that. That is the definition of what a Buddha is. If you even accept the concept of Buddha at all, even for the purpose of discussion, that statement above is axiomatic.

 

It's like saying that "God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent." It's the same thing. It just means that if you accept the idea of God at all, in any capacity, even if just for the purpose of discussion, that's how God is defined. It's an axiomatic statement about God. You don't have to believe in God. In fact, the person who says "God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent" doesn't have to believe in God.

 

I ultimately do not believe in God. But if I talk to someone who does, I respect their definition of what God is 100%. Not only do I respect that definition, but I can use it in an argument skillfully. And that's how, in my humble opinion, all people should be. If you accept other person's language at all, if you accept their terms, you have to respectfully accept some amount of axiomatic statements. And if you don't accept them, that's fine too. Just say so. But don't question the person's communications skills, or grammar, or punctuation, or you sound like a retard at that point.

 

Not every person has equally good command of English. Not every person who makes a grammar or punctuation mistake does so on purpose or due to ill will of any kind. Not everyone here who speaks English is a native English speaker.

 

In my opinion the communication skills of everyone on this forum are fine. What's not fine is that some people don't want to listen to anything you are saying, but that's not a problem with communication skills. It's a problem with willingness.

[thuscomeone]

In my opinion, there is a lot right with that, Marblehead. You're content. That's great. I believe you on this totally.

 

So here's our situation between you and I: you like to believe that there is an objective reality and it seems like this belief is essential to the quality of your life. Exactly the opposite of this is true for me. I started out in life believing in objective reality too. I then questioned that belief over the period of many years, with a lot of lucid dreaming, meditation and contemplation practice. Eventually I understood, for myself, with both reasoning and experience, that there is no such thing as objective reality.

 

You ignore every argument. When you hear something that challenges the view of objective reality, you don't answer the challenge directly. Instead you sweep it aside and assert your view on top of it. I feel like I am not actually talking with you. I am trying to talk with you, but what ends up happening in our case is what feels like I talk in your general direction. While I do that, your ears are closed. Then you talk in my general direction. I respond by directly challenging what you said (as opposed to ignoring what you're saying and asserting my view on top of you, which is what you are doing all the time). Then you ignore the meat of my argument and assert your view again.

 

You know where I see this behavior a lot? I see this a great deal with religious Christians. This is exactly what happens if I challenge anything from the Bible, for example. They just don't listen. They ignore whatever I am saying and assert their view right on top of any argument I had, no matter how much thought I'd put into it, etc. It just doesn't matter, because before we even start discussing those Christians know what the outcome of the discussion will be.

 

I started life as a strong physicalist with a full view of objective reality and I have spent a significant portion of my life believing that way. So I have been on both sides of this fence, not just a tiny bit, but a lot. I know exactly how and what you believe when it comes to objective reality.

 

In any case, I don't want to argue with you because I don't think you are interested in a real argument. I've argued this topic with a lot of people a lot of times and I've never come across anyone more deaf than you are. You are right up there at the top with the deaf Christians, etc. Right at the top with the O'Reilley's (from the FOX network) of the world, who simply cut the mike, because you know what? From those guys point of view, "idiots shouldn't speak." So they cut the mike, or they don't bother actually listening.

 

I have a lot of disrespect for you and my opinion of you is very low for the reasons I am so carefully and politely describing here. I am polite because I know you value decorum above all else in life. It's your number one value.

Interesting. I had my first ever lucid dream (which came interestingly without any effort on my part to even make it happen) a few days before it finally hit me just last week that there is no objective reality. Anyway, one question I wanted to ask those who, like me, believe that all is mind is:

how do you account for the diversity of appearances? I would like to think that though all is mind, one who has realized this is still able to make valid distinctions. Otherwise it seems senseless to me.

Edited January 4, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Interesting. I had my first ever lucid dream a few days before it finally hit me just last week that there is no objective reality. Anyway, one question I wanted to ask those who, like me, believe that all is mind is:

how do you account for the diversity of appearances? I would like to think that though all is mind, one who has realized this is still able to make valid distinctions. Otherwise it seems senseless to me.

 

It is because awareness needs a counterpart to know of its own existence. Any perspective needs a relative mirror. The source of the perspective, the "I," is without inherent identity, but it exists relatively because of the "non-I."

Edited January 4, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

He does that because he knows I have a lot of respect for Nietzsche's writings. I'm not even sure it is a valid statement because Nietzsche held strongly to the Jewish God and this alone would contradict any thought of his being influenced by Buddhism. The two religions are at opposites.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

woah man, Nietzsche didn't hold strongly to the Jewish God... Nietzsche was against any concept of a Theistic God; he preferred God as the omega point of the cyclical Will to Power, which is his metaphysical suggestion, a pragmatic concept that he admitted had no truth-in-itself since it was just an idea, but nowhere does Nietzsche ever show a liking toward any Theistic concept let alone Yahweh.

