Nothing Exists

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Willamena
Like the people who emerged from Plato's cave, where there is no actual emergence from the cave if there is still a cave to emerge from, we are all blind men groping at an elephant, and "factual" is information that belongs to a universally verifiable, and firmly imagined, reality. That's a point I take away from the parable.

I knew I should not have used the term 'factual', since Western ideas about it are intellectually-oriented. But 'factual' can mean 'accurate', in the sense that an accurate picture of what an elephant is can only be determined when the entire elephant is taken into consideration. The analytical view of sensory perception, which looks at reality by scanning in bits, does not produce the desired picture. This, too, is the point of the parable: it suggests that a way other than analysis exists in order to determine the true nature of 'elephant', and it is the universal nature of reality that precedes knowledge of the individual facts surrounding it.

"Realization is an intense clarity of attentioon to that indefinable and immediate “point” of knowledge which is always “now”, and from which all other knowledge is elaborated by reflective thought.l A consciousness of “life” in which the mind is not trying to grasp or define what it knows."
Alan Watts


What you are not taking into account is that the act of 'blind men groping for an elephant' is actually about the nature of True Reality, since it is the desire to know it. The short way of stating this is to say: "That which you are seeking is causing you to seek". You need to look into the background against which this parable is being told.

An excellent take on the parable, thank you.

But there's no lesson to be had, there, then. I firmly believe that such a parable, if it is about our own fallibility or our own imperfection in the face of perfection, just reinforces what we already believe. It is not the Buddha Dharma (as the elephant tale--pun intended--is sometimes given to be). It doesn't reflect, hence teach, a healthy non-dual image of the world.

How can it possibly reinforce entrenched beliefs, if it is actually illuminating the inherent flaw in such beliefs? Besides, 'a fool in his folly eventually becomes wise'. Again, that which is the illumination is what you should be paying attention to, and that, again, is the background. The blind men are utilizing what is known as Spotlight Attention, when it is Floodlight Attention that is required.

It reinforces entrenched beliefs if a more profound take is on the parable is not given (or taken). The picture of a spotlit reality itself is not profound. The image of us "flawed" is not profound. That the belief of a reality "beyond perception" is causing to you to seek it, is profound.

It is my understanding that the TRUE NATURE OF THE PHENOMENAL WORLD that the mystic realizes beyond maya is the simple truth of the (one, undivided) world. "First enlightenment. Then the laundry."* Mysticism can promote duality or non-duality, and if it promotes duality, it invokes in me skepticism about both "facade" and "seeing clearly."

"Little doubt, little enlightenment; great doubt, great enlightenment".

You see, you must go beyond the rational, thinking mind. Mysticism does'nt 'promote' anything. It merely sees things as they are. Any such 'promotion' is a function of what the mind is still attached to, which results in seeing things the way we preconceive them to be.

If you are certain about your beliefs via dogma, then what is necessary is the introduction of doubt/skepticism as a first step toward a clear view. But true certainty comes only after a transformation of the mind wherein all doubt vanishes. The understanding that results is not the understanding that comes via the rational mind. It is not about thinking, but about seeing.

re: 'phenomenal world': "The universe IS the Absolute seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Swami Vivekenanda

Something to think about, thank you.

 

[work in progress]

Your premise seems to be that the brain is the source, and all conscious activity must be seen in terms of the brain.

I have many issues with the mystical escape route to finding objective reality. The first would be that most of what we do is not the product of conscious activity in the first place, but is instead brain functioning and even decision-making done without our conscious awareness. Added to that, is the issue of embodied cognition. We cannot be conscious with just the activity in the cortex areas of the brain; we also depend on the bundle of nerves in the body sending feedback, along with neurochemical information to the brain. Our conscious thinking, memories, emotions are all products of very physical activities, so the idea that we have a consciousness without them, especially that will continue on our consciousness after the body dies, doesn't make any sense in light of modern discoveries about the brain and consciousness.

But in the mystical experience, that is not so. In the kundalini experience, for example, the center of consciousness begins at the base of the spine, and when awakened, the powerful energy dormant there travels up the spinal cord and illumines the cranium. This is the Enlightenment experience, simply put. So while the brain is involved, it is not the originating source of the experience, just a part of the overall experience. Kundalini energy awakens the brain and transforms it into a super-conductor. The ordinary thinking brain that you are referring to is transformed by energies released via meditation, not thinking. Meditation is not thinking.

