Very unpopular opinions

[Apech]

10 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

interestingly in buddhism there is no 'reality', not even a word for such. there are several dichotomies which are close like 'rupa-arupa' but 'real-unreal' is not a buddhist or indian ph. nomenclature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

in our regular state of mind yes. However if we are progressing in jhana then at some point objects will appear to us as arupa, formless and sunya, empty. Its just an aberration of our perception brought about by long sitting. It is a sign of a progress but does not mean much otherwise.

per the above, now we can answer this: our world is material, 'real' if you will.  Real to a normal mind, empty to a partially trained mind. But otherwise, objectively there is no real-unreal distinction.

 

Note the bolded: in a typical western fashion the western commenter sees 'empty' but does not see 'form' here.  This western selective blindness is perennially amusing.

 

I think we can accept the skandha idea as true - I know for instance that the tree in my yard is a collection of 'trillions' of cells, water, mycelia, insect life .... and so on ... in this sense ... I could say the tree itself is an epi-phenomenon and dependent on causes and conditions.  Despite knowing this the experience if the tree, its sight, it's tough, the 'aura' of its presence are all real.  Perhaps not in a strict philosophical way but in an immediate way.

 

And moreover things can be empty and real.  Because empty doesn't mean void or nothing.  

 

But my question is - where does that reality come from?  Why is the tree real?

 

 

 

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

But my question is - where does that reality come from?  Why is the tree real?

 

 

 

 

Because trying to step through it will fail, unlike eg in a dream where you can step through a tree.

 

Reality obeys laws that are independent of how we constructed the tree-object inside our minds.

[Apech]

18 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Because trying to step through it will fail, unlike eg in a dream where you can step through a tree.

 

Reality obeys laws that are independent of how we constructed the tree-object inside our minds.

So it’s substantiality makes it real?

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

skandha idea as true - I know for instance that the tree in my yard 

skandha does not refer to physical objects. it is a concept defined as: a part of a human mind ( a collection of thoughts)  plus the object which causes them . skandha is like a reflection in a mirror plus the reflected object. but the object on its own is not a skandha. the tree is not a skandha. the thoughts about the tree is not a skandha

thats why skandha is impermanent. when the object is gone or thoughts change the skandha disintegrates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha

1 hour ago, Apech said:

But my question is - where does that reality come from?  Why is the tree real?

real is an undefined meaningless bad word. it does not compute. until it is defined, i assume that by 'real' it is meant material. and the tree is material because it is a part of  the material world. the world is material meaning the world is 'existing'.  immaterial things do not exist. so again to answer the question: for no reason at all our material world exists forever, and the tree is a part thereof. thats why the tree is 'real'.

 

these are just my modest musings aloud not directed at anyone in particular;)

[Forestgreen]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 Why is the tree real?

The dhammas that the tree are made up of is real, the tree is the result of causes and conditions, and thus ultimately not real, while provisionally real enough to be a cause and condition for pain?

Edited May 26 by Forestgreen
Grammar

[Taoist Texts]

Quote

Because trying to step through it will fail

 

[Forestgreen]

That is stepping through a hole in a tree. Stepping through a space usually works just fine. 

[Taomeow]

Live things develop senses that are contingent on the environment and geared toward survival.  Every species' sensory organs (and brains, in those who possess them) heavily edit what can be perceived toward survival and thriving advantages.  What can only hinder those processes is not included.  The tree is fully transparent and penetrable to a neutrino, so neutrino based life forms might be flying right through it as we speak and not even noticing there's a tree.  It's not only not real to them -- it doesn't exist.  But a practicing carbon-based philosopher will wind up with a bump on his forehead if he tries to follow suit.  Which is why most people learned to perceive trees as real -- doing the opposite is not conductive to surviving and thriving of the species no matter what its philosophical leanings. 

 

So the question one must ask very quickly before discussing things real vs. not real in any context ought to be, "to whom?"  

 

Most original taoist schools have somehow arrived at this consensus -- to perceive reality from the POV of the actual human, not some mental construct.  To set goals that are primarily human.  To expand them, learning as much as possible about what's possible for a human.  And so on.  This allows for all kinds of trees -- physical, metaphysical (wuxing Wood phase), useful and useless (as in Zhuangzi's parable), beautiful (artistic perceptions) and cultivational (as in tree qigong/neigong) and so on without trying to separate them into "real" and "not real."  Real to whom?  To me, wuxing Wood phase is real because I've developed my human perceptions toward perceiving it, by the apparatus available to me -- senses, study, intellect, observation, integration, "grokking," etc..  But ask a "modern scientist" and you get "old wives' tales," "Chinese superstitions" and "unscientific pseudoscience."  That's because they don't have the organs of perception to perceive it as real.  And so, to them, it isn't.  By the same token, an Advaita sage might tell me trees are maya, illusion. 