 

Nietzsche was indeed influenced by Buddhism though indirectly, because Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer who was the first Western philosopher to bring Buddhist thought, though not fully complete, to the mainstream. I never said Nietzsche was Buddhist but he was absolutely influenced and used many Buddhist arguments against the Theistic model; for example he argued that things do not have to depend on God they can depend on themselves, this is the same argument Buddha used. another example is Nietzsche's pointing to the human limited capacity for comprehending reality and our attachment to beliefs and their makeup of our world-view.

 

Yes the reason I threw in Nietzsche was because I know you respect him Marble, and I think you should read him more carefully.

Edited January 4, 2010 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

In my opinion, there is a lot right with that, Marblehead. You're content. That's great. I believe you on this totally.

 

So here's our situation between you and I: you like to believe that there is an objective reality and it seems like this belief is essential to the quality of your life. Exactly the opposite of this is true for me. I started out in life believing in objective reality too. I then questioned that belief over the period of many years, with a lot of lucid dreaming, meditation and contemplation practice. Eventually I understood, for myself, with both reasoning and experience, that there is no such thing as objective reality.

 

You ignore every argument. When you hear something that challenges the view of objective reality, you don't answer the challenge directly. Instead you sweep it aside and assert your view on top of it. I feel like I am not actually talking with you. I am trying to talk with you, but what ends up happening in our case is what feels like I talk in your general direction. While I do that, your ears are closed. Then you talk in my general direction. I respond by directly challenging what you said (as opposed to ignoring what you're saying and asserting my view on top of you, which is what you are doing all the time). Then you ignore the meat of my argument and assert your view again.

 

You know where I see this behavior a lot? I see this a great deal with religious Christians. This is exactly what happens if I challenge anything from the Bible, for example. They just don't listen. They ignore whatever I am saying and assert their view right on top of any argument I had, no matter how much thought I'd put into it, etc. It just doesn't matter, because before we even start discussing those Christians know what the outcome of the discussion will be.

 

I started life as a strong physicalist with a full view of objective reality and I have spent a significant portion of my life believing that way. So I have been on both sides of this fence, not just a tiny bit, but a lot. I know exactly how and what you believe when it comes to objective reality.

 

In any case, I don't want to argue with you because I don't think you are interested in a real argument. I've argued this topic with a lot of people a lot of times and I've never come across anyone more deaf than you are. You are right up there at the top with the deaf Christians, etc. Right at the top with the O'Reilley's (from the FOX network) of the world, who simply cut the mike, because you know what? From those guys point of view, "idiots shouldn't speak." So they cut the mike, or they don't bother actually listening.

 

I have a lot of disrespect for you and my opinion of you is very low for the reasons I am so carefully and politely describing here. I am polite because I know you value decorum above all else in life. It's your number one value.

 

GiH,

 

It is not possible for me to argue another's point of view. I can only present what is in my mind.

 

If you say something I respond with my understanding of the subject. I cannot present your understanding. That simply is not possible.

 

Yes, I know, you are 25 years old and you have had all kinds of experiences. I respect that. But I still cannot argue a point from your perspective because I do not view the world from your perspective, I view it from mine.

 

I can't talk Buddhism with you because it has been thirty years since I read any Buddhist literature.

 

I don't understand where you are coming from when you say I don't listen to you. If I wasn't listening to you then I would have nothing to say back to you. But I always return comment in any thread here that is of interest to me.

 

Now, you say yesterday that you are not a Buddhist. Well, good for you. But you sure do talk like one most of the time. And while I have no direct problem with Buddhist philosophy I do have a problem when people say the the real world does not exist. Especially here on a Taoist forum.

 

Taoism is based in the understanding that there is an objective reality and a physical universe. It is called the Manifest.

 

So you just go ahead and think whatever you wish about me and I will think whatever I wish about you. And once more I remind you that if you don't like reading my post you can push the ignore button.

 

And as far as hard-headed people go, I have no need to defend myself. You, apparently find many reasons to do so. This shows the insecurity of your beliefs.

 

You are still a child looking for a life. I hope you find one.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Interesting. I had my first ever lucid dream (which came interestingly without any effort on my part to even make it happen) a few days before it finally hit me just last week that there is no objective reality. Anyway, one question I wanted to ask those who, like me, believe that all is mind is:

how do you account for the diversity of appearances? I would like to think that though all is mind, one who has realized this is still able to make valid distinctions. Otherwise it seems senseless to me.

 

Another lost soul looking for a reality.

 

First he is here then he doesn't exist then he is here. Sounds like the mountain song.

 

So if all is mind just where in this universe is this mind? Is it on the dark side of the moon?