Please see here for information that joins science with the mystical experience, esp. see the info on kundalini and the brain:

New Brain - New Worldhttp://www.newbrainnewworld.com/?New_Brain_-_New_World

http://www.newbrainnewworld.com/?New_Brain_-_New_World

That is an ancient interpretation of how this would work, but once again, I can see how the experience could involve the brain and nervous system of the body, but there is no justification for declaring that these are just receptors of some enlightened experience, rather than the creators of the experience.

I noticed that your source is a little misleading, because the two researchers are not actual neuroscientists, although their biographies would lead to that interpretation. Just because a psychologist has worked with neuroscientists and understands the basics of brain-scanning machinery doesn't make him one. And what is a "neuro-therapist" exactly? Regardless, one of their headings touches on the use of the mind-altering drug - Ayahuasca. The fact that chemicals are able to alter the mind in the first place, was one of the reasons why early Greek philosophers realized there was a problem with the dualist belief that the mind was something immaterial, but in control of the body. There was a quote from one of them that goes something like: 'if I drink too much wine, does my soul also get drunk?' An amazing incite for the time certainly.

But, speaking of Ayahuasca -- I recall a recent interview on NPR with an anthropologist who works in the Amazon and has tried the powerful hallucinogen. He stated that a tribe deep in the Amazon, which he had spent some time with, believes that the drug allows them to hear the plants and animals "talking" to them.

That wouldn't be worth noting on its own, except for the fact that these people survive and find food in what is about the most hazardous and dangerous environment imaginable. They have to negotiate poisonous plants; poisonous snakes; poisonous insects; predatory piranha fish every day and survive. The environment is so heavily forested that it is claustrophobic to an outsider, with no sunlight getting through; no horizon or other features which give us our bearings, and there are so many thousands of plants and insects that are still being discovered, a story that the plants are talking to them, takes on a little more serious consideration. If there is evidence of telepathic communication or that minds extend out of bodies, it would come from trying to find ways to research such claims. I hope it could happen while the rainforest in the Amazon is still with us!

The mystical experience is not some weird, other-worldly zaniness. If anything, our 'normal' experience of 'reality' is the oddity, since it is filled with insanity of every stripe, on a daily basis. It is, in fact, the pursuit of that which is not real, of the imaginary, of the future, at the expense of the real that is inherent in the Present. What the mystical experience does is to bring our attention back on to the reality of the Present, and in so doing, to the ordinary and everyday. Therefore, the mystical, or the miraculous, is none other than the ordinary and everyday. In saying this, it is in keeping with the fact that reality is singular and seamless, ie, 'One'. It is, therefore, the 'real', while what we normally think of as reality is, in fact, a fiction of the highest order.

re: "escape from... brain function...":

Escape is not the goal here. Transcendence is. In the mystical experience, the brain becomes transformed in such a way as to utilize it to its maximum potential. A poor analogy is that it transforms a black and white, cut and dried view of reality into one of infinite color possibilities. It unlocks the brain's true potential. In other words, it frees us spiritually, mentally, and physically. Our ordinary conditioned mentality, set by social indoctrination, limits our potential, creating the world in conflict that we are now experiencing as a species, and to which we are also now awakening to.

A claim that everyday reality is the illusion, while the mystical experience is the real reality could be akin to looking through a telescope from the wrong end. I have no problem with accepting the value of mystical experience, but I need something a little concrete before I jump to accepting the next claim that they should be the basis of how I consider reality.

 

[work in progress]

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
Plutarch

heh..heh...just could'nt help responding to your signature. The question is:

what is it that is doing the kindlng but the mind itself!?

You have confirmed my assertion that the mind is a self-created principle.

Catch it if you can...LOL...

I like the quote from Plutarch, but it can also be understood as saying that learning should be exploring and developing ways of learning, rather than cramming student's heads with facts and figures.

 

[godnotgod]

A claim that everyday reality is the illusion, while the mystical experience is the real reality could be akin to looking through a telescope from the wrong end. I have no problem with accepting the value of mystical experience, but I need something a little concrete before I jump to accepting the next claim that they should be the basis of how I consider reality.

The mystical view is the direct experience of reality itself, not a system of thought about reality. It is akin to the fact of a round earth compared to the idea of a flat one.

