Is there an objective world?

[goldisheavy]

GiH,

 

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

 

However, you must connect with the other point of view. You have to mentally reach out and feel what the other view is like and embrace it for the purpose of discussion. You don't embrace it as your main view in life, or as what you truly believe in, but for the purpose of discussion. This skill is absolutely essential if you ever plan on having a real discussion.

 

So, for example, if I talk to someone about God, I embrace the view of God during the discussion. It doesn't mean I believe in God. It doesn't mean I am in danger of becoming converted. It's nothing like that. Do you know what it's about? It's about empathy. There are two kinds of empathy: emotional and intellectual. Emotional empathy is easy, it's when you feel how another feels. Intellectual empathy is when you can think in the manner that another person thinks. Intellectual empathy is an essential skill if you plan on becoming a contemplative human, because humans are social beings, and if you become a contemplative one, you'll have to embrace other people's thoughts into your contemplation.

 

You should mentally try to step into my shoes. I know it's impossible to actually do that, but you should produce that intention if you want to converse with me. Another thing that would help you, is to view me as a grandpa. I am mentally older than you are, however difficult this may be to believe for you. If you view me as a child, you'll never connect with me in a real way. You'll just constantly be talking down to me. If you at least view me as an equal, you have a chance. But your best chance will be is if you view me as someone much older. This of course means that having a real discussion is even important to you, and so far I remain convinced it is not. I respond to you because you always manage to give me some faint sense of hope, that maybe you're actually trying but just don't know how to discuss things. I always want to give up on you, but you seem to always manage to give me this idea that you might connect at some point.

 

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

 

Actually, you must be able to present my understanding back to me. This is called intellectual empathy. Even if you do not agree with my understanding and even if you never plan on using it for yourself, you should be able to at least mirror it for the purpose of discussion. You should be able to retell my beliefs in your own words back to me in a manner that convinces me that you understand what I am saying. Then once I am convinced that you got my point, you can argue against it. This skill is absolutely essential for a real discussion.

 

What you are doing is called "intellectual bullying." You're polite, right? But the deep meaning of what you do is offensive, because the deep meaning of intellectual bullying is that you don't have empathy. Which means you don't care. You're self-absorbed. You're not reaching out, which is what people expect in a discussion. Mind you, you can still disagree! By all means disagree. But at least leave the person you disagree with, with an impression that you understand what it is you disagree with.

 

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

 

Who cares? I talk using normal English most of the time. If I slip into using Buddhist jargon, just stop me and point your finger at my inappropriate use of the jargon. As long as I use ordinary words to communicate, you have no right to point to Buddhism as an excuse.

 

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.

 

There is a deeper connection that's possible that you are not yet achieving. I've described above what is required to achieve it.

Edited January 5, 2010 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

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.

Well I surely don't want to go insane. If that were the case that resulted from perceiving the way things really are, I would rather stay ignorant and sane. The point I was trying to make is that we need to be able to make distinctions - whether valid ultimately or invalid ultimately. We need that to function. The mind itself IS thoughts which are distinctions. I feel that that is what keeps us grounded. So they don't need to be shunned. I bring this whole thing up because it seems a lot of people want to get to a state where thoughts don't apply anymore. I think that is senseless and I see no reason why anyone would want to go there. I mean, I can see not being attached to thoughts. And though it's all only mind, there are diverse, shall we say, manifestations of mind. But go on, expand on your statements above.

Edited January 5, 2010 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Well I surely don't want to go insane. If that were the case that resulted from perceiving the way things really are, I would rather stay ignorant and sane.

 

I can respect that choice.

 

The point I was trying to make is that we need to be able to make distinctions - whether valid ultimately or invalid ultimately. We need that to function. The mind itself IS thoughts which are distinctions. I feel that that is what keeps us grounded. So they don't need to be shunned.

 

I don't particular disagree with this. But I have a feeling that if I were to actually probe for your idea of the implications the above has, I would find something to disagree with.

 

I bring this whole thing up because it seems a lot of people want to get to a state where thoughts don't apply anymore. I think that is senseless and I see no reason why anyone would want to go there. I mean, I can see not being attached to thoughts. And though it's all only mind, there are diverse, shall we say, manifestations of mind. But go on, expand on your statements above.

