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.
What is "reality"?....
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
...and how is it viewed in Buddhism?
0
Comments
That sounds like a loaded question....
To me, all reality is subjective, and perception is often deception, hence the Eightfold Path's "First" spoke....
The only reality IS the 4 Noble Truths, and accepting that
Other than that, reality is what I make it.
Ah the easy ones, eh ...
From your link @SpinyNorman
Reality is seen, ultimately, in Buddhism as a form of 'projection', resulting from the fruition (vipaka) of karmic seeds (sankharas)
That would equate with my understanding/projection. So in a sense we can not see anything that is real, it is all processed.
Emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
Which does NOT mean nothing really exists.
The yogacara, dzogchen and other fantastical 'we live in an actual matrix projection' a sort of ignorant personal god dharma, I find how can I put this kindly ... I can't ... it is unreal mind games.
The important thing is how we relate with and to our projected reality. Becoming Nothing seems to me a waste of life, the universe and everything. A very deluded and subtle form of Nihilism.
... and now back to the real fun ...
My working assumption is that there is stuff "out there" which we perceive via our sense organs and central nervous system. We then conceive about it in our minds. So while we can talk about "our reality", talking about some kind of "absolute reality" seems like a stretch, even allowing for a strong degree of consensus in the way that people perceive things.
And now back to dropping bricks on feet...
I like the way Adyashanti describes it. To paraphrase, he says most people perceive the world thru a type of lens. The lens distorts the picture of what is seen, heard, etc. because the lens is tainted. Or as the Buddha called it, poisoned. What is perceived when the lens is removed, that's reality. He calls it "perception without a lens". If things are not distorted by the lens, then they are seen "as they actually are".
I like this approach, and I often think that the beliefs and opinions we hold are like the tints on a lens, for example seeing everything through rose-coloured spectacles.
But what do things really look like when we see them "as they actually are"? Do you mean impermanent and insubstantial for example?
I find this question to be so close to the "original mind" question that discerning the subtle differences is making my head hurt.
@seeker242 has a good analogy with the lens. Even better than the clouds obscuring sky analogy but it begets more questions for me than it answers. For instance, the lens seems to relate to the workings of the complete nervous system... And we Buddhists usually include the mind along with that as it sends signals just like any sense organ.
Perception without a lens seems to imply an awareness without any sensory input to the brain at all.
I keep seeing Buddha holding up that flower with the slightest smirk on his face.
what is there, can not see
what is seen, do not stay
Not without a lens, but with a lens free from taints.
Tee Hee ... just wait till virtual reality sanghas kick in ...
http://www.lionsroar.com/ready-for-a-virtual-reality/
It is subtle. How to discern [lobster scratches empty head] ... mmm ...
... maybe like this:
reality has a form and requires lens, light, object, processing mind etc
and it is dependent on the form it takes on the nature, colour, clarity of the lens, as others suggest.
However reality itself can not be known or knowable ... even by original mind, or Buddha Nature, which is empty, not transcendentally encompassing as in some aspects of mystical union. Even in such mystical explanations/experiences only God can truly know God ...
So what to say? [cue flower ... prepare to raise]
"What is "reality"?...."
It's a home made movie.....Where "I" am the producer, director, actress, extras, film crew, projector, screen and the couch.....
We could say reality is what is perceived through our senses. CNS.
That's the closest thing we will ever get.
Our view of the universe will be different to an insects.
It's completely subjective to the organism/Cns/environment.
Even after an awakening, you still see the same, hear the same ... It just appears more vivid because your position has shifted from person to everything.
"Reality" is for those who can't handle drugs the Dharma.....
Would instinct be a taint, you figure?
I ask because it makes me picture a child's mind before anything is learned but even an infant born 2 minutes ago has the instinct to grab a finger and to suckle.
To me, we can't know reality but we experience reality every moment. Reality also is, as Federica said, what we make it. Both of these define reality.
No way, that is how humans survive. If babies didn't have that cry on them or wouldn't suckle, that would be game over.
Good question. It would seem that our lens is "tinted" by all kinds of stuff - instincts, genetic inheritance, family and cultural conditioning, beliefs, opinions, and so on.
So how would we go about wiping instinct off the lens and if we did, would it be practical?
There is a sutra in which the Buddha describes his pre-Buddha efforts to not breathe. Part of his pranayama fetishism ... eh asceticism ... He overdoes it and develops extreme headaches and later reminds people of the Middle Way when recounting his weirdo efforts ...
N.B. do not hold your breath for long periods boys and girls.
What did you have in mind? To what purpose?
I personally find a lot of instincts lessen through formal meditation. If the breath stops, vipassana might become inappropriate ...
I'm trying to reason if instinct is born with subjectivity and part of the obscuration of how things really are or a necessary mechanism by which the subjective world can grow to become aware of how things really are.
Which ones?
Perhaps it's more about recognising that we have them, but that that we don't have to be a slave to them? And the same with our other conditioning? Seeing these things more clearly?
It would be more appropriate to say the instinctual urge to follow them lessens, if they left completely I will assume I am dead rather than uber-Buddha
examples:
part of the Middle Way is continually 'refined' or more subtle instincts ...
That just seems like the middle way. Completely logical but instinct just seems like one of those things we need until we don't.
Instinct is just weird.
No, instinct is inbuilt. It's what makes us a mammal animal.
"Unfortunately" the instinct programmed into us through natural evolution, is knocked into a secondary, almost hidden position, by 'Conditioning' which is what happens when our protectors (adults) peers and societal norms are imposed on us.
I think there have been stories of children 'brought up' by animals, and once discovered by humans, and brought back into a human environment , did not fare well.
I don't think a human child, left entirely to its own devices with no kind of support at all, would survive.
What do you mean by "inbuilt"?
Instinct guides all animals and I think even plants.
Heck, I'd even go as far as to suggest natural selection runs on instinct.
Instinct is a very 'blanket word'. Instinct drives humans. Stimulus drives plants.
Natural selection runs on both.
Instinct drives most animals. Certainly not just humans, lol.
In my opinion, it is instinct which allows plants to react to stimulus.
Opinion? Any flimsy science to back that up?
Nah, just logic.
That's why I said it's an opinion and didn't try to pawn it as fact.
thank goodness for that!
@David said:In my opinion, it is instinct which allows plants to react to stimulus.
That does make sense, because this doesn't look like learned behaviour.
I was once given the analogy of a train.
As a train passed by a station, two people on the train exchanged an article.
One person perceived giving the article.
One person perceived receiving the article.
An observer in the station perceived giver as the receiver and the receiver as the giver.
For each, the reality was in the perception.
Thus there were four different but related realities.
The first was the reality of the action and the other three were the perceptions of that action.
The question was then asked, "What was the true reality?"
As far as I know, for some, that debate has not stopped raging. It seems the Sophists love self inflicted wounds of this nature.
Have fun and
Peace to all
"What is "reality"?...."
It's all a passing show. Enjoy the movie.