Is there an objective world?

[thuscomeone]

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

Edited December 21, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

This is an interesting subject to me. Do you think there is an objective world?

 

If there is, you can only take it on faith. There is no way to know for sure if objective world exists, because all you have are your subjective senses.

 

Objective world does not exist. But if it did, it would have to be taken on faith and could never be proven or demonstrated.

 

Objective meaning a world/reality apart from our minds (mindstreams in buddhism)? In Buddhism, the true nature of the mind is empty and non dual yet I still do not think that this denies that there are things which are independent of our minds.

 

You don't understand Buddhism then. May I suggest you get a book called "Buddhahood without Meditation" and read it carefully? It addresses this very topic. To give you a quick and short answer, there is no world apart from your mind. In my opinion you're a smart person and you have the capacity to understand a book as lofty as "Buddhahood without Meditation".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Buddhahood-Without-M...6273&sr=8-1

 

Now I don't mean objective as in inherently existing, I mean it as if our minds were not here, everything we see around us would not be here. I do think there is a reality independent or our minds.

 

So then you don't understand the meaning of "If a tree falls in the forest" koan.

 

There is insentient matter and natural dependently originated processes that we can observe taking place that happen without any aid from our mind. I see no reason for those processes to somehow "dissapear" if our minds were not here. I have a hard time expressing myself on this. What do you think?

 

Thanks for expressing this. It's funny how you came here and taught us all Buddhism in the begging. Remember that? I knew you were ignorant though, but I thought it was hilarious how you were teaching us Buddha Dharma. No harm done. It's all good. Sometimes the only way to learn you are wrong is to try to teach people what you think is right and watch what happens. You have a loooong way ahead of you.

 

Cheers!

Edited December 21, 2009 by goldisheavy

[ngtest]

"external processes independent of the mind" is the realm of no enlightenment.

 

In full enlightenment mind influences matter.

The mind is not inside the body, not outside the body, not inbetween.

The physical body, the mountains, the rivers, empty space and the great earth are all within the wonderful bright true mind.

The wonderful nature is perfect and bright apart from all names and appearances.

[thuscomeone]

If there is, you can only take it on faith. There is no way to know for sure if objective world exists, because all you have are your subjective senses.

 

Objective world does not exist. But if it did, it would have to be taken on faith and could never be proven or demonstrated.

You don't understand Buddhism then. May I suggest you get a book called "Buddhahood without Meditation" and read it carefully? It addresses this very topic. To give you a quick and short answer, there is no world apart from your mind. In my opinion you're a smart person and you have the capacity to understand a book as lofty as "Buddhahood without Meditation".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Buddhahood-Without-M...6273&sr=8-1

So then you don't understand the meaning of "If a tree falls in the forest" koan.

Thanks for expressing this. It's funny how you came here and taught us all Buddhism in the begging. Remember that? I knew you were ignorant though, but I thought it was hilarious how you were teaching us Buddha Dharma. No harm done. It's all good. Sometimes the only way to learn you are wrong is to try to teach people what you think is right and watch what happens. You have a loooong way ahead of you.

 

Cheers!

Wow I'm sorry but you are a jackass. Ignorant? I know emptiness thoroughly, I've felt the non dual presence that is talked about. Yet in knowing that, I still do not see how there is no world apart from our mind. The Dalai Lama himself has said that there is debate in Buddhism over an objective vs subjective world. So don't think I'm so crazy. I wasn't teaching you Buddhism. I was revealing what I had learned so far and seeing if anybody could help me further my insights. Are you mad that I rejected what you had to say in that PM? After thinking about it, I realized you were wrong and others who post here such as xabir and vajra are right. That's that. You know, I read your posts on here and you are always on your high horse, condescending everybody. You need an attitude adjustment and that is that.

Edited December 21, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

Is there an objective world?

 

No, but there are objective girlfriends who, no matter what you say, will object.

 

 

Sorry. I'm off now.

[thuscomeone]

"external processes independent of the mind" is the realm of no enlightenment.

 

In full enlightenment mind influences matter.

The mind is not inside the body, not outside the body, not inbetween.

The physical body, the mountains, the rivers, empty space and the great earth are all within the wonderful bright true mind.

The wonderful nature is perfect and bright apart from all names and appearances.

