Nothing exists outside the mind

[nameless]

Too much Berkeley?

Heh.. Never enough Berkeley! *__-

[kake]

I haven't read the posts thoroughly,but I can tell you one thing: reality exists,no matter how we interpret it. A chair truly exists,either we interpret it as a solid wooden mass or as a bunch of electrons-it's just a matter of perspective. So everything exists outside the mind. On the other hand, what we perceive exists only inside the mind. So simple.
Don't confuse perception with reality,that's the most arrogant and crucial human mistake. We all are convinced that only what we know truly and objectively exists. However this opinion is constantly being proved wrong,especially by science, but we are too stubborn to get rid of it. That's exactly how mind works-it needs to be sure that it's effective and that it contains all the necessary information. In other words, it is engaged to form a total impression of a phenomenon even if it's based on few data. If you want to reach knowledge,you have to overcome this natural necessity. I know that what I wrote doesn't make any sense because it's been a while since I last wrote in English, but I just wanted to get it out of my system, so forgive me

Kennethamy,people DO see electrons. As a matter of fact,people that have recovered from innate blindness report that in the beginnig all that they can see is light. LAter they are TRAINED to see chairs,beds etc exactly like you and me. The only difference is that we were trained when we were really young,so we don't actually recall it.

Thanks, I like this.

[kake]

...

[kake]

Kake, who began this thread with

Nothing exists outside the mind.
Anybody want to contend?
I challenge anyone to show me that things actually exist. I'm not up for arguing a point, I'm up for finding truth.

... has not replied to anyone's reply since he began this thread.

Conclusion? We do not exist outside his mind.

I stopped posting for a while because I almost died. So, yeah that's pretty funny, but I'm not going to apologize for being gone for a while.

[kake]

Nameless, you sound familiar...

but if you give me a little bit of time,(weird expression), I like your replies and I'd like to discuss them with you.

[nameless]

Nameless, you sound familiar...

but if you give me a little bit of time,(weird expression), I like your replies and I'd like to discuss them with you.

My pleasure, anytime.
Welcome back.

[Arising_uk]

Even if a Jnana in the beginning is presupposing what he will find, that doesn’t change what is finally found, just as your presupposing that what is useful will turn out necessarily to be what in fact is useful. We all choose an imaginary goal in the beginning, and as we move towards this goal, it and we change.

Fair enough but since I think the definition of "useful" is that it is when trying to attain ones goals I think the necessarily is unnecessary as it'll be redundant if what is finally found is what one was aiming at in the first place.

Neti/Neti is a tool for eliminating everything that is finite from our mental field of vision in order to ferret out what is Eternal. Most people use Neti/Neti during meditation, at least at first.

So a very refined 'tool', why not start explaining the basic techniques first?

The reason for using Neti/Neti is because some people believe that there is a part of themselves that is Eternal, armed with the definition of both finitude and Eternity they begin to ask with is with of each thought and object that crosses there path. They are trying to get a handle on something that at first seems to large and too complex to figure out. They want to go from over-whelmed to under-whelmed, in other words to simplify.

Do they? I'd guess they've inherited this from what ever 'religion' they were brought-up in that they've now 'discarded'. BUt I agree that a 'simple' experience is to be sought.

So like you say we are comparing our beliefs with what we actually see when looking directly at life and our own self.

Too me they are 'laying' a 'new' set to cover-up the 'cracks' in the first view.

Outside of the mind is not an objective landscape. It is more like an intuition without words or pictures, but at the same time very real. It is full and satisfying in a way that had gone unnoticed previously.

I think we agree, apart from the bit the 'outside' is not 'objective' that is.

You cannot be too literal about the finger pointing. I don’t think Zen students literally look at the master’s finger. The finger represents words. We look at the words.

This is the difference as my 'eastern' upbringing is not of the sitting still variety but more of the moving about type. As such, 'looking at the masters finger' is likely to get a 'poke in the eye' so peripheral vision and a 'still' but attentive 'mind' is all. So the 'finger' represents intent but 'we' should 'look' at the source and where its currently pointing at.
I think I understand the Zen intent with respect to what words actually mean but think Wittgenstein does it better to these 'western' ears.

Eternity is not a word.

Unfortunately it is.
a_uk

[kake]

Nameless,...

By mind I meant perception. And the basic idea that I wanted to come to with this thread was, it's all in the head. I'm actually not saying nothing exists, but that nothing exists outside our perception and thought. We see the chair, so it's there. But if I don't see a chair because I don't understand the idea of a chair, like maybe a wild cat wouldn't, would the chair exist to me? No. Sure it does, I see chairs, I'm not stupid, but if I didn't see chairs(I'm a little surprised at the inability of all the "philosophers" on this forum to use their imagination) then what? No chairs. There is a misconception in most people's minds that there is some tiny particle that makes everything solid, and that misconception messes everything up. Most people believe that at the bottom of everything they see "outside", there is a base particle and because of this they are seperate "things" from everything they see "outside". I don't like this. Hence the point of this thread. So basically, we agree...as far as I know. Any thoughts?

[nameless]

Nameless,...

By mind I meant perception. And the basic idea that I wanted to come to with this thread was, it's all in the head....

Perhaps my reply (beginning with; "'Big Bang' seems more illustrative than 'poof') in your "Touch your fingers" thread would be relevent here, also.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It doesn't. Sad but true. Nothing exists outside our mind.

[apaosha]

Any knowledge of a reality outside the mind is based on perception, but because of this there is the possibility that that perception is deceitful, in terms of the solipsistic position.

Some thought should be given to the question that if this is the case, what produces consciousness and perception and why they are the subject of deceit. In this case the mind would float in a void being fed false sensory data by it's senses... so there is interaction between the 2: the mind receives data from an outside source and the actions the mind takes affect the data it receives leading it to assume that the universe is in reality as it appears.

But by occam's razor solipsism is nonsense and it does not explain why the senses exist to deceive the mind.

[lucem ferre]

Anybody want to contend?

I challenge anyone to show me that things actually exist. I'm not up for arguing a point, I'm up for finding truth.

By definition of existence, everything exists. I think you need to grasp its meaning properly, you'll understand me.

For example, show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons. The chair doesn't exist but in our head. Hell, the electrons don't even exist. There is no base particle so really nothing exists but movement, and the mind's attempt to hold that movement still and make a structure out of it.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
Lol... billions of electrons? Really? Lol
How can the chair possibly not exist? In fact that is a contradiction. What I call a chair was interpreted by whatever is in your brain that imagines it as electrons. That matter or group of matter(s) (to you) is present, that is why it could be physically referred to.
And the presence of something makes it existent, isnt it? Even if it is in the mind; It doesn't make it non-existent it only gives existence a different category.
How can it not exist at thesame time?
The knowledge of what the object is called is the only subjective fact but, the presence (existence) of the object itself is objective. Argumentum ad populum has to pardon me for this because, I stongly go with the other 99% of humans who thinks it's a chair and it exists.

I'm probably confusing myself the more because I'm trying to extend the analogy to an extent it shouldn't even get close to.

I am not arguing with what your brain sees a chair as, I couldn't, I'm just saying the fact that you even called it something makes it 100% existent.

So I say it again, "Everything exists"

[Kayla]

You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons.

nonsense unless you have very unusual eyes

you see a chair

not an image of a chair or a representation of a chair but an actual chair

[Kayla]

Any knowledge of a reality outside the mind is based on perception, but because of this there is the possibility that that perception is deceitful, in terms of the solipsistic position.

yes so whenever you look at a chair you do not see it in its entirety you can always find out more about it

this is a pretty trivial point

[vegetariantaxidermy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngieHWZXcM