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.
The world
upekka
Veteran
what is 'the world' to you?
2
Comments
Why do you ask? Tell us yours first, then we might know what you mean....
The World is all conditioned things. Why and how it all works is the Unconditioned.
I've always loved the word, especially after learning its etymology. "World" is from the Old English w(e)oruld, "from a Germanic compound meaning 'age of man'; related to the Dutch wereld and German Welt." —so sayeth my dictionary!
Therefore, for me, the world is something I have inherited from my ancestors and that I am fellow custodian and Trustee of for future generations. I could go on, but that's the gist of what the World means to me: It's the Home of the Human Family.
Good answer!
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload
Live feed from the International Space Station. Cool! Do give it a few seconds to load the feed.
The world is exciting - and loveable - most of the time.
I should say the idea of the world is exciting and totally loveable.
Practically I see
the world as a freakishly rare oasis of organic life surrounded by an immeasurable desert.,
or when navel gazing....It 's
the arising conditions which allow my karmic inclinations to be potentially addressed.
"Flux & Change"
“In my experience, I don’t find a world in constant flux and change. Rather I find only ‘flux and change’, which themselves are what I call the world “
What is the world or what is reality?
A blank, conventional canvas where different projections of mind concur.
I see @upekka has still not given us his input....
Now that does NOT rock my world....
that's what they ask you when you check in to the loony bin. They ask you to spell 'world' backwards.
That is absolutely . . . wonderful and terrifying, equally.
i wanted that whoever read the OP to think about it and come to what exactly s/he considers as 'the world'
if no one come up with _the Buddha's explanation about 'the world' _ then i would post it
in that way, i think we can think over it more and see how it applies to our own world
^^^ I can live in your world . . .
The world is what we see, hear, smell, taste, feel and perceive/think about. Each one of us live in our own worlds and our own "reality".
Is there a "real" world other than what we see, hear, smell, taste, feel and perceive/think about? That is unknowable. Is our "world" more real than that of the earthworms, bees or birds? Not really.
What you see is what you get.
...AND it's where I put my stuff!
The world is where I can either Laugh Out Loud or just smile —and it's nobody's business which expression of joy strikes me most. They both count alike in the grand scheme of things. Happiness is happiness, and who is to say what's most apt?
The 5 skandhas or aggregates is "the world"
Yes, the focus is usually on "my world" rather than "the world". Though it gets interesting when you consider external form and sense objects.
It is tempting to suppose that the convention "world" lasts the span of the duration of our skandhas.
But the external form and sense objects have been there long before our set of skandhas for this lifetime came together, and will continue to be there when once again they come apart.
according to Buddha's Teaching one lives in one's world (with six sense media) thinking that one lives in others (your) world
today morning during the meditation i noticed:
feeling aggregates (skandha) arise after contact
perception aggregate arise after contact
and i noticed perception is entwined with form
if one doesn't see perception and form are entwined and two different things come together one is deluded by perception thinking that the perception is the form
once one is deluded by the perception craving arise and then fabricate aggregates arise
because there are form, feeling, perception, fabricate the consciousness arise
then
i go backwards up to contact
for contact to arise there should be consciousness
for consciousness to arise the internal and external sense medium and external sense medium should meet together
for this meeting to happens there should be the body in the first place
then i pay attention to the body
it consists of earth, water, fire and wind
and then i pay attention to how this body which consists of four elements comes to be
that happens because of my ignorance i crave for it before (in Buddha's words, that is Abhinandhathi, Abhiwadathi, Ajjosaya Thittathi ...)
if one is wise one never crave for the body (in Buddha's words, that is Nabhinandhathi, Nabhiwadhathi.....)
when i was meditating like this it automatically came to the breath
breath is the subtle form of body according to Buddha
and then my meditation was on breath (Anapana sathi)
i wrote this far because
to say to have skandhas we have to have six internal and external sense base first
in** Buddha's Teaching 'the world' is six sense media **
and
to say i have confidence in Budhha's Teaching
But the external form and sense objects have been there long before our set of skandhas for this lifetime came together, and will continue to be there when once again they come apart.
true
(Ang. Nik. ii.46 - F. L. Woodward's translation)
For me this is the Saha world. The world of dusts that obscure understanding. That is a simple way of putting it. It was thus explained by a T'ien T'ai teacher to me many years ago.
To the OP I have been here before! Was told I thought too much about it, and guess what - I was probably thinking too much about it. If you are thinking about something other than what you are doing/being you are being distracted by the thinking of something else.
But what is the distinction between the knower and known, the thinker and the thought?
That's a tiny, or perhaps unimaginably large place of the world you reside in.
The wise old owl
lived in an oak...
...\lol/...
I love this statement!
Is there anything other than "your world"? Is anything "external" to what you see, hear, smell, taste, feel, perceive/conceive or is it all "internal"? Maybe there really is no internal or external?
