Re: Nothing exists outside the mind
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:20 am
Heh.. Never enough Berkeley! *__-John W. Kelly wrote: Too much Berkeley?
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Heh.. Never enough Berkeley! *__-John W. Kelly wrote: Too much Berkeley?
Thanks, I like this.effie wrote: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.
mtmynd1 wrote:Kake, who began this thread with... has not replied to anyone's reply since he began this thread.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.
Conclusion? We do not exist outside his mind.
My pleasure, anytime.kake wrote: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.
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.Subjectivity9 wrote: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.
So a very refined 'tool', why not start explaining the basic techniques first?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.
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.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.
Too me they are 'laying' a 'new' set to cover-up the 'cracks' in the first view.So like you say we are comparing our beliefs with what we actually see when looking directly at life and our own self.
I think we agree, apart from the bit the 'outside' is not 'objective' that is.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.
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.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.
Unfortunately it is.Eternity is not a word.
Perhaps my reply (beginning with; "'Big Bang' seems more illustrative than 'poof') in your "Touch your fingers" thread would be relevent here, also.kake wrote: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....
By definition of existence, everything exists. I think you need to grasp its meaning properly, you'll understand me.kake wrote: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.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.kake wrote: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.
nonsense unless you have very unusual eyeskake wrote:You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons.
yes so whenever you look at a chair you do not see it in its entirety you can always find out more about itapaosha wrote: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.