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.
Does this reality exist? Or is it virtual?
DaltheJigsaw
Mountain View Veteran
Does this reality exist? Or is it virtual?
0
Comments
With Metta,
Todd
Lol!
Good point!
Metta,
Todd
I think that the Wisdom traditions might say that "virtual reality" is a very useful paradigm for how things really "hang." I believe this idea to be worthy of much further consideration. Below I have quoted a passage of authorship unknown to me that points out that we tend to be overly attached to form and suffer because of that fact. But, the author points out, the suffering emanates not from the fact that we are attached to that form, but that the form is in itself unreal, or impermanent.
Virtual reality as a paradigm for reality itself seems right to me, in that it's our greed for possessing things in some desired form that is at issue in spiritual life. I mean, what difference does it make whether you're making castles in the air or fortresses on earth, when they bind you in much the same way?
To the panentheistic Vedantist, only God is Real and to the Buddha everything is radically empty, mirroring the physicist's wave theory of atomic structure. Everything is in a perpetual state of becoming, and there is no abiding form. The ground of being is nonbeing.
But the word "existence" is itself a paradox, as it implies a radical displacement of that which is said to exist. To say something exists is to state that its essence is really one of projecting itself out of itself onto another field without which it could not and would not "ex-ist." In other words, things only exist if they "exist" outside of themselves and not in and of themselves only: A bit of a paradox, here. (In that sense, the word is not afar off from the word "ecstasy" which means to be beside oneself, BTW.)
I like what Bhikkhu Samahita says or quotes in Post #91 of his Daily Dhamma Drops Part 2:
What I mean by that is best illustrated by a question that we usually don't ask ourselves (we assume the answer): Where is your body?
Most people feel that they are the body, or that they exist somewhere behind the eyes (brain). But, from a different perspective, the body exists within the mind (contained by the mind). We only experience "our own body" (which isn't "me" or "mine" anyway remember) through the senses, and those senses through the mind. It's something to start thinking about...
Good advice, but...does that mean we should shut down this website? Everyone is engaging in pointless discussion? Maybe you should send your quote to the site administration.
Doesn't it? Doesn't Buddhism say something about this life is an illusion, but the experience in-between lifetimes is not illusion? Doesn't the Tibetan Book of the Dead have something to say along those lines? I'm not sure.
If solipsism is true, then everything that begins to exist has a cause, and this cause must be my perceptions or by an internal faculty able to cause perceptions.
The first state of my perceptions began to exist.
Therefore, my perceptions must have a cause.
(From 1) This cause must be my internal faculty that is able to cause perceptions to begin to exist.
My internal faculty that causes perceptions must have a content.
This content itself began to exist.
Therefore, this content has a cause.
This cause cannot be itself and cannot be from perceptions.
Therefore, solipsism is false.
Given that Solipsism is false, there must be other things that exist outside of the mind.
Buddha gave an explanation about existence too:
All compounded things are impermanent, and whatever is impermanent is subject to change. Whatever is subject to change is subject to suffering. There is no "self" or "soul" which refers to an unchanging, permanent essence conceived by virtue of existence. So then we have to get to the "meat" of Buddhist discussion. If, given that there is no permanent "self", we are subject to suffering how then is a person liberated from suffering?
How then does a person come into a state of no longer able to being in a state of becoming?
Cheers, WK
Error #1: Initial premise: initial premises are always ultimately faulty if causation is seriously considered as they have no causation. Following from this, if you start the reasoning process with an uncaused premise then the foundation is lacking and a fatal fault in the reasoning process will always be found.
Error #2: How is solipsism related to causation, you seem to assume that solipism implies causation.
Error #3: Assuming solipism is valid then there is no internal and external as there is no differentiation between the two domains so the "external" realm and the "internal" realm are actually the same realm. So you cannot refer to an "internal" cause.
Back to the OP:
Yet to avoid the pitfall of falling into nihilism when considering this it is very important to have a strong basis of compassion. Irrespective of these philosophical arguments we need to accept that people definitely appear to suffer and from that develop compassion. With this basis then it is much more beneficial to contemplate these issues. Looking into these ideas, without the grounding of compassion, especially when meditating, can cause one to deviate towards nihilism. Above we are talking about the logical pointing out of emptiness, and it is clearly stated that a correct understanding of emptiness can only exist with a corresponding understanding of compassion.