The Tao te Ching states that: "He who rids himself of desire will see the Secret Essences; he who has never rid himself of desire will see only the Outcomes"

Here in a nutshell, we have the mystical view and the standard (conditioned) view of reality. All one need do is take a glance at the human condition to see the Outcomes of man having been driven by desire (karma-driven). This ordinary 'reality' is chaotic and out of harmony with our true nature, obviously. It comes as a result of pursuing lllusory goals, those goals being three: Security, Power, and Sensation. Most of mankind is involved with one or more of these pursuits on a daily basis, with disastrous results. These pursuits are not so much free choices, but addictions. But when man is way-driven rather than karma-driven, the results are clarity of mind, and therefore harmony and balance. So if everyday reality is illusory, then it follows that its pursuit would lead to an unfulfilled, empty end, which appears to be the case, in terms of the current world condition. If the condition that the mystical view leads to is real, we would expect to see fulfilled individuals, and that also seems to be the case, for the most part.

 

[godnotgod]

A claim that everyday reality is the illusion, while the mystical experience is the real reality could be akin to looking through a telescope from the wrong end.

What can you say about everyday reality that points to it being an authentic reality?

 

[godnotgod]

A claim that everyday reality is the illusion, while the mystical experience is the real reality could be akin to looking through a telescope from the wrong end. I have no problem with accepting the value of mystical experience, but I need something a little concrete before I jump to accepting the next claim that they should be the basis of how I consider reality.

According to you, the brain is not just the center of consciousness, but its source. Since you don't accept a view of reality that is beyond the machinations of the brain and its thinking functions, and since its functions are based upon sensory input from sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, then I shall assume that the current condition of the world is the outcome of how the brain interprets such sensory input and then acts upon it.

We know that the five senses can be unreliable sources of information.

When fueled by greed, desire, fear, and ulterior motives, the results can be disastrous, as evinced by current and historical world conditions.

Is this any better than the 3 blind men groping the elephant?

Can we call the outcomes of such pursuits 'reality', when they are essentially based on illusion?

The brain deals with what we call 'facts', based on logic and reason. But facts are not in themselves 'reality'. They are merely characteristics of reality. So it appears that logic and reason can only provide a superficial knowledge about the world, but unable to release its secrets in terms of the nature of reality. For that, could it be that another form of understanding come into play?



The five colors blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavors dull the taste.
Racing and hunting madden the mind.
Precious things lead one astray.

Therefore the sage is guided by what he feels*
and not by what he sees.
He lets go of that and chooses this.

Tao te Ching, Ch 12

*via of intuition, not sensory perception.

 

[godnotgod]

"Hara literally denotes the stomach and abdomen and the functions of digestion, absorption, and elimination connected with them. But it has parallel psychic1 and spiritual significance. According to Hindu and Buddhist yogic systems, there are a number of psychic centers in the body through which vital cosmic force or energy flows. Of the two such centers embraced within the hara, one is associated with the solar plexus, whose system of nerves governs the digestive processes and organs of elimination. Hara is thus a wellspring of vital psychic energies. Harada-roshi, one of the most celebrated Zen masters of his day, in urging his disciples to concentrate their mind’s eye (i.e., the attention, the summation point of the total being) in their hara, would declare: “You must realize”—i.e., make real—”that the center of the universe is the pit of your belly!

To facilitate his experience of this fundamental truth, the Zen novice is instructed to focus his mind constantly at the bottom of his hara (specifically, between the navel and the pelvis) and to radiate all mental and bodily activities from that region. With the body-mind’s equilibrium centered in the hara, gradually a seat of consciousness, a focus of vital energy, is established there which influences the entire organism.

That consciousness is by no means confined to the brain is shown by Lama Govinda, who writes as follows: “While, according to Western conceptions, the brain is the exclusive seat of consciousness, yogic experience shows that our brain-consciousness is only one among a number of possible forms of consciousness, and that these, according to their function and nature, can be localized or centered in various organs of the body. These ‘organs,’ which collect, transform, and distribute the forces flowing through them, are called cakras, or centers of force. From them radiate secondary streams of psychic force, comparable to the spokes of a wheel, the ribs of an umbrella, or the petals of a lotus. In other words, these cakras are the points in which psychic forces and bodily functions merge into each other or penetrate each other. They are the focal points in which cosmic and psychic energies crystallize into bodily qualities, and in which bodily qualities are dissolved or transmuted again into psychic forces.