I know this. This is non duality. Our individual mind streams are non dual. Yet to say that everything is just the mind in my opinion is not the same...there are sentient and insentient things.

[ngtest]

[Seth Ananda]

I like to think that Objectivity is a delusion created by anyone who is not comfortable with not being able to feel they they are 'Right' or that they have found the 'Truth'...

 

This need to feel safe and secure is very deep, and if we have a sturdy grip on 'The supreme Truth' our sense of self feels less in danger from an extremely subjective Universe...

 

But who knows?

[goldisheavy]

Wow I'm sorry but you are a jackass.

 

I am less of a jackass than you, if you think about it.

 

Ignorant? I know emptiness thoroughly, I've felt the non dual presence that is talked about.

 

Whatever you feel, it is not the non-dual presence. That's just logic. Non-duality is not a perception and duality is not a perception either. Non-duality and duality are simply views. For example, if I pick up a spoon from the table, the feeling of the spoon in my hand is neither dual nor non-dual. What's dual about it is my view of what it is exactly I am feeling. My interpretation of what's happening -- that's what's either dual or non-dual. So if you don't understand this much, you simply reveal your ignorance.

 

Yet in knowing that, I still do not see how there is no world apart from our mind.

 

I know that you don't see it. I gave you a good link.

 

The Dalai Lama himself has said that there is debate in Buddhism over an objective vs subjective world.

 

Do you mind providing me with a reference? Dalai Lama is not The Pope Of Buddhism, nonetheless I'd like to see this in context.

 

So don't think I'm so crazy. I wasn't teaching you Buddhism. I was revealing what I had learned so far and seeing if anybody could help me further my insights. Are you mad that I rejected what you had to say in that PM? After thinking about it, I realized you were wrong and others who post here such as xabir and vajra are right. That's that. You know, I read your posts on here and you are always on your high horse, condescending everybody. You need an attitude adjustment and that is that.

 

Is that how you interpret things? I always condescend? I don't agree. But if you want, you can try to adjust my attitude. I welcome your efforts.

 

I know this. This is non duality. Our individual mind streams are non dual. Yet to say that everything is just the mind in my opinion is not the same...there are sentient and insentient things.

 

It is mind that distinguishes sentient from non-sentient. Without some kind of opinion about the nature of sentience, there is no way to distinguish sentience from the absence of sentience.

 

There is no such thing as something that's inherently insentient. And by "inherently" I mean something that's insentient regardless of mind. It is mind that makes sentient things appear sentient and makes insentient things appear insentient. Outside of mind there is neither sentience nor insentience nor any combination thereof.

Edited December 21, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Well, all I will say is that the manifest universe (this one) existed for approximately 13.7 billion years prior to the evolution of man with all his crazy ideas.

 

I think it is very vain indeed to think that we had or have anything to do with the existence of the manifest universe.

 

But we all have the free will to think whatever we like and to form our own opinions. Hey, some have even created gods in their own image to account for the existence of the universe.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Well, all I will say is that the manifest universe (this one) existed for approximately 13.7 billion years prior to the evolution of man with all his crazy ideas.

 

I think it is very vain indeed to think that we had or have anything to do with the existence of the manifest universe.

 

How long does it take your mind to construct a coherent universe when you go to sleep?

[Marblehead]

How long does it take your mind to construct a coherent universe when you go to sleep?

 

I never attempt to do any such foolhardy activities.

 

I rarely dream but when I do the universe seems to have existed prior to my dreaming. Same goes for prior to my birth, it already existed before I was born.

 

Seems that I have had absolutely nothing to do with the existence of the universe.

 

Once again I will remind everyone that the tree exists whether or not I see it.

 

Sorry, but you, I, and everyone else is not the center of the universe. We had nothing to do with its existence.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

By Yutang Lin

 

"Teaching of "Non-form" indicates non-attachment to form.

Misinterpreted, it is adopted as holding to absence of form.

Abiding in no forms at all, one falls into the abyss of void.

Only in no grasping to form or non-form lies true liberation".

 

hope this quote is of some use in relation to your post, thuscomeone

[Marblehead]

By Yutang Lin

 

"Teaching of "Non-form" indicates non-attachment to form.

Misinterpreted, it is adopted as holding to absence of form.

Abiding in no forms at all, one falls into the abyss of void.

Only in no grasping to form or non-form lies true liberation".