 

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion if I were you. I am not going to tell you not to think that way either, but just take your time. Maybe what you're saying is what's happening. Or maybe there is something deeper, more meaningful, and more interesting to it. Maybe there is a new way of life that's worth living, or more worth living than the previous way of life. Or maybe not. Just please don't be in a hurry to decide that yet.

 

As you say yourself, you just realized recently that perhaps there is no objective reality. That's still pretty fresh. I realized the same thing more than 10 years ago, and yet I am still slowly digesting all the implications of that realization today. Granted, you might be much smarter and wiser than me. Maybe you can digest everything by next week. I don't exclude that possibility. However I don't think you've had a chance to digest this new discovery yet. So all the conclusions you might make about the motivations of the people who don't believe in an objective reality are still raw.

 

I love the diverse manifestations of mind. I think that the view of objective reality and even the view of the limited validity of phenomena (as in, only holding this set or that to be valid and all else invalid) is a form of escapism. I want to merge with the full spectrum of manifestation. I don't want to fixedly exist only in a narrow band of it.

Edited January 5, 2010 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

I can respect that choice.

I don't particular disagree with this. But I have a feeling that if I were to actually probe for your idea of the implications the above has, I would find something to disagree with.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion if I were you. I am not going to tell you not to think that way either, but just take your time. Maybe what you're saying is what's happening. Or maybe there is something deeper, more meaningful, and more interesting to it. Maybe there is a new way of life that's worth living, or more worth living than the previous way of life. Or maybe not. Just please don't be in a hurry to decide that yet.

 

As you say yourself, you just realized recently that perhaps there is no objective reality. That's still pretty fresh. I realized the same thing more than 10 years ago, and yet I am still slowly digesting all the implications of that realization today. Granted, you might be much smarter and wiser than me. Maybe you can digest everything by next week. I don't exclude that possibility. However I don't think you've had a chance to digest this new discovery yet. So all the conclusions you might make about the motivations of the people who don't believe in an objective reality are still raw.

 

I love the diverse manifestations of mind. I think that the view of objective reality and even the view of the limited validity of phenomena (as in, only holding this set or that to be valid and all else invalid) is a form of escapism. I want to merge with the full spectrum of manifestation. I don't want to fixedly exist only in a narrow band of it.

In talking about people who want to get to a state devoid of thoughts, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to a lot of "non dualists" and a lot of modern western buddhists, american "zennists" to be specific. The goal is often thought of to be a blank state without thoughts. I just think thoughts are extremely useful, perhaps the most useful tool we have and so they shouldn't be abandoned. I you were to "probe" me further I would say that Without them we wouldn't even know subjectivity from objectivity to begin with.

Edited January 5, 2010 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

In talking about people who want to get to a state devoid of thoughts, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to a lot of "non dualists" and a lot of modern western buddhists, american "zennists" to be specific. The goal is often thought of to be a blank state without thoughts. I just think thoughts are extremely useful, perhaps the most useful tool we have and so they shouldn't be abandoned. I you were to "probe" me further I would say that Without them we wouldn't even know subjectivity from objectivity to begin with.

 

Oh yea, I agree with you 120% there. I call the phenomenon you describe "spiritual quietism". I am against spiritual quietism.

[Marblehead]

Hello Michael!!! Where are you?

 

Seems I owe you an apology. Regarding Nietzsche and Buddhism. The subject and my arguement was bothering me so I did my research.

 

The folowing is from The Antichrist:

 

20. In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to _Buddhism_. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions--they are both _decadence_ religions--but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to _compare_ them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.--Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely _positive_ religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism). It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering." Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts behind it; it is, in my phrase, _beyond_ good and evil.--The two physiological facts upon which it grounds itself and upon which it bestows its chief attention are: first, an excessive sensitiveness to sensation, which manifests itself as a refined susceptibility to pain, and _secondly_, an extraordinary spirituality, a too protracted concern with concepts and logical procedures, under the influence of which the instinct of personality has yielded to a notion of the "impersonal."

 

So there is your proof to me that I was blowing wind when I was agruing with you about this.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

There is a deeper connection that's possible that you are not yet achieving. I've described above what is required to achieve it.