Settling the body’s center of gravity below the navel, that is, establishing a center of consciousness in the hara, automatically relaxes tensions arising from the habitual hunching of the shoulders, straining of the neck, and squeezing in of the stomach. As this rigidity disappears, an enhanced vitality and new sense of freedom are experienced throughout the body and mind, which are felt more and more to be a unity.

Zazen (meditation) has clearly demonstrated that with the mind’s eye centered in the hara the proliferation of random ideas is diminished and the attainment of one-pointedness accelerated, since a plethora of blood from the head is drawn down to the abdomen, “cooling” the brain and soothing the autonomic nervous system. This in turn leads to a greater degree of mental and emotional stability. One who functions from his hara, therefore, is not easily disturbed. He is, moreover, able to act quickly and decisively in an emergency owing to the fact that his mind, anchored in his hara, does not waver.

With the mind in the hara, narrow and egocentric thinking is superseded by a broadness of outlook and a magnanimity of spirit. This is because thinking from the vital hara center, being free of mediation by the limited discursive intellect, is spontaneous and all embracing. Perception from the hara tends toward integration and unity rather than division and fragmentation. In short, it is thinking which sees things steadily and whole."


from The Three Pillars of Zen, by Philip Kapleau

The Hara: Seat of Enlightenment
*****

 

[Willamena]

What can you say about everyday reality that points to it being an authentic reality?

It's the only one we got.

 

[John Thiel]

I'm going to start right now trying out that yoga posture. I'd heard about it a long time ago and I'd forgotten about it, but now I find that it is the solution to many problems concerning existence and reality, right there in front of me had I but recalled it to mind.

 

[godnotgod]

It's the only one we got.

There is reality, then there are the Outcomes, which we call 'reality'. The Outcomes have come about due to deluded thinking. Had the thinking behind them been from enlightened minds, we would be seeing quite a different reality. To say that it is 'the only one we got' is only to recognize that we made the wrong choices, since life is a matter of preferences. We created the Outcomes and then choose to call them collectively 'reality', when true reality is quite a different matter. We have come to accept the Outcomes [of deluded thought] because we think we have no other choice. Apparently, such deluded thought has become hard-wired into our brains. We're just following old patterns of behavior which are now scripted, handed down from one generation to the next disguised as 'authority' and 'truth', except that, now and then, a few people come along and begin to question their veracity. Upon finding out that they are based on false premises, we realize the 'reality' we have been living all along is a complete sham.

So tell me more about this 'reality' which is 'the only one we got'. I don't buy it.

Next!:sorry1:

Having said all that, in one respect, you are correct, in the sense that True Reality and the deluded world we live in are One and the Same. The problem is not the world, but the way we perceive the world. Therefore, the mystic works to correct his vision, rather than correct the world.

So what has occurred to create such a deluded world? In the Hindu view [and I am not Hindu], the divine essence has become transfixed by its own creation/illusion/Maya, and has become lost within its maze. That is to say, the divine essence has forgotten that the character it is playing is not real; it has become so involved with it that it believes itself to be real. We call this state of mind 'Identification'. It is the Third Level of Consciousness, also known as 'Waking Sleep'. Sometimes the divine essence awakens within the dream, and realizes the fictional nature of the character he is acting out. I recall a lecture in which Deepak Chopra was challenged by a nuclear physicist, and Chopra responded by suggesting that the physicist was God pretending to be a nuclear physicist, LOL.

When we awaken, the character dissolves away, leaving the authentic Self, and all is still One, as it always has been, here, in this 'only reality we got', but fully awake within it, rather than merely being driven by it.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm going to start right now trying out that yoga posture. I'd heard about it a long time ago and I'd forgotten about it, but now I find that it is the solution to many problems concerning existence and reality, right there in front of me had I but recalled it to mind.

Get yourself a teacher.

 

[work in progress]

According to you, the brain is not just the center of consciousness, but its source. Since you don't accept a view of reality that is beyond the machinations of the brain and its thinking functions, and since its functions are based upon sensory input from sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, then I shall assume that the current condition of the world is the outcome of how the brain interprets such sensory input and then acts upon it.

That is just using muddled language to describe what the brain does...in cooperation with feedback from the body of course. The evidence for a materialist theory of mind started with the scientific approach taken to a brain-damaged railway worker - Phineas Gage, back in 1848. Gage survived an accidental explosion that drove a rail spike through the front part of his skull. He survived an operation to remove the rod, and further examination of him afterwards noted that, not only did he suffer expected physical complications from the injury (partial paralysis and headaches); there was also a progressive change in personality which left family and acquaintances of all sorts, saying that he was a totally different man a year later, and not the same person that they knew before the accident.