 

hope this quote is of some use in relation to your post, thuscomeone

 

Hi 3bob,

 

I have always enjoyed Lin Yutang's translation of both the TTC and Chuang Tzu.

 

The above quote is very applicable to this discussion - the last sentence being the key to understanding the concept from a Taoist point of view.

 

Yes, GiH, I know that the Buddhist understanding of the concept is slightly different but please understand that I cannot speak from the Buddhist perspective, I can speak only from my understanding of the Taoist perspective.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

I never attempt to do any such foolhardy activities.

 

I rarely dream but when I do the universe seems to have existed prior to my dreaming.

 

When you find yourself in a dream universe, it does seem like it has always existed. But when you wake up and realize it was just a dream, you know better. Then you realize that entire universe was just a dream and hasn't existed as anything more than mind's emanation.

 

It shows how mind can make something like the universe in the blink of an eye, complete with its past and all kinds of interesting and very believable characters in it.

 

 

Same goes for prior to my birth, it already existed before I was born.

 

Seems that I have had absolutely nothing to do with the existence of the universe.

 

Once again I will remind everyone that the tree exists whether or not I see it.

 

Sorry, but you, I, and everyone else is not the center of the universe. We had nothing to do with its existence.

 

Peace & Love!

 

You wish. You are the center of your own universe. Just try to step aside. Ah, there you are, at the center again. Try to step away from the center. The best you can do is imagine the center to be outside of yourself, but that's nothing more than imagination. The truth of your being is always there with you. No matter where you go, there you are. You are one center you can count on. You can't count on Florida or New York being where you are, but you can always count on yourself being where you are, whatever it is you are at the time, there you are. And you cannot run away from yourself. And you cannot step aside even. You can't even more 1 inch to the left.

[soaring crane]

I think I'm starting to understand Taomeow's Homer Simpson thread a little better...

[enouch]

When you find yourself in a dream universe, it does seem like it has always existed. But when you wake up and realize it was just a dream, you know better. Then you realize that entire universe was just a dream and hasn't existed as anything more than mind's emanation.

 

It shows how mind can make something like the universe in the blink of an eye, complete with its past and all kinds of interesting and very believable characters in it.

You wish. You are the center of your own universe. Just try to step aside. Ah, there you are, at the center again. Try to step away from the center. The best you can do is imagine the center to be outside of yourself, but that's nothing more than imagination. The truth of your being is always there with you. No matter where you go, there you are. You are one center you can count on. You can't count on Florida or New York being where you are, but you can always count on yourself being where you are, whatever it is you are at the time, there you are. And you cannot run away from yourself. And you cannot step aside even. You can't even more 1 inch to the left.

 

 

 

 

The flaw in your design lies in the fact even self hood can be altered, memories can be erased, new personalities formed.I agree with you both, Marblehead , in that the universe seems to be manifest regardless of humans.With Gold. in that everything is processed through human consciousness. Maybe we can't know everything fully but we can know somethings truly.But then I'm a theist...so my worldview is different.

[forestofemptiness]

We don't see the world, we see mental forms. This is difficult to see if you start with so-called solid things like trees. But take something softer, like heat from a fire. If you stick your hand too close, you don't feel the fire, you feel pain and hotness. Now put a poker in the fire. No pain. So is the pain in the fire, or in you? If in you, how can we say it is objective?

 

Oddly, George Berkeley gave us the tree in the forest scenario:

 

Dialogues of Hylas and Philonous

Edited December 21, 2009 by forestofemptiness

[rex]

Just to add a few ideas into the mix ....

 

Maybe there are objective worlds based on one reality.

 

I found this quote on the net ages ago:

 

"According to the Guhyasamaja Tantra...no absolute division can be made between mind and matter. Matter in its subtlest form is prana, a vital energy which is inseparable from consciousness." From The Universe in a Single Atom.

 

This implies a non-dualistic relationship between mind, matter and the process of becoming. So beings who share the same karmic vision share the same objective world. The usual example given is that water to humans is something to drink and wash in, pus to hungry ghosts, lava to hell beings and nectar to gods etc.. This can also lead to the idea of the inseparability of samasra and nirvana - where one reality is seen and experienced differently depending on karmic vision and propensity.

 

Accounts of mystics who are credited with being able to walk on water or not get burnt by flames also suggests that different objective worlds can intersect.

