Is Objectivity the same as ultimate reality?

[Bub]

I'm uncertain if objective experience(or reality) is the same as ultimate reality and I'm uncertain if subjectivity is the same as conceptual reality. Do we see subjective experience the way it is (meaning without concepts), do we see objective experience the way it is (meaning without concepts) or both? By the way, are we supposed to see everything as if we were just born and so have not had time to put concepts on things(or something like that) and if so, are we supposed to "try to see" in this way? ..or what? Is this wrong view?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Bub,

Welcome to Dhamma Wheel.

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Metta,
Retro.

[Polar Bear]

All experience is subjective and 'ultimate reality' is just another concept within your subjective experience. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean?

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Edit: Retro beat me to it.

[retrofuturist]

Snap!



Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

I'm uncertain if objective experience(or reality) is the same as ultimate reality and I'm uncertain if subjectivity is the same as conceptual reality. Do we see subjective experience the way it is (meaning without concepts), do we see objective experience the way it is (meaning without concepts) or both? By the way, are we supposed to see everything as if we were just born and so have not had time to put concepts on things(or something like that) and if so, are we supposed to "try to see" in this way? ..or what? Is this wrong view?

Does this help?

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

[pegembara]

You will not know "ultimate" reality until you get deep enough into meditation.

The tadpole born in the water, grown up in the water. It only knows water. Actually, it doesn't know very much about water because it's just too close. It's got nothing to compare it with and thinks that's the whole world. It's only when the tadpole grows up and leaves that world, becomes the frog and goes to dry land. It's got that extra data to the world. It's only when you go to dry land that you know what wet means. Ajahn Brahm

"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[mikenz66]

I'm uncertain if objective experience(or reality) is the same as ultimate reality and I'm uncertain if subjectivity is the same as conceptual reality. Do we see subjective experience the way it is (meaning without concepts), do we see objective experience the way it is (meaning without concepts) or both? By the way, are we supposed to see everything as if we were just born and so have not had time to put concepts on things(or something like that) and if so, are we supposed to "try to see" in this way? ..or what? Is this wrong view?

Does this help?

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

Great example. Suttas such as this speak of seeing through the concepts (such as the concept of "I")... The phrase "ultimate reality" is rather unfortunate, in my view. What I think is being pointed to is the bare, irreducible, phenomena.


Mike