 

Diversity of appearances are a result of 'things' being manifested differently. All who read this thread clearly see that there is great diversity between GiH and myself. And I truely am very happy for that. Forbid that I should be like he.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

Now, you say yesterday that you are not a Buddhist. Well, good for you. But you sure do talk like one most of the time. And while I have no direct problem with Buddhist philosophy I do have a problem when people say the the real world does not exist. Especially here on a Taoist forum.

 

Taoism is based in the understanding that there is an objective reality and a physical universe. It is called the Manifest.

 

 

As I said before, this isn't Buddhist philosophy since every Mystical tradition says the same thing. Second, this is an open Taoist forum where all views are respected, so really stop saying that just because you feel threatened. Third, I feel you are absolutely misrepresenting Taoism and projecting your own beliefs onto it. Laozi and Zhuangzi were highly realized and would not commit to such an erroneous belief. There is no way that Manifest means the same as physical universe. Where did you get this idea of 'Manifest' anyway? who taught it? It is clear that you not only have a disrespect for Buddhism but also many traditions of Taoism as well, holding only to your own particular brand of Taoism. Could you please be clear which Taoism you're talking about? Which teachers? Which texts? If you can't argue your point and will instead fall back upon a tradition, at least say which specific school.

Edited January 4, 2010 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

woah man, Nietzsche didn't hold strongly to the Jewish God... Nietzsche was against any concept of a Theistic God; he preferred God as the omega point of the cyclical Will to Power, which is his metaphysical suggestion, a pragmatic concept that he admitted had no truth-in-itself since it was just an idea, but nowhere does Nietzsche ever show a liking toward any Theistic concept let alone Yahweh.

 

Nietzsche was indeed influenced by Buddhism though indirectly, because Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer who was the first Western philosopher to bring Buddhist thought, though not fully complete, to the mainstream. I never said Nietzsche was Buddhist but he was absolutely influenced and used many Buddhist arguments against the Theistic model; for example he argued that things do not have to depend on God they can depend on themselves, this is the same argument Buddha used. another example is Nietzsche's pointing to the human limited capacity for comprehending reality and our attachment to beliefs and their makeup of our world-view.

 

Yes the reason I threw in Nietzsche was because I know you respect him Marble, and I think you should read him more carefully.

 

You need to go back and read some more. Nietzsche was NOT, I say again, NOT influenced by Buddhism.

 

No, Nietzsche did NOT speak of the human limited capacity for comprehending reality. Nietzsche said that we all have that ability and that by learning how to comprehend reality as it truely is we become over-men (superman).

 

Nietzsche was very much a realist and a being of objective reality. He stressed the importance of knowing that we can change our reality by enforcing ourself upon it. He spoke against being a herd animal (Buddhist). He spoke in favor of the concepts of the Old Testament.

 

He relationship with Wagner was destroyed because of Wagner's hatred of the Jews. It is true that he did not worship the Jewish God but he did indeed hold to the concepts in the Old Testament. He disliked Paul to no end. He suggested that it was Paul who killed God with all his teaching of the need to become a herd animal and not explore you potential.

 

Again, Nietzcshe believed in an objective reality just as I do. Check it out.

 

Peace & Love!

[thuscomeone]

GiH,

 

It is not possible for me to argue another's point of view. I can only present what is in my mind.

 

If you say something I respond with my understanding of the subject. I cannot present your understanding. That simply is not possible.

 

Yes, I know, you are 25 years old and you have had all kinds of experiences. I respect that. But I still cannot argue a point from your perspective because I do not view the world from your perspective, I view it from mine.

 

I can't talk Buddhism with you because it has been thirty years since I read any Buddhist literature.

 

I don't understand where you are coming from when you say I don't listen to you. If I wasn't listening to you then I would have nothing to say back to you. But I always return comment in any thread here that is of interest to me.

 

Now, you say yesterday that you are not a Buddhist. Well, good for you. But you sure do talk like one most of the time. And while I have no direct problem with Buddhist philosophy I do have a problem when people say the the real world does not exist. Especially here on a Taoist forum.

 

Taoism is based in the understanding that there is an objective reality and a physical universe. It is called the Manifest.

 

So you just go ahead and think whatever you wish about me and I will think whatever I wish about you. And once more I remind you that if you don't like reading my post you can push the ignore button.

 

And as far as hard-headed people go, I have no need to defend myself. You, apparently find many reasons to do so. This shows the insecurity of your beliefs.

 

You are still a child looking for a life. I hope you find one.

 

Peace & Love!

Another lost soul looking for a reality.

 

First he is here then he doesn't exist then he is here. Sounds like the mountain song.

 

So if all is mind just where in this universe is this mind? Is it on the dark side of the moon?

 

Diversity of appearances are a result of 'things' being manifested differently. All who read this thread clearly see that there is great diversity between GiH and myself. And I truely am very happy for that. Forbid that I should be like he.