 

Hi GiH,

 

I won't respond to each of your paragraphs above.

 

All I will say at this moment is that I will make an effort to be more considerate of your words. I am who I am as a result of many variables too numerous to discuss. I do not apologize for that. I will apologize if I have offended you, personally.

 

I am sure we will continue to have disagreements. But hopefully we can find opportunity for more peaceful discussions.

 

I am going to leave this thread now because I have tired of arguing about this concept.

 

I'm sure I will see you around in some other thread. Have a great evening.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

 

 

 

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

 

Peace & Love!

Hello MH,

 

You ought to get a smack on the head because you have made me feel like i am not welcomed here on TTB!

(But i know you did not mean for it to be misunderstood in that sense, so all's well...)

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

 

 

Attempting an answer, i'd say mind is not on the dark side of the moon, and neither is mind on the bright side of it.

Where is mind?

 

When you hear a sound, there you will hear mind.

When you see a pretty girl pass by, there you will see mind.

When you taste something sweet, and call that honey, thats the taste of your mind.

When you smell the fragrance of green-ness after a short rain shower, that is the smell of your mind.

When you feel the heat of the summer sun on your face, that is how the mind is felt.

 

The 5 senses function to complete the make-up of what we label as a human being. The mind is always

the king. Why? Even if you take away one, two, three or even four of the senses, this we call a 'human

being' can still function, although not as completely as one who has all the senses intact, of course, which

is what most people have. But the mind, ah, the mind -- it can never be erased from the picture.

 

Since that which we label as the objective world is nothing other than that which can be sensated, hence

the allusion arises that all phenomena are but radiant displays of our own mind. Why radiant? Because even

if we were to lose one or more of the senses, we still retain the power of imagination, and this, as you know,

can be a source of all kinds of weird and wonderful possibilities. But where do all these possibilities reside?

Its quite obvious i think. Rather similar to when we are dreaming, actually.

 

Sorry for the interruption. I'll go back to my Haiku Chain now... Bye!

[ralis]

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.

 

 

I don't appreciate the ad hominem attacks!

 

If the herd of Buddhists have a need to view the Buddha's realization as unexcelled, fine. However, when the view is extended beyond this world to the cosmos in general, then I take exception to that view. Have all sentient species in all the universes, been interviewed to ascertain if some have unexcelled Buddha realizations? If the Buddha is so highly regarded, then why are there not alien species here to study Buddhism?

 

If I am involved in a discussion of the Buddha's so called absolute realization does not mean that I accept the definition of the Buddha as self evident.

 

 

 

ralis

[ralis]

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.

 

 

This is exactly why I wrote the post earlier on communication, grammar etc. Marblehead is using the term manifest as a noun. Obviously, you don't understand the context.

 

 

ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

why are there not alien species here to study Buddhism?

 

The Buddhas manifest everywhere! At the same time too! Isn't it cool?

 

And apparently there are aliens already here! Whooaaaa...

Edited January 5, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

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

Nietzsche was a non-theist and used many Buddhist arguments to show his point.

in Will to Power passage 557, Nietzsche clearly is using Buddhist argumentation to show the emptiness of things, where he says "there is no thing without other things". Like I said before, Nietzsche was heavily influenced by his teacher Schopenhauer who, on the record, has admitted to being heavily influenced by Buddha.

 

But anyway, this isn't important and its nonsensical to continue this. I merely said that Nietzsche was influenced by Buddhism to get you to open up.

 

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).

 

You misunderstand, what he spoke of as over-man was not one who understood reality but one who acted with will to power, though Nietzsche did hint that eventually it was possible he stressed the theory of errors, which is that the human brain evolved for survival not truth so there is no way for the human brain to understand reality, at least currently. This is actually the whole backbone of his philosophy and the main argument he uses against Theism, Materialism, Descartes notion of 'cogito ergo sum' and many other ideas.

 

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.

 

Umm which concepts exactly? I was raised Jewish so please feel free to get technical.

 

Gay Science passage 135, he goes into detail about the origin of sin, which is the essence of the Christian slave mentality, and that it originated in Judaism.