To whom?  ???          

Edited May 26 by Taomeow

[Apech]

26 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

skandha does not refer to physical objects. it is a concept defined as: a part of a human mind ( a collection of thoughts)  plus the object which causes them . skandha is like a reflection in a mirror plus the reflected object. but the object on its own is not a skandha. the tree is not a skandha. the thoughts about the tree is not a skandha

thats why skandha is impermanent. when the object is gone or thoughts change the skandha disintegrates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha

real is an undefined meaningless bad word. it does not compute. until it is defined, i assume that by 'real' it is meant material. and the tree is material because it is a part of  the material world. the world is material meaning the world is 'existing'.  immaterial things do not exist. so again to answer the question: for no reason at all our material world exists forever, and the tree is a part thereof. thats why the tree is 'real'.

 

these are just my modest musings aloud not directed at anyone in particular;)

you linked to a wiki article which appears to contradict the point you are making.

[Apech]

17 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Live things develop senses that are contingent on the environment and geared toward survival.  Every species' sensory organs (and brains, in those who possess them) heavily edit what can be perceived toward survival and thriving advantages.  What can only hinder those processes is not included.  The tree is fully transparent and penetrable to a neutrino, so neutrino based life forms might be flying right through it as we speak and not even noticing there's a tree.  It's not only not real to them -- it doesn't exist.  But a practicing carbon-based philosopher will wind up with a bump on his forehead if he tries to follow suit.  Which is why most people learned to perceive trees as real -- doing the opposite is not conductive to surviving and thriving of the species no matter what its philosophical leanings. 

 

So the question one must ask very quickly before discussing things real vs. not real in any context ought to be, "to whom?"  

 

Most original taoist schools have somehow arrived at this consensus -- to perceive reality from the POV of the actual human, not some mental construct.  To set goals that are primarily human.  To expand them, learning as much as possible about what's possible for a human.  And so on.  This allows for all kinds of trees -- physical, metaphysical (wuxing Wood phase), useful and useless (as in Zhuangzi's parable), beautiful (artistic perceptions) and cultivational (as in tree qigong/neigong) and so on without trying to separate them into "real" and "not real."  Real to whom?  To me, wuxing Wood phase is real because I've developed my human perceptions toward perceiving it, by the apparatus available to me -- senses, study, intellect, observation, integration, "grokking," etc..  But ask a "modern scientist" and you get "old wives' tales," "Chinese superstitions" and "unscientific pseudoscience."  That's because they don't have the organs of perception to perceive it as real.  And so, to them, it isn't.  By the same token, an Advaita sage might tell me trees are maya, illusion. 

To whom?  ???          

Me in the first instance but ultimately observing consciousness.

[snowymountains]

44 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

 

 

We finally know what apech's yard looks like 😁

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

So it’s substantiality makes it real?

 

The tree obeying the physical laws irrespective of what we do with the mental image in our heads, which makes it real

Edited May 26 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

41 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Live things develop senses that are contingent on the environment and geared toward survival.  Every species' sensory organs (and brains, in those who possess them) heavily edit what can be perceived toward survival and thriving advantages.  What can only hinder those processes is not included.  The tree is fully transparent and penetrable to a neutrino, so neutrino based life forms might be flying right through it as we speak and not even noticing there's a tree.  It's not only not real to them -- it doesn't exist.  But a practicing carbon-based philosopher will wind up with a bump on his forehead if he tries to follow suit.  Which is why most people learned to perceive trees as real -- doing the opposite is not conductive to surviving and thriving of the species no matter what its philosophical leanings. 

 

So the question one must ask very quickly before discussing things real vs. not real in any context ought to be, "to whom?"  