 

Peace & Love!

Not a lost soul, just asking questions. Who ever said there was anything wrong with that? As I said, though I respect your opinions, I would like responses from those who share my own viewpoint and or realization. But, as to the question of where is it, it is everywhere. The better question would be, where isn't it?

Edited January 4, 2010 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Interesting. I had my first ever lucid dream (which came interestingly without any effort on my part to even make it happen) a few days before it finally hit me just last week that there is no objective reality. Anyway, one question I wanted to ask those who, like me, believe that all is mind is:

how do you account for the diversity of appearances? I would like to think that though all is mind, one who has realized this is still able to make valid distinctions. Otherwise it seems senseless to me.

 

I started typing an answer but then I realized this is a difficult topic with a lot of nuance in it. I'll give a summary of what I would talk about instead of actually answering.

 

I'd discuss what it means for something to be valid.

 

I'd discuss the limitations of validity.

 

I'd talk a lot about the benefit of breaking out of the objective reality paradigm being able to challenge the validity of some judgments, so if we move into a new non-objective paradigm but remain with the same views on validity of phenomena, then we are wasting our time.

 

I'd talk about dangers of going too fast and too soon and how the mind has a natural rhythm and flow to it, and how if you try to challenge the validity of phenomena too fast and too recklessly, you can be in a world of pain.

 

I'd say something about what is ultimately possible (anything and everything) if you have the patience and the stamina to go all the way into the rabbit hole.

 

I'd say a few words on how that kind of life would be perceived from our current view point (insane).

 

I'd talk about the limitations of traditions. I'd describe how traditions take the open field of possibilities and narrow it down in a way that defeats the purpose of having an open mind that's been opened to a view of non-objective reality.

 

Just to name a few things.

 

Yes, I know, you are 25 years old and you have had all kinds of experiences.

 

35, but it doesn't really matter.

[Marblehead]

As I said before, this isn't Buddhist philosophy since every Mystical tradition says the same thing. Second, this is an open Taoist forum where all views are respected, so really stop saying that just because you feel threatened. Third, I feel you are absolutely misrepresenting Taoism and projecting your own beliefs onto it. Laozi and Zhuangzi were highly realized and would not commit to such an erroneous belief. There is no way that Manifest means the same as physical universe. Where did you get this idea of 'Manifest' anyway? who taught it? It is clear that you not only have a disrespect for Buddhism but also many traditions of Taoism as well, holding only to your own particular brand of Taoism. Could you please be clear which Taoism you're talking about? Which teachers? Which texts? If you can't argue your point and will instead fall back upon a tradition, at least say which specific school.

 

The post you quoted was directed to GiH. Are you his spokesperson now?

 

No, I will not respect a view that is contradictory or degrading of Taoist philosophy. I will not allow anyone to degrade Taoism in an effort to show what a wonderful belief system Buddhism is. As long as one speaks of Buddhism there is no problem but when one says that because of such and such a teaching of Buddha Taoism is wrong then they should expect a strong response from me.

 

I do not feel threatened. I see no reason why a Buddhist would become a member of a Taoist forum and then start preaching all their Buddhist doctrine to the members of the forum. That is just as rediculous as if an Atheist were to go to a Southern Baptist church and tell everyone there that they were all wrong.

 

So now you have become so knowledgable of Taoism that you are going to tell us that the Manifest is not part of Taoist Philosophy. Well, I truely admire your knowledge (not).

 

If you truely are interested in where my understandings lie I will ask you if you are reading the Taoist Philosophy Chapters I am posting. Nearly all my understanding of Taoism are within those chapters. If you have any questions regarding any of the information in those chapters I am willing to reseach any particular passage and tell you exactly where the passage can be found. Those chapters are not mine - they are from various translators of the TTC and Chuang Tzu.

 

The best description of the Manifest I have seen is presented by Dr. Wayne L. Wang in his translation of the Tao Te Ching titled "Dynamic Tao and Its Manifestations". In his explanation he uses the word "yo" for the word "Manifest" and "wu" for the word "Mystery".

 

Have you ever heard of "the ten thousand things"? That is the physical objective universe.

 

So please understand that I can talk about Taoism with you but I cannot talk about Buddhism with you. And I will comment whenever there is a post that contradicts Taoist Philosophy and if asked I will present a specific quote from a translation, not my opinion. But I will almost always voice my opinion first because those are readily available in my brain.

 

So as long as you and anyone else wishes to argue Taoist Philosophy I am more than willing to oblige.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Not a lost soul, just asking questions. Who ever said there was anything wrong with that? As I said, though I respect your opinions, I would like responses from those who share my own viewpoint and or realization. But, as to the question of where is it, it is everywhere. The better question would be, where isn't it?

 

I apologize, Thuscomeone. I was feeling extra frisky because of some of the other posts.

 

Peace & Love!