 

Nietzsche liked Jews because of their emphasis on education and questioning, their intellect, but he was never for the Jewish religion. in-fact, he commonly would use the example of Rome (his ideal) as being infested by the priestly moralists (the Jews), Nietzsche was against all religions, he viewed them all as possessing slave mentality, including Buddhism, but unfortunately Nietzsche didn't understand Buddhism too well because he commonly called it a nihilist religion, and not understanding the metaphysics he didn't get the inter-related ethics.

 

actually this isn't relevant to the thread 'objective reality' so I'll end this part of our discussion

 

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

 

Show some passages man. I could give you tons of quotes where Nietzsche says mankind created mathematics

and the existence of 'things', all of which the Natural world lacks. The objective world that you speak of is not the world Nietzsche spoke of, in fact he denied such notions as objectivity entirely..Objective world depends upon the notions of causality and separate things existing.

 

In WTP 552 Nietzsche writes. "When one has grasped that the "subject" is not something that creates effects, but only a fiction, much follows. It is only after the model of the subject that we have invented the reality of things and projected them into the medley of sensations. If we no longer believe in the effective subject, then belief also disappears in effective things, in reciprocation, cause and effect between those phenomena that we call things. There also disappear, of course, the world of effective atoms.... if we give up the concept "subject" and "object" then also the concept "substance" -- and as a consequence also the various modifications of it, e.g. "matter" "spirit" and other hypothetical entities, ... We have got rid of materiality... From the standpoint of morality, the world is false. But to the extend that morality itself is part of this world, morality is false... Life is founded upon the premise of a belief in enduring and regularly recurring things"

 

and also in WTP 556: "There are no facts-in themselves" (objectivity) for a sense must always be projected into them before there can be "facts". . . The origin of "things" is wholly the work of that which imagines, thinks, wills, feels . . . Even "the subject" is such a created entity, a "thing" like all others"

 

and also in WTP 557: "There is no "thing-in-itself" (objective thing)

 

and also in WTP 560: "the apparent objective character of things: could it notbe merely a difference of degree within the subjective? that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "objectively" enduring, being, "in-itself" -- that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?"

Edited January 5, 2010 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

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.

 

How many times this has been quoted to you I've lost count... but it's at the top of the forum page incase you want to read it yourself:

 

...Taoism as the bona fide Chinese religion of Taoist priests and shamans. Don't let this intro scare you though. Most of us are syncretic at heart. Discussion is encouraged to wander eclectically across a wide range of spiritual thought and practice, whether Buddhist, Yogic, Tantric, Judaic, Advaitic, Christian, Islamic, Shamanic, Occult, "New Age", Integral... As long as you are up for a good time, you're welcome to discuss your path

 

Who is degrading Taoist philosophy? Who is preaching Buddhist doctrine? My you are strange, you keep saying the same things yet you ignore what others write to you, and if this were a personal email conversation I would've stopped long ago since you seem to absorb worse than a brick.

 

As far as I can tell, we are trying to speak and communicate through our own words and thought-processes but you seem to create these barriers of "Us vs Them" simply because its easy for you to dismiss those that practice in a different tradition, which I find odd because, like I pointed out, this isn't strictly a Taoist forum and the thread isn't "Is there an objective world according to Taoism"

 

 

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.

 

How do you get physical objective universe from 'ten thousand things' ? Zhuangzi and Laozi were very vague and especially in their metaphysics. You're trying to make a connection which requires many assumptions on your part. And even if you do make the connection, that still doesn't answer the many unanswered questions of how can you ever know. It's not a matter of convincing yourself, that part seems to be easy, its a matter of epistemology.

Edited January 5, 2010 by mikaelz

[ralis]

Nietzsche was a non-theist and used many Buddhist arguments to show his point.

in Will to Power passage 557, Nietzsche clearly is using Buddhist argumentation to show the emptiness of things, where he says "there is no thing without other things". Like I said before, Nietzsche was heavily influenced by his teacher Schopenhauer who, on the record, has admitted to being heavily influenced by Buddha.

 

But anyway, this isn't important and its nonsensical to continue this. I merely said that Nietzsche was influenced by Buddhism to get you to open up.

You misunderstand, what he spoke of as over-man was not one who understood reality but one who acted with will to power, though Nietzsche did hint that eventually it was possible he stressed the theory of errors, which is that the human brain evolved for survival not truth so there is no way for the human brain to understand reality, at least currently. This is actually the whole backbone of his philosophy and the main argument he uses against Theism, Materialism, Descartes notion of 'cogito ergo sum' and many other ideas.