[Marblehead]

When you find yourself in a dream universe, it does seem like it has always existed. But when you wake up and realize it was just a dream, you know better. Then you realize that entire universe was just a dream and hasn't existed as anything more than mind's emanation.

 

It shows how mind can make something like the universe in the blink of an eye, complete with its past and all kinds of interesting and very believable characters in it.

 

You wish. You are the center of your own universe. Just try to step aside. Ah, there you are, at the center again. Try to step away from the center. The best you can do is imagine the center to be outside of yourself, but that's nothing more than imagination. The truth of your being is always there with you. No matter where you go, there you are. You are one center you can count on. You can't count on Florida or New York being where you are, but you can always count on yourself being where you are, whatever it is you are at the time, there you are. And you cannot run away from yourself. And you cannot step aside even. You can't even more 1 inch to the left.

 

Hi GiH,

 

What a beautiful and insightful response! Thank you for being realistic with me!

 

I don't think I agree with you regarding dreams but I can't say for certain as I cannot recall the detail of any of the dreams I have had in the past.

 

I do agree with your second paragraph.

 

Third paragraph, you are right, of course, as long as "I" am part of the equation. But, if viewed from the "not-I" then I would disagree. You are right though, wherever you are, there you are. And home is where the heart (mind) is so if we are at peace with our Self, no matter where we go we are always home.

 

Thanks again for that great post.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

So is the pain in the fire, or in you? If in you, how can we say it is objective?

 

Yes, the pain is experienced by the individual experiencer. However, scientific analysis can define the coldness of a thing, water, air, etc. without an individual experiencer. So therefore the heat that the fire produces is real without an observer. Just as the tree exists without an observer.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Just to add a few ideas into the mix ....

 

Hi Rex,

 

I know that what you have presented is true according to Buddhist thought. However, I am a Philosophical Taoist and it is my understanding that this is not consistent with Taoist philosophy and therefore is not consistent with my understanding of the Manifest aspect of Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

[Encephalon]

OMG

Edited December 21, 2009 by Blasto

[ralis]

I never attempt to do any such foolhardy activities.

 

I rarely dream but when I do the universe seems to have existed prior to my dreaming. Same goes for prior to my birth, it already existed before I was born.

 

Seems that I have had absolutely nothing to do with the existence of the universe.

 

Once again I will remind everyone that the tree exists whether or not I see it.

 

Sorry, but you, I, and everyone else is not the center of the universe. We had nothing to do with its existence.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Right on Marblehead! Buddhist cosmological dogma is a human primate point of view!

 

It seems to me that Buddhists are still using reductionist techniques to posit absolutes.

 

ralis

Edited December 21, 2009 by ralis

[Aetherous]

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

 

Of course there's an objective world.

[thuscomeone]

I am less of a jackass than you, if you think about it.

Whatever you feel, it is not the non-dual presence. That's just logic. Non-duality is not a perception and duality is not a perception either. Non-duality and duality are simply views. For example, if I pick up a spoon from the table, the feeling of the spoon in my hand is neither dual nor non-dual. What's dual about it is my view of what it is exactly I am feeling. My interpretation of what's happening -- that's what's either dual or non-dual. So if you don't understand this much, you simply reveal your ignorance.

I know that you don't see it. I gave you a good link.

Do you mind providing me with a reference? Dalai Lama is not The Pope Of Buddhism, nonetheless I'd like to see this in context.

Is that how you interpret things? I always condescend? I don't agree. But if you want, you can try to adjust my attitude. I welcome your efforts.

It is mind that distinguishes sentient from non-sentient. Without some kind of opinion about the nature of sentience, there is no way to distinguish sentience from the absence of sentience.

 

There is no such thing as something that's inherently insentient. And by "inherently" I mean something that's insentient regardless of mind. It is mind that makes sentient things appear sentient and makes insentient things appear insentient. Outside of mind there is neither sentience nor insentience nor any combination thereof.

 

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?opti...iew&id=2383

The reference is here

"Given these premises, it is very fair to raise the question: is Buddhism suggesting that everything is nothing but projection of our mind?

 

This is a critical question and one that has elicited different responses from Buddhist teachers. In one camp, great masters have argued that in the final analysis, yes, everything, including our experience of suffering and happiness, is nothing but the projection of our mind.