So, what does that tell us? Back in the mid-1850's, the brain was essentially a black box shrouded in mystery. But the doctors who examined Gage started theorizing that the front portion of the cortex was either the seat of consciousness, or essential to our personality and sense of self. In the following decades up till 30 years ago, most new knowledge from neuroscience was also gained from observing the mental conditions of injuries or alterations to various regions of the brain. In the last 30 years, brain-imaging technology has progressed to the point where mental properties can be correlated with specific regions of the brain in normal subjects. But, as Michael Gazzaniga, Antonio Damasio and other neuroscientists who work with philosophers say -- cognition is a layered system, where certain brain areas may be activated to perform a task, while a somewhat different set of neuron columns may be enlisted to perform the exact same task at a later time. To the neuroscientists like Gazzaniga, this means that memories, emotions, and other mental functions cannot be reduced to specific neurons. There are general regions of the brain which are required for certain tasks, but the exact combination or neurons used are not.

This leads most neuroscientists and many philosophers of mind, who work with them, favouring a theory of emergent mind. That mental states are equivalent to the software programming of a computer, while the neurons are equivalent (though far more complex) to the integrated circuits on the computer motherboard.

Solving the problem of understanding consciousness means discovering the hidden layer of processing that enlists the neurons to create the finished product that considers itself a unique, unified, individual mind, which is in control of a physical body. Damage to the brain = deficiencies in mental function, so complete damage to the brain at physical death means complete cessation of that individual consciousness. We know that the physical brain function is essential in creating the mind; the mystery is how it does it!

 

[godnotgod]

That is just using muddled language to describe what the brain does...in cooperation with feedback from the body of course.

...exactly what I said: that the brain interprets reality via of sensory perception, which are known to be faulty. It uses the information received by such perception, in conjunction with memory, to then act upon the outside world via logic, reason, analysis, discrimination, and moral judgment, the results of which are mostly unfavorable, as evinced by the current human condition. That is why I am saying that the brain is NOT the seat of consciousness, as it is seen in the West. There IS a means of attaining a view of reality that is a correct view, and that means is via the intuitive pathway, and NOT that of Reason via of the brain.

The evidence for a materialist theory of mind started with the scientific approach....

Actually, the materialist view goes back to pre-Buddhistic ancient India, as a response to the eternalist view.

This leads most neuroscientists and many philosophers of mind, who work with them, favouring a theory of emergent mind.

'Theory', not proven fact, but based on what? A leap of faith?

That mental states are equivalent to the software programming of a computer, while the neurons are equivalent (though far more complex) to the integrated circuits on the computer motherboard.

Since it was the brain that was used to invent computers and software, perhaps you mean that ic's are equivalent to neurons, and software is equivalent to mental states.

Solving the problem of understanding consciousness means discovering the hidden layer of processing that enlists the neurons to create the finished product that considers itself a unique, unified, individual mind, which is in control of a physical body. Damage to the brain = deficiencies in mental function, so complete damage to the brain at physical death means complete cessation of that individual consciousness. We know that the physical brain function is essential in creating the mind; the mystery is how it does it!

Sure. It does it by self-creation. It is an illusion. If you can quiet the thinking mind down far enough, and watch very, very closely, you will see it in action. But be alert, otherwise you will miss it in the flash of a nano-second.

You are jumping to conclusions in stating that:

"We know that the physical brain function is essential in creating the mind..."

We 'know' of no such thing. That is classic tail wagging the dog.

 

[godnotgod]

This leads most neuroscientists and many philosophers of mind, who work with them, favouring a theory of emergent mind....

Solving the problem of understanding consciousness means discovering the hidden layer of processing that enlists the neurons to create the finished product that considers itself a unique, unified, individual mind, which is in control of a physical body....

We know that the physical brain function is essential in creating the mind; the mystery is how it does it!

The problem with all of this reasoning is that it begins with the assumption that the 'mind' is something real, and then proceeds to attempt to show that all of the machinations of the brain are what produces it.

Where there exists the concept that a self separae from the world which then acts upon it in a subject/object relationship, the idea of mind is also self-conceived.

When it is realized that no such separation actually exists, the concept of 'mind' does not come into play. It is in this state that we realize our Oneness with Reality, and that we have never, even for one moment, been separated from it.