Umm which concepts exactly? I was raised Jewish so please feel free to get technical.

 

Gay Science passage 135, he goes into detail about the origin of sin, which is the essence of the Christian slave mentality, and that it originated in Judaism.

 

Nietzsche liked Jews because of their emphasis on education and questioning, their intellect, but he was never for the Jewish religion. in-fact, he commonly would use the example of Rome (his ideal) as being infested by the priestly moralists (the Jews), Nietzsche was against all religions, he viewed them all as possessing slave mentality, including Buddhism, but unfortunately Nietzsche didn't understand Buddhism too well because he commonly called it a nihilist religion, and not understanding the metaphysics he didn't get the inter-related ethics.

 

actually this isn't relevant to the thread 'objective reality' so I'll end this part of our discussion

Show some passages man. I could give you tons of quotes where Nietzsche says mankind created mathematics

and the existence of 'things', all of which the Natural world lacks. The objective world that you speak of is not the world Nietzsche spoke of, in fact he denied such notions as objectivity entirely..Objective world depends upon the notions of causality and separate things existing.

 

In WTP 552 Nietzsche writes. "When one has grasped that the "subject" is not something that creates effects, but only a fiction, much follows. It is only after the model of the subject that we have invented the reality of things and projected them into the medley of sensations. If we no longer believe in the effective subject, then belief also disappears in effective things, in reciprocation, cause and effect between those phenomena that we call things. There also disappear, of course, the world of effective atoms.... if we give up the concept "subject" and "object" then also the concept "substance" -- and as a consequence also the various modifications of it, e.g. "matter" "spirit" and other hypothetical entities, ... We have got rid of materiality... From the standpoint of morality, the world is false. But to the extend that morality itself is part of this world, morality is false... Life is founded upon the premise of a belief in enduring and regularly recurring things"

 

and also in WTP 556: "There are no facts-in themselves" (objectivity) for a sense must always be projected into them before there can be "facts". . . The origin of "things" is wholly the work of that which imagines, thinks, wills, feels . . . Even "the subject" is such a created entity, a "thing" like all others"

 

and also in WTP 557: "There is no "thing-in-itself" (objective thing)

 

and also in WTP 560: "the apparent objective character of things: could it notbe merely a difference of degree within the subjective? that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "objectively" enduring, being, "in-itself" -- that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?"

 

 

Exactly what are your trying to prove? You consistently beg the question. I guess you don't understand what that means!

 

 

 

 

ralis

Edited January 5, 2010 by ralis

[Sunya]

Exactly what are your trying to prove? You consistently beg the question. I guess you don't understand what that means!

ralis

 

I posted many quotes from Nietzsche which are on-topic to "the objective world", plus I'm having a discussion.

 

You really are like an unwanted guest that keeps butting in and just won't leave.

[ralis]

I posted many quotes from Nietzsche which are on-topic to "the objective world", plus I'm having a discussion.

 

You really are like an unwanted guest that keeps butting in and just won't leave.

 

I have asked several valid questions to you and you refuse to answer. You are not discussing, but merely arguing through another point of view. I see no constructive reasoning from your point of view in your posts.

 

 

ralis

[Sunya]

This is interesting. from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Zhuangzi page

 

He is particularly critical of assumptions such as the one to one correspondence between words and the objects to which they refer that is an offshoot of the Confucian doctrine of the rectification of names. He demonstrates that naming is purely arbitrary and conventional and cannot be used to give any objective certainty about the world. Furthermore no matter how sophisticated the logic involved, no argument can establish objective truths because all knowing remains confined to the standpoint of the knower:

 

Gaptooth put a question to Wang Ni: "Would you know something which all things agreed is true?" "How would I know that?" he replied. "Would you know what you did not know?" "How would I know that?" he replied again. "Then does no thing know anything?" "How would I know that?" he replied again. He then continued, "however, let me try to put this in words: how do I know that what I call knowing is not ignorance? How do I know that what I call ignorance is not knowing? ... Gibbons are sought by baboons as mates, elaphures like the company of deer, loaches play with fish. Maoqiang and Lady Li were beautiful in the eyes of men but when the fish saw them they plunged into the deep and when the birds saw them they flew away. Which of these four knows what is truly beautiful in the world? In my judgment, the principles of Humaneness and Rightness, the paths of True and False are inextricably confused: how could I know how to discriminate between them?" (Graham, p. 58,

 

perhaps Zhuangzi was a Buddhist? No, I think this kind of skepticism toward objectivity is universal among all sages.