 

Most original taoist schools have somehow arrived at this consensus -- to perceive reality from the POV of the actual human, not some mental construct.  To set goals that are primarily human.  To expand them, learning as much as possible about what's possible for a human.  And so on.  This allows for all kinds of trees -- physical, metaphysical (wuxing Wood phase), useful and useless (as in Zhuangzi's parable), beautiful (artistic perceptions) and cultivational (as in tree qigong/neigong) and so on without trying to separate them into "real" and "not real."  Real to whom?  To me, wuxing Wood phase is real because I've developed my human perceptions toward perceiving it, by the apparatus available to me -- senses, study, intellect, observation, integration, "grokking," etc..  But ask a "modern scientist" and you get "old wives' tales," "Chinese superstitions" and "unscientific pseudoscience."  That's because they don't have the organs of perception to perceive it as real.  And so, to them, it isn't.  By the same token, an Advaita sage might tell me trees are maya, illusion. 

To whom?  ???          

 

Depends perceptions are a complex thing, to go to something that's understood to some extent eg countertransference is not reducible to non-verbal cues, ie visual cues, yet it's real/verified, not everyone can become aware of it ( aka not everyone senses it ) and it's not explained, at least not to a satisfactory level.

 

Now if you're referring to visions you have, they're real to you but the content may be very personalised. In any case visions is a different discussion imo and a fairly long one.

[Apech]

 

This my back yard ... and that is the tree.

[Taomeow]

44 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Now if you're referring to visions you have, they're real to you but the content may be very personalised. In any case visions is a different discussion imo and a fairly long one.

 

Visions were the last thing on my mind.  I was talking a taoist science that gives real expanded perceptions to those who've studied it, not unlike the way the once-theoretical animalcules (the old way to say microorganisms) became real only to those who saw them through the microscope -- after it was invented.  The Wood phase of wuxing (if that's what you thought was "visions" when I mentioned it) is, likewise, something you can perceive by way of expanding your perceptions and, yes, even with the help of an instrument (called luopan), albeit a very different one from a microscope.  The microscope gives a "vision" to your eyes, while wuxing theory gives eyes to your "vision" of the world...        

[Apech]

22 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Visions were the last thing on my mind.  I was talking a taoist science that gives real expanded perceptions to those who've studied it, not unlike the way the once-theoretical animalcules (the old way to say microorganisms) became real only to those who saw them through the microscope -- after it was invented.  The Wood phase of wuxing (if that's what you thought was "visions" when I mentioned it) is, likewise, something you can perceive by way of expanding your perceptions and, yes, even with the help of an instrument (called luopan), albeit a very different one from a microscope.  The microscope gives a "vision" to your eyes, while wuxing theory gives eyes to your "vision" of the world...        

 

 

I suppose another way of asking my question is why do we see this world and not another?

 

(It may be a different question)

[Taomeow]

27 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I suppose another way of asking my question is why do we see this world and not another?

 

(It may be a different question)

 

Because we are human?  I believe every live creature sees (hears, smells, feels tactile impressions, etc.) the world where it can exist, or else it wouldn't exist.  We don't have echolocation of whales and dolphins among our sensory abilities because we don't live in the ocean.  (Maybe we did when we did, but lost it when we crawled onto the shore...  if that's how it really happened.)  Nor of bats because we don't fly in the dark.  (That's why we can occasionally bump into trees in the dark, so at night we prefer to sleep.)  Or take the trees -- their sensory organs are phenomenal, notably the roots' ability to find nutrients and water deep in the ground (and take in only what they need -- each little rootlet is an advanced biochemical lab!) and their competence in stereometry (or they would lose balance and fall on the ground and on each other's head...  try being 380 feet tall like the tallest sequoia in California and standing on one leg for 3,500 years -- you've got to be an expert in, not just stereometry but space and time, no less!)  But we don't live like that, so we don't have the ability to see that world.  Their world.  We don't need it. 

 

Methinks we'd be supremely lucky if we could see our world, the real human world, but we've changed it into something I'm not sure we have adequate organs of perception for handling competently.  E.g. chemical and electromagnetic pollution -- we may not be feeling what we really need to feel in order to have a chance for long term (or even moderate term) survival.  We now have an environment for which we don't have organs to adequately process it and competently respond to.  If we survive, we may develop them.  But far as I know, our technological "advances" work tens of thousands of times faster than evolution does.  Too damn fast to catch up with on the level of adequate perceptions, let alone organs for handling those tasks.

 

 

[silent thunder]

We each experience reality from the center of our own awareness, based on perceptual apparatus and mental landscape interpretations.

 

With some overlap we each seemingly experience our own unique universe.

