here's what I saw at least, I hope this doesn't become repetative, but in order for me to respond, I think a quick review of the thread (for myself) is in order. these are snippets and only to be taken as such
ped said in the beginning
"Ultimate truth tells us that nothing exists independent of mind."
in which mm responded with a quote from plato..
"Anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence."
ped used the examples of coffee. he analysed it down the the molecules and then said this
"What if we removed just one carbon bond? Is this atom ortho-terphenyl? Of course it is not. It must follow then, that we can remove the rest of the carbon atoms, because none of them are themselves ortho-terphenyl. But before we even remove half of them, our molecule has disintegrated! Why is this happening? Because the existence of a molecule is a phenomona existing in dependence upon parts.
If a molecule, or any object were inherently existent, it must exist independently of it's parts. An object that exists in dependence upon parts can only exist inherently with the presence of an apprehending conciousness to assign it inherent existence. If we divide all the parts upon which an object is dependent, we find that there is no object remaining at all. This means that even the molecules, atoms, and energies which comprise our universe are not themselves inherently existent."
trendal then said "it may not be a "coffee cup" without my consciousness but it still would be a physical object (I think).
ped replied with
"I extended this demonstration into the realm of fundamental particles, including quarks, electrons and so forth. These supposed elementary particles exist in the same way as the conventional objects that we interact with: in dependence upon other phenomenon. For an object or elementary partical to have inherent physical existence, it must exist discretely and totally seperate of all other phenomena."
so what I gather from this is that in order for ideas and physical objects to exist, it must be seperate from everything else. the more we break things down, we only come up with smaller parts of a large puzzle.
alan stone's question cam up was
"So you view external stimuli as the mind's projection of received energy? A hologram created by the brain using neurological input?"
and ped said..
Something similar to this, yes. "Loud" and "Bright" are opinions, but we do not experience "Loud" and "Bright" as though we had an opinion of them. If somebody drops a vase and we hear a sound that disturbs us, we think "That was a very loud sound." But if we're at a rock concert and dissatisfied with the quality of the audio, even sounds many times greater in volume than a fallen vase may be dissatisfactory, and we may think "The sound is much too quiet." We experience either of these circumstances as though that's how they actually were, ignoring the reality that either of these are phenomena dependent upon a circumstantial basis.
the circumstantial basis is what I look at. this to me shows how our mind does in fact shape our own reality and this is how we experience.
i found this to be helpful to me as well
strumpling asked-
What has happened here? Has objective reality changed since the creator is no longer around? is that possible?
ped-
No, it is not possible. An objective reality must be an unchanging reality. Since there is no unchanging reality, there is no objective reality. Reality is entirely subjective.
ped mentioned the koan if the tree falls in the woods...
here's where I got stuck when ped said
"As I had said earlier: Existence serves as the condition upon which conciousness thrives, and conciousness serves as the condition upon which existence thrives.
We seem to have no qualms with the notion of removing concious subjects from the plain of existence, and imagining that existence would continue on into endless time. However, if we were to contemplate removing the existential plain from experiential conciousness, we encounter a thick and hazy fog. It is unfathomable. Why this double standard?
so now we come to a point where the mechanism or the way consciousness needs to be defined.
ped then says
"It is the self-grasping mind which encounters an object and informs us that it exists apart from us, that it has been "waiting" for us to encounter it. Boundries in space are equally as necessary in time if we are to perpetuate the deliciously seductive habit of self-grasping. Space and time too are dependent upon mind -- but not the self-grasping mind that we so readily identify with. Boundries and distinctions are what depend on the self-grasping mind. Dissolve the self-grasping mind, and we dissolve boundries and distinctions.
this is all in support for this...
"As ordinary human beings, our experience is mistaken because we hold two mistaken views:
1. The mistaken view that objects exist discretely from eachother.
2. The mistaken view that objects exist from their own side, discretely from the self.
These two mistaken views validate eachother. If our experience informs us that there are many unique physical entities existing upon a constant plain of space and time, then it follows that we are also a unique entity existing discretely among other unique entities. By the same token, if our experience informs us that we are a totally independent entity existing apart from all other objects, it follows that all of these objects must exist entirely apart from eachother.
If we were to reform either of these views, the other view must reorient itself to support our new experience. For example, if we were to reach an understanding that all phenomena are only nominally distinct and are entirely interconnected and interdependent, we would find ourselves in conflict with the view that we ourselves exist discretely, independently. This is logically detailed, step by step, with the following five points
"2. Through investigation, we discover that all phenomenon are dependent upon other phenomenon.
3. If all phenomenon are dependent upon other phenomenon, no observed phenomenon can be truly distinct.
4. By opposing the appearance of boundries between observed phenomenon, the consequence must be the dissolution of the boundries between self and other.
5. Therefore, if we conceive of boundries between self and other, the consequence must be the appearance of boundries between observed phenomena."
so there is a unity between all things...
which leads me to here mm
"If, through investigation, we obliterate the existence of objects through the application of various reasonings, yet continue to conceive of ourselves as inherently existent, we encounter the intellectual extreme which concludes nothing to exist at all. Though, if in conjunction with our investigation we continously conclude thruogh the same reasoning that objects cannot exist inherently, we must understand that there is an intimate relationship between the existence of an object and the presence of apprehending conciousness, an observer. This is the pivot upon which inherent existence and non-existence swing.
fianlly ped says
"phenomena existing in dependence upon basis of imputation, and therefore cannot inherently exist."
if this is so then how could there not be a god? is my reasoning flawed?
--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Spores for European Microscopy 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Frog 
muhurgle 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
jim_dewit
Anonymous
Fliquid
World Spirit
Shroomalicious
enotake2