 

But there is also another camp, which has vehemently argued against that form of extreme subjectivism. This second camp maintains that although one can, in some sense, understand everything as creations of mind, this does not mean that everything is nothing but the mind. They argue that one must maintain a degree of objectivity that things do exist. Although the consciousness, the mind, plays a role in creating our experience and the world at the same time, they maintain there is an objective world that is accessible to all subjects, all experiences."

 

And another instance:

http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=417

 

"The fact that our inner experiences of pleasure and pain are in the nature of subjective mental and cognitive states is very obvious to us. But how those inner subjective events relate to external circumstances and the material world poses a critical problem. The question of whether there is an external physical reality independent of sentient beings' consciousness and mind has been extensively discussed by Buddhist thinkers. Naturally, there are divergent views on this issue among the various philosophical schools of thought. One such school [Cittamatra] asserts that there is no external reality, not even external objects, and that the material world we perceive is in essence merely a projection of our minds. From many points of view, this conclusion is rather extreme. Philosophically, and for that matter conceptually, it seems more coherent to maintain a position that accepts the reality not only of the subjective world of the mind, but also of the external objects of the physical world."

 

Gold, when it comes to Buddhism, I believe the Dalai lama a lot more than I believe you.

 

As to your assertion about sentience and insentience apart from the mind. Well see my problem is this. Those words sentience and insentience point to things in the world/reality. They are mere labels for dependently orginated things. So our conceptual labeling is not all there is. If there were not processes that happened "out there", we would have no basis for conceptual thinking. That is first there is the appearance and then there is the label. Now I don't think that if you change the label, you change the thing. You change the label. That's all.

 

In terms of calling it non dual or dual, this presence is non dual. Simple. It is described as non dual by teachers. I have felt that it is non dual. Non dual meaning not dual. Absence of duality. We need to be able to distinguish things and I think your extreme form of subjectivity that says "it's all interpretation" is absurd, dangerous and it eventually collapses unto itself. Now when I say dual or non dual, I am describing relative appearances which are not just nothingness, which are obviously diverse and which need to be distinguished. Ultimately, yes, to fixate something such as non dual or dual as truly existing is an error and so in that sense to assert them is wrong. But there are relative appearances and there is relative identity which can correspond with "fixed" labels.

 

The way I see this non dual presence is like this: We all have different mindstreams. All of our mindstreams are non dual meaning that that mindstream is undivided from phenomena. One could say that this presence is sort of a field which reaches out and touches all phenomena that are within our particular expanse of experience. Yet, though this mindstream is undivided from phenomena in the field of experience, I see no reason to say that it is the same thing as everything in the field of experience (trees, cars, rain, houses, etc.). A mind and a tree are not the same thing though the mind as seeing cannot be found apart from that tree which is the seen, in experience. The mind is sentient, a tree is insentient.

 

This also gets into another interesting subject. Right view vs no view. That is, does right view mean that only one specific view is correct or does it mean that ultimately no views are correct?

Edited December 21, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Unconditioned]

...I believe the Dalai lama a lot more than I believe you.

 

As to your assertion about sentience and insentience apart from the mind. Well see my problem is this. Those words sentience and insentience point to things in the world/reality. They are mere labels for dependently orginated things. So our conceptual labeling is not all there is. If there were not processes that happened "out there", we would have no basis for conceptual thinking. That is first there is the appearance and then there is the label. Now I don't think that if you change the label, you change the thing. You change the label. That's all.

 

Why believe anyone at all? Does the Dali Lama hold more authority than you, me, or anyone else? In one sense, sure he's experienced and has knowledge. But in the other sense, he's human, just like we are.

 

About things 'pointing' to reality... yes, we label our experiences of our senses, completely agree... but what are those experiences? I experience this chair as solid matter holding me up but we've discovered that most matter is in fact space. Matter manifests itself through our perception and through our awareness of perception. I think the simple answer is: we cannot know what is outside of our own personal consciousness/experience one way or the other, we can only suggest a model for what we perceive.

 

Now when I say dual or non dual, I am describing relative appearances which are not just nothingness, which are obviously diverse and which need to be distinguished

 

So do you mean we need these for communication, survival, etc.? I can see that. There is 'stuff' here which is not separate from the 'not-stuff' (transient 'things' such as awareness).

Edited December 21, 2009 by Unconditioned