Regards
@Dakini @Dandelion
Sometimes simple works. Cosmic laws affecting everything everywhere always... blending law with chaos, creating "The World" with all of its flaws and beauty.
The world is past karma. Present karma is a world waiting to be discovered.
The world is an ever-changing unpredictable experience. You may try to predict the experience by using your memory, but you really don't know, which is a really good thing if you appreciate surprises.
Is there anything other than "your world"? Is anything "external" to what you see, hear, smell, taste, feel, perceive/conceive or is it all "internal"? Maybe there really is no internal or external?
What we see and hear are sense objects, ie external form. "External" meaning outside the body.
I don't think Buddhism teaches idealism ( with the exception of the Yogachara school ), rather it focuses on immediate experience because that's where we can develop insight.
How do you know that you are not a mind in a vat?
That yogacara teaches idealism is a Western philosophical construct .... it is more realistic pluralism
Fortunately, there are other forms of Buddhism other than the Yogacara, so it's a question of whatever floats your boat, in this case.
There's a good question to ponder, but ultimately easy to answer with "doesn't matter either way" because life intrudes upon our musings.
Even if we believe the brain-in-a-vat thing (solipsism):
1) We aren't in control of the rules.
2) Life goes on: Still gotta eat. Still gotta deal with other humans. Still gotta deal with the consequences of our actions.
Most people base their behavior on reality, and knowing you were a brain-in-a-vat wouldn't change that reality any more than knowing you're a brain-in-a-meatsuit. The only real exception are people who strongly believe in unrealistic things. They might change their behavior significantly if they found this out. Most of us wouldn't.
We are the children, hope and freedom!
So if you donate blood, do you still consider that "you" are now part of the recipient? Is your blood internal or external in your direct experience?
Sound - is it inside or outside? In your immediate experience, is it internal or external?
What about sights? Are they internal or external? Smells, touch etc.
Forget about labels and go for direct experience. After all what else is there?
With metta
@SpinyNorman, can you flesh out with increased detail and explanation what you mean by the yogacara being the only Buddhist school that teaches idealism? Just curious!
a bright red maple leaf lying on a bed of pristine autumn snow in my front yard
Sounds like a great idea for a flag.
It's quite involved, but the second paragraph here might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1]
Ear = internal, sound = external = sense object. That's how the suttas describe it.
Sure, focus on immediate experience, but that experience depends on ( external ) sense objects. Contact = sense object + sense faculty + sense consciousness.
And yet ofttimes the world shrinks and transforms itself into one's own dear, intimate friend.
That's the world I love best of all, I often think.
(Unfortunately Something happens to me and that blows away. I change and with me my world.)
I don't understand why they use the term 'ideal'. If the universe is mentally constructed and if that is true then the truth wouldn't be 'ideality' rather it would just be realism even.
It gets quite technical! I think "idealism" because with that philosophical position all we can experience is our idea of what's "out there". Or you could say our experience is totally subjective, there is no objective aspect to it. Buddhism tends more to idealism than realism, but that's more about skillful means than promoting a philosophical position.
Buddhism talks about dependent arising and conditionality, which is the middle way between "everything exists" and "nothing exists". So emptiness means the lack of independent existence rather than the lack of existence.
But how do you experience sounds or sights? Do they occur "out there" or "in here"? Or are they just appearances/phenomena that are neither inside nor outside?
Is the world within you or are you within the world or is something else going on?
Hope you get my drift.
Regards
But how do you experience sounds or sights? Do they occur "out there" or "in here"? Hope you get my drift.
I experience them as "out there". How do you experience them? The way we experience sights and sounds is partly a result of human biology and evolution, we have two eyes to tell us how far away something is, and two ears to tell us which direction a sound is coming from.
Reality, the world, is constant change.
We, as interconnected parts of that reality, are also in constant change.
What is the world? What are we?
Nyanatiloka Thero said:
Reality is an ongoing, undifferentiated sum of ever-changing processes.
When one of our sense objects discriminates between its particular set of samskharas and what it perceives to be extraneous to its boundaries, the consciousness of duality arises.
The world begins to exist for us, outside us.
We discriminate. We separate the world from us.
There is 'me' and there is 'them.'
Is the world within you or are you within the world or is something else going on?
This is deep stuff!
In terms of the suttas I suspect the answers are to be found:
In Ud 1.10 Bahiya Sutta, where it says: "In the seen, only the seen....when there is no you there", which seems to suggest that there is indeed something to be seen, and that the problem is clinging to sense objects as relating to the self.
MN1 The Root Sequence, where the Tathagata is said to "directly know" the four great properties of form, free from conceiving. Again this seems to suggest that there is something "out there", the problem is our conceiving around sense objects.