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.
In terms of the philosophy of mind, is Buddhism essentially dualistic?
The experience, as such, is continuous between the quantum world and the classical, whilst Heisenberg proposed the cut, as an interface, between the two. The sub atomic level works in the processes between our eyes and brain producing an impression of reality and its classical behaviour. Interestingly, Bohr never specified a demarcation line between quantum/ classical.
As we know being a teapot, tea leaf or thinking about non essentials [lobster puts up claw and web site on quantum biology] http://tmxxine.tumblr.com/links
is not essential, though in my case superficially clever.
@federica said:> "If a tree falls in the Forest..." and all that stuff....?
This idea goes much further, our consciousness creating our reality in a very literal way. So the kitchen doesn't exist until we enter it, the car doesn't exist until we notice it, and so on.
Dualism assumes a subject ( consciousness ) and an object ( what we are conscious of ), this approach would suggest that the object is created by the subject.
@lobster said:> Luckily I failed my new resolution to give up tea and coffee in about two days ... [cructacean fails again]
Nuffink like a nice bit of stimerlation though. What you need is some cockney tea, tea-bag left in for hours then reheated, lots of sugar too.
Soon you'll be dancing on the roof tops like Dick Van Dyke.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Warning: Simple-minded post:
This doesn't seem to be a Buddhist concept, because while we consider D.O. to be a teaching one could ponder on and ultimately digest and understand, it nevertheless concedes that things exist even while we are NOT looking at/perceiving them.
Doesn't it?
If I sit someone in a chair, simply because I leave the room and can't see them, I can still speak with them, and they can confirm they are still sitting in the chair...
Or does my absence make that all fantasy, is what I'm getting at...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
(Well, hang on, there are many Gates of Perception; simply because one isn't active, doesn't mean the others aren't... so the "illusion" is still manifest because of the other Gates.... Oh jeesh, what am I getting into...?!)
DO describes a mutual dependence of consciousness and form ie subject and object, so it appears dualistic. Though this seems to be a description of the way we experience things, rather than an ontological statement. So my experience depends on the combination of me seeing a "tree" and the "tree" being present to be seen.
I'm pretty sure that people and things remain present when we're not looking at them, the focus with Buddhist practice seems more about the way we look at them and the assumptions we make.
@SpinyNorman ...the focus with Buddhist practice seems more about the way we look at them and the assumptions we make.
That’s important, I think.
No matter what the phenomenal world is like exactly, all of it has the three characteristics.
Nothing is constant, nothing is ultimately satisfactory, and we are just like that.
Our understanding of how the universe works may grow and we may even finally gain full understanding of consciousness; but as long as the three characteristics remain valid, Buddhism remains relevant: because knowing and realizing these characteristics changes the way we relate to the world and to our life.
I'm pretty sure that people and things remain present when we're not looking at them, the focus with Buddhist practice seems more about the way we look at them and the assumptions we make.
That's it exactly, the way we look at the reality we create by our consciousness and how we react to it. I suppose the ins and outs of how we create said reality is another matter...
Comments
The experience, as such, is continuous between the quantum world and the classical, whilst Heisenberg proposed the cut, as an interface, between the two. The sub atomic level works in the processes between our eyes and brain producing an impression of reality and its classical behaviour. Interestingly, Bohr never specified a demarcation line between quantum/ classical.
So do you really believe a teapot appears in the kitchen only when we think of making tea?
"If a tree falls in the Forest..." and all that stuff....?
^^^ Thanks for reminder Spiny,
As we know being a teapot, tea leaf or thinking about non essentials [lobster puts up claw and web site on quantum biology]
http://tmxxine.tumblr.com/links
is not essential, though in my case superficially clever.
Tea can stimulate our intellectual synapses or our dharma awareness. Both have their place. I am off to empty a cup ...
http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/1acupoftea.html
Luckily I failed my new resolution to give up tea and coffee in about two days ... [cructacean fails again]
You fail on more levels than one, Oh Mr. Thermidor... it's 'cruStacean', not cruCtacean'...
Edited by @Shoshin
This idea goes much further, our consciousness creating our reality in a very literal way. So the kitchen doesn't exist until we enter it, the car doesn't exist until we notice it, and so on.
Dualism assumes a subject ( consciousness ) and an object ( what we are conscious of ), this approach would suggest that the object is created by the subject.
Nuffink like a nice bit of stimerlation though. What you need is some cockney tea, tea-bag left in for hours then reheated, lots of sugar too.
Soon you'll be dancing on the roof tops like Dick Van Dyke.
Warning: Simple-minded post:
This doesn't seem to be a Buddhist concept, because while we consider D.O. to be a teaching one could ponder on and ultimately digest and understand, it nevertheless concedes that things exist even while we are NOT looking at/perceiving them.
Doesn't it?
If I sit someone in a chair, simply because I leave the room and can't see them, I can still speak with them, and they can confirm they are still sitting in the chair...
Or does my absence make that all fantasy, is what I'm getting at...
(Well, hang on, there are many Gates of Perception; simply because one isn't active, doesn't mean the others aren't... so the "illusion" is still manifest because of the other Gates.... Oh jeesh, what am I getting into...?!)
DO describes a mutual dependence of consciousness and form ie subject and object, so it appears dualistic. Though this seems to be a description of the way we experience things, rather than an ontological statement. So my experience depends on the combination of me seeing a "tree" and the "tree" being present to be seen.
I'm pretty sure that people and things remain present when we're not looking at them, the focus with Buddhist practice seems more about the way we look at them and the assumptions we make.
That’s important, I think.
No matter what the phenomenal world is like exactly, all of it has the three characteristics.
Nothing is constant, nothing is ultimately satisfactory, and we are just like that.
Our understanding of how the universe works may grow and we may even finally gain full understanding of consciousness; but as long as the three characteristics remain valid, Buddhism remains relevant: because knowing and realizing these characteristics changes the way we relate to the world and to our life.
That's it exactly, the way we look at the reality we create by our consciousness and how we react to it. I suppose the ins and outs of how we create said reality is another matter...