Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Whether you turn around and the chair remains or whether it vanishes your mind is there in both cases. The contents of the mind change, but the awareness able to look and assess remains. We cannot imagine an experience where there is no awareness.
inherently existing would mean that the chair could be without our perception of the chair. really the chair's existence IS our perception of the chair, as taiyaki said very elegantly, it is projection from within us, not the other way around.
you can investigate this for yourself
conventionally, we say "hey there is a chair over there" and when you turn around or close your eyes, you say "it's still there, it's just out of view" -- well, in buddhism we are much more realistic about things. if something is not in current sensory perception then it doesn't exist.
If that's true then it should be no problem to show where it says this in Buddhist doctrine. Good luck!
Instead of a chair you can think about the flame from a burning candle. Does the flame have independent inherent existence? Does it have boundaries? (can you say exactly where the flame starts, and what belongs to the "non-flame" space around the flame?)
Instead of a chair you can think about the flame from a burning candle. Does the flame have independent inherent existence? Does it have boundaries? (can you say exactly where the flame starts, and what belongs to the "non-flame" space around the flame?)
Slowly move your hand towards a candle flame. When it starts to burn, that's where the boundary is.
Emptiness means that nothing is what it seems. Nothing exists solely as we see it instead it exists because we say so with our minds. By attaching a label, that no-thing becomes a something, chair, John, Jane, USA etc.
For something to be "a chair" is meaningless unless an observer perceives it as such. There is no essence of "chairness" intrinsic in the material object itself. It is how we use the chair (and how we perceive the chair) that gives it its "chairness."
At the same time, to be an "observer" is meaningless unless there is something being observed. The distinct words "observer" and "observed" are useful for communication, but they do not exist independently of each other. What does exist is the perception of the chair. This is not to say that the material that makes the chair vanishes when we aren't looking at it, but that its existence as a chair depends on the meaning that we project onto it.
it may be helpful to point out that in conventional western logic we usually have just two options, true and false
in meditative and contemplative logic there are actually four possible logical options.
...
This is sort-of the direction "quantum" understanding is going, kinda awesome that dudes were writing about this thousands of years ago. Acclimate your mind to this and it will be of great benefit in meditational analysis.
I'm not sure you're exactly right here Sova. The old Buddhist joke about how many Buddhist it takes to change a ligh bulb gives the number as five, the four you mention and one more.
We see this in Nagarjuna. He refutes four wrong views for each metaphysical question (this, that, this and that, neither this nor that) to leave just his own view.
He proves that nothing really exists. This statement led to objections earlier but it is orthodox. It is not nihilism, as you say. It is the proposition that things do not exist in the way we usually think they do.
My study of logic leads me think that there is nothing new or different about Nagarjuna's logic or the use of it in QM. It is simply Aristotle's logic or 'laws of thought' used rigorously. It is our everyday use of it that is unrigorous and wrong, while Aristotle's rules allow for Nagarujna's approach and also QM. This is not a common view but I believe it is correct. Interesting topic but off-track here I suppose.
Where the subject fuses into the object via the apprehension of consciousness as everything.
This can happen as The Watcher (dualistic mindfulness, or contraction behind eyes + grasping at non-conceptual thought realm) merges with object (outside world).
Or a more refined version: Awareness as a sense of space and objects arising in and out of awareness-space.
So one could have the direct experience of literally being a chair.
This experience and realization points to one mind as the finality, which is essentially the Hindu Atman or Self.
Another way to frame this is. Imagine finding something that appears to be authentic beyond conceptuality. Then imagine attributing meaning and selfhood to that something. Now imagine that something to be visceral. alive, expansive encompassing everything and everyone.
That is the experience or realization of the God realms/Atman.
Comments
If I close my eyes, the leaves of a tree are still green.
BTW What was Aj. Brahm's answer?
At the same time, to be an "observer" is meaningless unless there is something being observed. The distinct words "observer" and "observed" are useful for communication, but they do not exist independently of each other. What does exist is the perception of the chair. This is not to say that the material that makes the chair vanishes when we aren't looking at it, but that its existence as a chair depends on the meaning that we project onto it.
That's my take on it anyway.
We see this in Nagarjuna. He refutes four wrong views for each metaphysical question (this, that, this and that, neither this nor that) to leave just his own view.
He proves that nothing really exists. This statement led to objections earlier but it is orthodox. It is not nihilism, as you say. It is the proposition that things do not exist in the way we usually think they do.
My study of logic leads me think that there is nothing new or different about Nagarjuna's logic or the use of it in QM. It is simply Aristotle's logic or 'laws of thought' used rigorously. It is our everyday use of it that is unrigorous and wrong, while Aristotle's rules allow for Nagarujna's approach and also QM. This is not a common view but I believe it is correct. Interesting topic but off-track here I suppose.
Its an existential meditative attainment.
Where the subject fuses into the object via the apprehension of consciousness as everything.
This can happen as The Watcher (dualistic mindfulness, or contraction behind eyes + grasping at non-conceptual thought realm) merges with object (outside world).
Or a more refined version: Awareness as a sense of space and objects arising in and out of awareness-space.
So one could have the direct experience of literally being a chair.
This experience and realization points to one mind as the finality, which is essentially the Hindu Atman or Self.
Another way to frame this is. Imagine finding something that appears to be authentic beyond conceptuality. Then imagine attributing meaning and selfhood to that something. Now imagine that something to be visceral. alive, expansive encompassing everything and everyone.
That is the experience or realization of the God realms/Atman.