Imagine a wave on the ocean's surface, emerging out of the sea, and then returning to it. It is always part of the sea, and never for one second imagines itself a separate entity apart from the sea.

The problem is with the discriminating mind, which fragments reality into many 'things', a fragmentation which is held only in the imagination as conceptual thought.

There are numerous times in one's day when one is not conscious of a mind at work. One is just immersed in the reality one finds oneself in at the moment, without being self-conscious. Suddenly, one sponataneously jumps back into Identification, in which one refers to oneself as "I", and it is this "I" which thinks and has a mind. It is all an illusion, but one which we think to be real.

 

[godnotgod]

The Lost Pearl

The Yellow Emperor went wandering
To the north of the Red Water
To the Kwan Lun mountain.
He looked around
Over the edge of the world.
On the way home
He lost his night-colored pearl*.

He sent out Science to seek his pearl, and got nothing.
He sent Analysis to look for his pearl, and got nothing.
He sent out Logic to seek his pearl, and got nothing.
Then he asked Nothingness, and Nothingness had it!

The Yellow Emperor said:

“Strange, indeed: Nothingness
Who was not sent
Who did no work to find it
Had the night-colored pearl!”

from “The Way of Chuang Tzu,” trans Merton

(*Night-colored pearl: original nature; spiritual enlightenment)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nothing is important...for liberation....

Freedom is just another word for having nothing left to lose. - Kris Kristofferson.
.

 

[yoheisato]

It seems that everything is subjective. There is an objective reality, but it seems that we are living in a dream, and that dream is subjectivity. Subjectivity is the house, objectivity is the world, and we're all living in the house.

Sight is even subjective. The colours we see are just part of the human eye view at the light spectrum, non-humans that can see beyond black and white probably see things in different colour, some may have similar sight, but still it isn't objective.

Emotion, good and evil, perspective, sight, sometimes sound, etc. It's all just in our mind, how our mind interprets it. Yes, there is an objective reality, but basically our subjective mind hides us from it.

In my language, I call them subjective fact and objective truth. Like you said, we are practically living in our subjective world. Objective world is out there, but nearly inaccessible. Objective truth is like a polyhedron crystal, and we can only look at some sides of it which constitute subjective fact.

In my mind, these are examples of as close as we can get to objective truth:

Jack's green may not be the same as Jane's green. But when they see another colour, they can agree that it's not green. When they see green again, they can agree that they are seeing green again. Is this an objective truth?

We see a banana. We are actually seeing what our five senses project in our mind. In our mind, it looks like a banana. This is subjective fact. The objective truth out there may look like a piece of data which our five senses interpret as a banana. But maybe we can say that there is something (be it a piece of data or whatever) out there that we interpret as a banana. The statement that there is something being out there can be an accessible objective truth because five senses cannot interpret anything if there is no input.

Your pair of glasses is hanging on your forehead. You absolutely believe that you misplaced it somewhere, and do not suspect in the least that it is on your forehead (= subjective fact to the level of self-brainwashing). But you eventually do find it on your forehead. Here, maybe you are experiencing objective truth despite the perfect self-brainwashing.

 

[godnotgod]

In my language, I call them subjective fact and objective truth. Like you said, we are practically living in our subjective world. Objective world is out there, but nearly inaccessible. Objective truth is like a polyhedron crystal, and we can only look at some sides of it which constitute subjective fact.

In my mind, these are examples of as close as we can get to objective truth:

Jack's green may not be the same as Jane's green. But when they see another colour, they can agree that it's not green. When they see green again, they can agree that they are seeing green again. Is this an objective truth?

We see a banana. We are actually seeing what our five senses project in our mind. In our mind, it looks like a banana. This is subjective fact. The objective truth out there may look like a piece of data which our five senses interpret as a banana. But maybe we can say that there is something (be it a piece of data or whatever) out there that we interpret as a banana. The statement that there is something being out there can be an accessible objective truth because five senses cannot interpret anything if there is no input.

Your pair of glasses is hanging on your forehead. You absolutely believe that you misplaced it somewhere, and do not suspect in the least that it is on your forehead (= subjective fact to the level of self-brainwashing). But you eventually do find it on your forehead. Here, maybe you are experiencing objective truth despite the perfect self-brainwashing.