 

"Objective World" means nothing without the human ideas of objects, shapes, colors, time, distance, all of which depend on the mind for their existence! this is why there is no objective world outside of your mind because the very idea of it is human. What appears to you is not the real world since the human brain is just not capable of truly perceiving reality, this we can probably all agree with? Well then the human will ponder about the noumenon, the 'real world' that lies outside human perception. But that is part 2, we are still on part 1. Can we agree that we as humans do not perceive the world through our senses as it truly exists?

Edited January 5, 2010 by mikaelz

[ralis]

 

You misunderstand, what he spoke of as over-man was not one who understood reality but one who acted with will to power, though Nietzsche did hint that eventually it was possible he stressed the theory of errors, which is that the human brain evolved for survival not truth so there is no way for the human brain to understand reality, at least currently. This is actually the whole backbone of his philosophy and the main argument he uses against

 

You state a disparity where none exists. If there is no way for an evolving brain to understand reality, then no one understands reality. At least according to what you state above. Only in the context of your rigid defining of so called truth.

 

BTW, I did not appreciate or welcome the nasty disrespectful PM you sent me yesterday. I am considering posting the letter on this forum and turning it over to the moderator.

 

 

ralis

Edited January 5, 2010 by ralis

[Sunya]

 

BTW, I did not appreciate or welcome the nasty disrespectful PM you sent me yesterday. I am considering posting the letter on this forum and turning it over to the moderator.

ralis

 

what are you 12 years old?

I simply told you to participate in discussions without picking on me as I'm growing quite tired of it.

 

 

You state a disparity where none exists. If there is no way for an evolving brain to understand reality, then no one understands reality. At least according to what you state above. Only in the context of your rigid defining of so called truth.

 

Well I was talking about what Nietzsche said.. but if you're asking what I think, then what I think is different than Nietzsche since he simply deconstructed 'knowledge' and 'objects' but left no room for wisdom or insight.

 

Yes, no one understands reality since there is no way to understand reality. Understanding, to know, implies a knower and a known, such a duality will never lead to true wisdom, true understanding, because the brain is flawed. Wisdom arises when one goes beyond mind-brain. Yes there is no way for a brain to understand reality but that doesn't mean brain is the finite mark of consciousness.

[goldisheavy]

If the herd of Buddhists have a need to view the Buddha's realization as unexcelled, fine.

 

It doesn't matter what Buddhists think, actually. My point was that if you admit the idea of Buddha into a discussion at all, just for the purpose of discussion you must admit some kind of definition of Buddha.

 

And for this, we can examine the many things that Buddha said about himself. Buddha Gotama pretty much invented himself and invented the concept of "Buddha," as far as we know. Sure, he said there were other Buddhas before him, but I am saying, "as far as we know." One of the things Buddha has done is to refer to his realization as "unexcelled." And of course Buddha's realization is key to what makes a Buddha.

 

However, when the view is extended beyond this world to the cosmos in general, then I take exception to that view. Have all sentient species in all the universes, been interviewed to ascertain if some have unexcelled Buddha realizations? If the Buddha is so highly regarded, then why are there not alien species here to study Buddhism?

 

If I am involved in a discussion of the Buddha's so called absolute realization does not mean that I accept the definition of the Buddha as self evident.

 

Well, you don't have to accept anything at all. But when you discuss things, you need to be aware of the definition, if not for any other reason than to know what to question.

