The part which bothers me is the "out there". Internal and external can easily be confused when comparing it to vague terms like "in here" and "out there". Internal are the sense bases the faculties; whereas external are the corresponding sense objects. This I guess, is clear for most of us, but I'm quite sure that one who thinks in terms of "in here" (inside of me or myself) and "out there" (outside of me or myself) would consider thoughts and ideas as internal, "in here" BUT according to the way the suttas describe the six sense media only the faculty of mind or intellect is considered internal, thoughts and ideas are external because they are the corresponding sense objects and not faculties. Thus a thought or an idea would have to be "out there" in the same way as any form, smell, taste and so on is "out there".Spiny Norman wrote:Yes, and as I've previously observed this distinction between internal and external is made repeatedly in the suttas.Sylvester wrote:How much more existential can one ask of the Buddha?Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.
Likewise for the other 5 bases - MN 28
So for one who says there is a real world out there in the same time has to accept that this real world out there not only consists of what is sensible via the five senses but also includes ideas and thoughts.
To view things like that is odd and in some way distorted to common sense, isn't it?
I prefer "internal and external" opposed to "in here, out there" but not understood in the way that my body or the skin is the border which separates what is internal and external but in the way the suttas define internal and external, namely internal are the sense bases, external the corresponding objects.reflection wrote:But one thing I think is worth saying is I think the distinction "world out there" versus "us in here" is strange. We are part of the world, so if anything the world is not just "out there", but just as much "in here". And in another way, all there is can only come into reality if it is experienced, so if there is no six senses, it makes no sense to speak about the world.
best wishes, acinteyyo