'Objectivity' and 'subjectivity' together (they are inseparable) comprise a dualistic view of reality. They are purely mental conceptual overlays, and do not actually exist in reality perse. The important thing here, is that each is the basis for the utilization of the other, though this may not be readily apparent to the rational mind, as they are normally conceived as being in opposition to one another, rather than complimentary. So we tend to think one isolates the other, but in actuality, each is absolutely essential to the other. One cannot possibly know what one alone is since the other is always necessarily it's reference. So nothing is purely objective nor subjective. Everything is a combination of both elements in balance, so that when seen in this way, one's dualistic view of reality becomes transformed so that it is now seen as seamless and singular, which is actually the case. The symbol for this holistic view is the Yin/Yang symbol, which embodies not just the two opposites, but their counterparts embedded within them. The two major elements are termed 'Major Yin and Major Yang' while their smaller embedded counterparts are termed 'Minor Yin and Minor Yang'.

​

Once this complimentary principle is understood, the approach to reality includes both elements, as action taken on behalf of one results in the other coming into play. So when the ordinary unenlightened mind sees them as contradictory, and takes action of one against the other, there will always be conflicting effects. This is especially true in moral issues, where some concept of The Good is seen as diametrically opposed to a concept of Evil. In adopting a concept of The Good, a concept of Evil is automatically created, which must now be opposed as dictated by the doctrine of The Good. But opposing Evil only makes Evil stronger. Hence:

'Resist not, Evil'

We can also see this illusory conflict in the current heated conflicts between 'Science' and 'Faith', where both are extreme views and out of balance with reality. Zen exemplifies the balance of the objective/subjective views in the statement:

"Though my heart is on fire, my eyes are as cold as dead ashes"

or in Jesus's statement:

"Be thou wise as serpents and harmless as doves"

So in dealing with object/subject, it should always be kept in mind that they constitute a singular balanced view, which is quite different than the ordinarily conflicting or polarized dualistic viewpoint.
*****

Master Shozan was addressing his students on the dualism of thought. Raising his staff he spoke, "If you call this a staff, you deny it's eternal truth; if you do not call it a staff, you deny it's present fact. What exactly do you call it then?"
*****

 

[yoheisato]

Dear godnotgod, thank you for your post which I extremely appreciate.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding my faith (LYS = Libraism by Yohei Sato) has the following basic concepts:

1. Two polar opposites possess the same value.
2. Two polar opposites are interdependent.
3. Two polar opposites are ultimately connected.

Whether it is in the shape of Ying Yang or in the shape of a libra (as in my case), I believe the two concepts are very similar. I am planning to study Ying Yang more to ascertain which shape makes the best representation of the idea, and adjust my faith if necessary.

Anyway, I am basically of the same opinion.

The place where we differ, I think, is that I do not consider science and faith to be Ying and Yang. I believe that science is one of religions. I do not intend to advertise my website, but for convenience's sake, let me refer to the page where I summarized my idea on this:
Lecture no. 7: General evaluation of existing major religions

Lately, I have been wondering if science as a religion teaches followers how to live. A jungle law, maybe...? LOL Sorry for the digression.

 

[godnotgod]

The place where we differ, I think, is that I do not consider science and faith to be Ying and Yang. I believe that science is one of religions.

Yes, and that is why I referred to the (seemng) conflict in quotes, as "Science and Religion". There are two modes, one might say. Science in actuality is a largely objective approach to the phenomenal world, (now having been upset by Quantum Mechanics with the Observer Effect), while Religion being that of a subjective nature. But in its perception, Science has indeed become a powerful doctrine for many, and actually, Religion has, for its practitioners, always been considered to be both objective and subjective Truth.

I do not intend to advertise my website, but for convenience's sake, let me refer to the page where I summarized my idea on this:
Lecture no. 7: General evaluation of existing major religions

On the contrary, thank you for the very interesting link. I will be spending some time there.

Lately, I have been wondering if science as a religion teaches followers how to live. A jungle law, maybe...? LOL Sorry for the digression.

No apology necessary. Science does not seem to dictate any particular way of life, but advocates seem to follow its queues via implication. Your reference to 'jungle law' seems to be the outcome in thought when a reductionist view is followed, where reality is 'nothing more than'. It does not see that there is a higher state of consciousness beyond that of adrenalin-induced 'fight or flight'.

In the East, Buddhism and Taoism are two views which have incorporated subjectivity and objectivity into a balanced view, where the one is always transformative of the other.

"Chop wood and carry water. How miraculous!"