Edited May 26 by silent thunder

[stirling]

6 hours ago, Apech said:

I think we can accept the skandha idea as true - I know for instance that the tree in my yard is a collection of 'trillions' of cells, water, mycelia, insect life .... and so on ... in this sense ... I could say the tree itself is an epi-phenomenon and dependent on causes and conditions.  Despite knowing this the experience if the tree, its sight, it's tough, the 'aura' of its presence are all real.  Perhaps not in a strict philosophical way but in an immediate way.

 

And moreover things can be empty and real.  Because empty doesn't mean void or nothing.  

 

But my question is - where does that reality come from?  Why is the tree real?

 

Speaking for myself, it is clear to me that there are NO ideas that are "true". They are comprised of mental formations that are reflections of something perceived and then compounded together to make a conceptual construct - an artificial division in reality that makes discussing things convenient.

 

Quote

“You have never had a thought that was true” - Adyashanti

 

The teaching of the skandhas is one such mental formation, just as dependent origination, the Noble Eightfold path, and the entire idea of practices and paths are. All of these are "relative" truths. 

 

As Seng T'san said in the Tsin Tsin Ming:

 

Quote

To seek Mind with discriminating mind
is the greatest of all mistakes.

 

All philosophies and symptoms are as mistaken as each other. 

 

Quote

“The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom.” - Hui Hai

 

What is reality? I would say that it is the entirely self-less, space-less, time-less arising and passing of unlabeled and unlabel-able phenomena appearing in awareness now.

 

My 2¢.

 

 

 

 

[doc benway]

9 hours ago, Apech said:

But my question is - where does that reality come from?  Why is the tree real?

 

My view is that you make it real.

Yes, you Apech

🥴

 

 

Our finely tuned perceptive faculties evoke reality from unbounded potential. Void relates to unbounded and undefined, the base, wu ji. We provide the boundary and definitions in relationship with our environment and give birth to each moment of reality. It is yours alone, we only agree on so many fronts because our faculties are similarly tuned.

 

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

I suppose another way of asking my question is why do we see this world and not another?

 

(It may be a different question)

 

Its the right question to get to the first question's answer , though .

[old3bob]

and I'd say that we can also realize (perceive) that there is only one of us in all of us...(right now) thus particular beings with particular and relative realities are aka as apparent,  which may not sound great for those who want to forever remain a particular and separate someone - which granted could be for a very, very long evolutionary learning period for our souls. 

Edited May 27 by old3bob

[Apech]

 

Tree now looks like this - it has grown through your attention.

[snowymountains]

19 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Visions were the last thing on my mind.  I was talking a taoist science that gives real expanded perceptions to those who've studied it, not unlike the way the once-theoretical animalcules (the old way to say microorganisms) became real only to those who saw them through the microscope -- after it was invented.  The Wood phase of wuxing (if that's what you thought was "visions" when I mentioned it) is, likewise, something you can perceive by way of expanding your perceptions and, yes, even with the help of an instrument (called luopan), albeit a very different one from a microscope.  The microscope gives a "vision" to your eyes, while wuxing theory gives eyes to your "vision" of the world...        

 

There are several components to this, I don't know luopan/wuxing as I don't practice Taoism.

If you have pointers on what to read on luopan/wuxing I will add it to my reading list though and I'd be interested to hear more on these.

 

The below is not about you/luopan/wuxing, I do not know the practices, so can't comment on them in specific, nor your experience with these, which I also can't possibly know.

 

There is value in processing signals which are not sensory and processing which is not cognitive, we do have a right brain hemisphere after all. If we do not use it, it's like a self-imposed half lobotomy of sorts.

 

So indeed it's not all about strict logical processing of sensory inputs.

 

On the other hand, there was a thread a few days ago here where automatic negative thoughts, which every single human has - but most are simply unaware of, were perceived as metaphysical parasites.

 

So, to deal with non-sensory processing a right balance between the non-sensories, cognition and grounding is needed.

 

Also, as many of these signals tend to be highly personalised, a certain level of mindfulness, knowledge of our ego psychology, and our schemas is needed to start making sense, as it's important to distinguish our own projections from anything else.

As these signals tend to be personalised, they may be part of someone's personal reality and not part of an objective reality that follows physical laws and is shared with everyone else. ( yes we do have a personal subjective reality, without any need to refer to neither right hemispheres nor metaphysics actually, e.g. two people looking at the same sky may experience it differently if one is hungry and the other is not - but at the same time, there also is an objective component to reality ).

Edited May 27 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Tree now looks like this - it has grown through your attention.

 

Nice !