Another pointing out of compassion that I have hinted at earlier in a different thread can come out of this reasoning. The idea that "I am alone" is quite a scary thought if you seriously consider it, so imagine the kindness of all the sentient beings that appear to us to keep us company. Surely that is a unimaginable kindness that is being shown to us and that appreciation alone can generate a lot of compassion to these beings.
Of course this is only one way of looking at things, in the end its just another concept. Yet, if you feel something in this respect, it is a powerful concept and is used (I think) to underpin some of the most powerful meditative techniques like Zen/Chan, Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Vajrayana, just to name a few that I'm aware of.
Cheers, WK
No CW, all experiences are like an illusion. Not completely real and not completely unreal. The Tibetan Book of the Dead does not say that after life experience is more real. In fact in mahamudra, and I think in other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, they say that if you realise the unreality of the dying process then you will become liberated. In my limited understanding in this area, Nyingma practises related to the Tibetan Book of the Dead involve practising these experiences while alive, so that they can be recognised upon death, hence the real name of this book is something like "Liberation Through Hearing".
You might be referring to "ultimate reality" as true reality. You will find argument here based on different schools and the experiences of individual yogi/yogini as to whether such a thing is "real" or not. In the Tibetan area, something along the lines of Zhen Tong (other empty) and Rang Tong (self empty) though this terminology is not universally accepted.
Its all quite messy and a good reason to be a meditator and not a scholar
PS: Though being a scholar would be fun.
Cheers, WK
I believe it's reasonable to believe that a person's perceptions don't exist before they are born, so something needs to cause it.
Solipsism doesn't, empiricism does, as does logic. It's part of the first principles.
I can if there's a distinct separation between "thoughts" and "actions".
Heh heh heh, otherwise with your article I can see what you mean
1) "It" is all in "your" mind, and,
2) Your mind is all in your mind (self referencing)
3) From the POV of other beings "it" is also all in "their" mind,
4) from their POV "you" are in their mind.
So others have the same status as yourself, so its not so one-sided. Try to play with that with logic :eek:
Cheers, WK
Cheers, WK
The cypress tree in the courtyard?
First Principles of Logic
Identity. If it is true, then it is true; if it exists, then it exists.
Non-Contradiction. If it is true, then it cannot be false; if it exists, it cannot NOT exist.
Excluded Middle. A (singular, unity) concept cannot be somewhat true and somewhat false; a (singular, unity) thing cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.
Cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that is both necessary and sufficient.
Cogito (Descartes). Because I doubt my own doubt, it is true that I think; because I think (truth), I must exist (fact)
There are two issues to be considered. Self-reference, and ever rising systems.
Godel's Theorem is “A system of number theory cannot be consistent if it can validate itself; it requires validation at a higher level, a “meta-theory”, in order to be consistent. The metatheory requires a meta-meta-theory, and so on.
the hierarchical requirement places one in a position of potential fallacy: “I validate myself”. Or, “My postulate validates itself”. So the denial is actually an example of the undecidability propositions of Godel. Here are some “common sense” Godel exchanges:
Salesman: “I am honest”.
Me: “Why should I believe that?”
Salesman: “because I say so.”
The salesman has made a self-referenced, self-validated assertion. Is that good enough?
Salesman: “This data is valid.”
Me: “Why should I believe that?”
Salesman: “Because the data says so.”
Another self-referencing, self-validating assertion. Is it good enough? Is self-validation ever good enough to conclusively confirm the accuracy of an assertion? We intuit that the answer is “no”.
“And it [Godel’s 2nd theorem] has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.”
From Jones and Wilson; An Incomplete Education, on miskatonic.org
(BUT for an interesting twist, ask the question: “is Godel’s 2nd theorem hierarchically validated? Or did it validate itself? Or is it possibly immune to validation, as in a First Principle? Or maybe it is “undecidable” also? And if so, does that not allow for a release from paradox, by creating a different paradox?).
“It is not certain that everything is uncertain”.
Blaise Pascal
Heh.
Assuming that my meditative travels are not delusional whatsoever, I think I can safely say that the world is both a reality and a non-reality. It exists when you perceive it, it exists when you do not perceive it, but the non-reality is that you are part of this realm.
But you should not listen to me, or anyone else, and find, test, search for the truth yourself, only then can you believe it.
And if everyone is like you, the same applies all those times, a whole lifetime of experience in each human conscious that is not reality, along with a self which treats it as reality and thus really screws things up.
These srewups then getting blamed on some outside source, like muslims or chaos, so that we all invest everything in futile efforts.
And where you can hide your mischief, EVIL can hide its atrocities better, so evil is your responsibility as much as its own.