 

Now, if I understand correctly, it is impossible to prove that Buddha's awakening is unexcelled, and Buddha asks his students to accept it on faith, after you evaluate for yourself other things Buddha says. So what would happen in practice is that Buddha would preach something, and people would find it helpful upon reflecting on the teaching. Then, since Buddha gave so many apparently believable and useful teachings, when he says, "my awakening is unexcelled," lots of people have no reason to doubt it. At the same time, there were people who thought that Buddha was nothing special and left. There was at least one guy who said that Buddha had no mystical experience and came to his teaching solely by philosophical deduction and induction. So the guy left, disappointed. Buddha said the guy was a fool and that as long as the guy continues to think that Buddha had no mystical experience, he will continue to circle in Samsara. Or something like that.

 

So even in Buddha's time, not everyone agreed that Buddha was the real deal. Some people thought that he had no experience and was just a bullshitter. Lots of people disagreed. It happens. What's cool about Buddha is that he didn't stone the ones who disagreed. He just let them go and continued helping those whom he thought he could help.

Edited January 5, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Thuscomeone,

 

If everything is of the mind,

 

do you make people up too? Are sentient beings made up characters?

[xabir2005]

Materialist, commoners - a being, identified as a particular set of mind and body, is just an object located among countless objects in an objective universe. Consciousness/mind is contained in the body which is contained in the universe. Clinging to objects.

 

Hindu Advaita & other monist contemplatives - the true nature of being is not mind and body but pure Consciousness alone. All objects do not exist objectively but are illusory projections of an underlying subjective reality. All beings are manifestations of a common source, a universal consciousness, One Mind/One Self. Consciousness, which is the Clear Presence-Awareness-Knowing that perceives everything, is permanent and unchanging while the contents of consciousness comes and goes in the screen of consciousness. Body and mind is contained in consciousness which transcends and includes both. Clinging to Pure Subjectivity, the only true independent and permanent essence. Pure Subjectivity itself has different levels of realisations, first different degrees of insight and experience into the I AMness (Thusness Stage 1 & 2) and the initial glimpse and insight of I Amness must deepen in four aspects: 1) the aspect of impersonality ('I' dissolves from the experience of I AMness, leaving only pure AMness, and one intuits that all is sharing the Source or as Manifestation of this Source), 2) the aspect of the degree of luminosity, (everything experienced as vivid, magical, wonderful pure presence) 3) the aspect of dissolving the need to re-confirm and abide in I AMness and understanding why such a need is irrelevant, 4) the aspect of experiencing effortlessness. Other than I AMness which is the Stage 1 & 2, there is also the realisation of non-duality but in the context of pure subjectivity - the Self is undivided with phenomena, the Eternal Witness/Watcher becomes One Witnessing and Subject/object is realised as inseparable, I AMness experienced as the one essence appearing as all phenomena (Thusness Stage 4). But this is not the same as Anatta (Stage 5).

 

Buddhism - there are no Self, no Mind. Whatever experienced is Mind, but Mind is empty of any independent, inherent or permanent essence apart from those appearances. Only pure awareness AS those manifestations. Pure Awareness is not an unchanging Witness of phenomena, for Pure Awareness does not have any existence nor stand apart from the flow of phenomenality, yet at the same time there is no coming from or going to of phenomena (coming and going are notions arising due to reflecting on a past experience from the perspective of being an unchanging someone experiencing the coming and going) - there is just transient phenomena as awareness YET without movement, just this One Sound, One Thought, disjoint and complete in itself, without coming, or going, and without a Perceiver and Perceived distinction. Even though non-dual is described in Advaita, the difference is that Advaita clings to a Pure Subjectivity or essence in which all manifestations are inseparable from, while in Buddhism the non-dual awareness is in no way an ontological essence like an unchanging screen which is one with all manifestations, rather there is just pure awareness as the transience, Pure Awareness is not other than all appearances and Awareness does not have any independent or permanent essence (like a permanent untouched screen in which objects come and go). This is the difference between One Mind (Thusness Stage 4 enlightenment) and No Mind (Thusness Stage 5 enlightenment). There are no common source or universal Mind. Because there is no universal source, there are only individual streams of consciousness. Beings do not exist as manifestation of Pure Subjectivity, there is just Pure Awareness AS those appearances, as sounds, sights, smells, thoughts, etc, without a separation of 'hearer inside' and 'sound out there', 'seer inside' and 'scenery out there'. Though sounds, sights, smells, etc appear, they do not have any objective reality either -- whatever appears are dependently originated, like an illusion but not an illusion, empty yet vivid. Beings do not have any independent or inherent existence - imagine the net of indra, countless nodes reflecting each other in intricate interdependence, each node is individual but none have inherent or independent existence of itself, but manifest due to dependent origination. No Subject and Object.

 

Taoism - less emphasis on metaphysical discourse, however a lot of emphasis on non-duality (no subject and object) as an experience. (see David Loy on Taoism and the well written article http://www.kktanhp.com/taoism_1.htm - check the Wu Wei chapter by Dr. Tan Kheng Khoo who is clearly well researched and experienced) Taoism, like Buddhism, does not talk about an Ultimate Self, as David Loy puts it: "Taoism like Buddhism rejects a substance-based ontology in favor of an event-based process." The only Taoist book that Thusness and I knows that talk about I AMness is 'The Secret of the Golden Flower' which is kind of like Awareness teachings and I believe have some amount of influence from the Zen teachings, though I personally found it kind of cryptic, Thomas Cleary's translation is quite ok. IMO other Taoist authors more often emphasize about non dual experience, spontaneity and dropping into oblivion, or zuo wang.

Edited January 6, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

 

do you make people up too? Are sentient beings made up characters?

Buddhism is not solipsism, there are different individual mindstreams, all of which are empty (dependently originates) and nondual (without subject/object division).

[Lucky7Strikes]

Buddhism - there are no Self, no Mind. Whatever experienced is Mind, but Mind is empty of any independent, inherent or permanent essence apart from those appearances. Only pure awareness AS those manifestations. Pure Awareness is not an unchanging Witness of phenomena, for Pure Awareness does not have any existence nor stand apart from the flow of phenomenality, yet at the same time there is no coming from or going to of phenomena (coming and going are notions arising due to reflecting on a past experience from the perspective of being an unchanging someone experiencing the coming and going) - there is just transient phenomena as awareness YET without movement, just this One Sound, One Thought, disjoint and complete in itself, without coming, or going, and without a Perceiver and Perceived distinction. Even though non-dual is described in Advaita, the difference is that Advaita clings to a Pure Subjectivity or essence in which all manifestations are inseparable from, while in Buddhism the non-dual awareness is in no way an ontological essence like an unchanging screen which is one with all manifestations, rather there is just pure awareness as the transience, Pure Awareness is not other than all appearances and Awareness does not have any independent or permanent essence (like a permanent untouched screen in which objects come and go). This is the difference between One Mind (Thusness Stage 4 enlightenment) and No Mind (Thusness Stage 5 enlightenment). There are no common source or universal Mind. Because there is no universal source, there are only individual streams of consciousness. Beings do not exist as manifestation of Pure Subjectivity, there is just Pure Awareness AS those appearances, as sounds, sights, smells, thoughts, etc, without a separation of 'hearer inside' and 'sound out there', 'seer inside' and 'scenery out there'. Though sounds, sights, smells, etc appear, they do not have any objective reality either -- whatever appears are dependently originated, like an illusion but not an illusion, empty yet vivid. Beings do not have any independent or inherent existence - imagine the net of indra, countless nodes reflecting each other in intricate interdependence, each node is individual but none have inherent or independent existence of itself, but manifest due to dependent origination. No Subject and Object.

 

Xabir, what is my Awareness dependent on?

 

What am I? Why do I feel I 'ness'?

 

If there is no "I," how can I attain enlightenment? What is the source of my intent?

Edited January 6, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Buddhism - there are no Self, no Mind. Whatever experienced is Mind, but Mind is empty of any independent, inherent or permanent essence apart from those appearances. Only pure awareness AS those manifestations. Pure Awareness is not an unchanging Witness of phenomena, for Pure Awareness does not have any existence nor stand apart from the flow of phenomenality, yet at the same time there is no coming from or going to of phenomena (coming and going are notions arising due to reflecting on a past experience from the perspective of being an unchanging someone experiencing the coming and going) - there is just transient phenomena as awareness YET without movement, just this One Sound, One Thought, disjoint and complete in itself, without coming, or going, and without a Perceiver and Perceived distinction.

I don't quite get the no coming and going part. Surely there is still change isn't there? Isn't that a form of coming and going? Does there have to be an unchanging observer in order for there to be notions of coming and going (change)?