Is there a real world out there?...

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by acinteyyo »

Spiny Norman wrote:
Sylvester wrote:
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
How much more existential can one ask of the Buddha?
Yes, and as I've previously observed this distinction between internal and external is made repeatedly in the suttas.
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".

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?
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.
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.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by kirk5a »

chownah wrote:Spiny Norman:
Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.
chownah:
There is absolutely no way to know.
kirk5a:
Sure there is. Just reject the skeptic's warped view of knowledge.
.....................
kirk5a,
Let's discuss light as being the sense object associated with the eye. A photon (particle) of light which acts as a sense object enters the eye and interacts with the sensitive part of the eye and along with eye consciousness produces contact. It seems that you are saying that the photon continues to exist after the perception it took part in has ceased....but what is happening from a worldly view is that the photon has been absorbed by an electron causing the electron's energy level to increase and the photon just disappears and no longer exists....in other words the photon of light actually ceases to exist after it is perceived.....seems to disagree with your view.
chownah
Your answer accepts that photons and eyeballs are real. I didn't say anything about permanence.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by Spiny Norman »

acinteyyo wrote: 1......the skin is the border which separates what is internal and external...
2......the way the suttas define internal and external, namely internal are the sense bases, external the corresponding objects.
I'm not sure I see the difference between 1 and 2.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by chownah »

kirk5a wrote:
chownah wrote:Spiny Norman:
Are sense objects objectively real? Do they continue to exist while we're not perceiving them? Philosophically I think "real" would equate to realism.
chownah:
There is absolutely no way to know.
kirk5a:
Sure there is. Just reject the skeptic's warped view of knowledge.
.....................
kirk5a,
Let's discuss light as being the sense object associated with the eye. A photon (particle) of light which acts as a sense object enters the eye and interacts with the sensitive part of the eye and along with eye consciousness produces contact. It seems that you are saying that the photon continues to exist after the perception it took part in has ceased....but what is happening from a worldly view is that the photon has been absorbed by an electron causing the electron's energy level to increase and the photon just disappears and no longer exists....in other words the photon of light actually ceases to exist after it is perceived.....seems to disagree with your view.
chownah
Your answer accepts that photons and eyeballs are real. I didn't say anything about permanence.
You are quite right....I really should have addressed this last post of mine to Spiny Norman since he is actually the one who asked if sense objects continue to exist while we are not perceiving them....and I should not have said it disagrees with his views, I should have said that I think that this answers his question at least for the sense objects associated with the eye.

Spiny Norman,
What do you say, does my description of the photon help to answer your question about sense objects and whether they persist when we are not perceiving them?
chownah
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by binocular »

Spiny Norman wrote:
binocular wrote:How can one practice metta if one believes that others don't really exist or don't matter??
Yes indeed, and why would one bother if one was operating with those assumptions?
Several possible factors:
- Taking pride in one's spiritual practice.
- Emotional blackmail, attempt to control others by declaring one has metta or karuna for them.
- Genuinely not noticing that there may be a contradiction between the belief that beings don't "really" exist, and the belief that one ought to practice the brahmaviharas.
- Pathological or traumatic tendencies.


I know of one religious doctrine (that of Gaudya Vaishanvism, which is a branch of Hindu theism and they declare the existence of atta) where they specifically point out that there is such a thing as "fear of being a person," "fear of being an individual" (and that this fear is one of the obstacles that a person must overcome in the course of realizing proper God consciousness).
I think they have a good point. How many people who embrace the no-ontological-self doctrine do so because they are afraid of being persons?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by binocular »

acinteyyo wrote: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".

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 think it's distorted only to Western common sense.

Which I think is essential for understanding the problem at hand.


Edited for tags.
Last edited by binocular on Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by binocular »

reflection wrote:Earlier I said I think it doesn't matter what's real. 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".
It cannot possibly be "just as much."
If what you're saying would be true, you could eat, and all the poor hungry Africans would be fed. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.

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.
For an individual, yes: And in another way, all there is can only come into reality for the individual if it is experienced by the individual, so if there is no six senses, it makes no sense to speak about the world

But to say that the Buddha, or Mt. Everest etc. do not exist unless there is someone to experience them - that the falling tree in the forest makes no sound if there is noone to hear it - that ventures into the absurd.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by reflection »

Hi binocular,

I think you are putting up some straw men, probably not deliberately, but to me being not clear enough. But the points you are addressing are not what I was arguing. As I said, I don't really care what's real or not, so what followed was mostly out of a practical point of view, not making a definitive statement about reality.

acinteyyo already more or less explained it further. When we ask "is there a real world out there", the question implies there is thus a "me" in here, a separation between "out" and "in". A great example was the mind sense. Thoughts and emotions, are they "in here" or "out there"? Or take optical illusions. What we see in those illusions is not really "out there", but it is also not really correct to say it is "in here".

So in my experience it is better to let go of this distinction and look at experiences as they occur without wondering if they are based on an "outside world" or not. If anything, logically, you are never going able to prove it. It's like trying to see the inside of your eye.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by binocular »

reflection wrote:I think you are putting up some straw men, probably not deliberately, but to me being not clear enough. But the points you are addressing are not what I was arguing. As I said, I don't really care what's real or not, so what followed was mostly out of a practical point of view, not making a definitive statement about reality.
I think there is a thin line between a practical statement and a metaphysical statement.
While a good case can be made for "skillful means" (that include even lying), I think there is a limit to the use of such "skillful means". At some point, a practical statement is a metaphysical statement. One's practice cannot be totally divorced from one's metaphysics. One can say that the end justifies the means; but sometimes, the means one uses simply do not lead to the intended end.

So in my experience it is better to let go of this distinction and look at experiences as they occur without wondering if they are based on an "outside world" or not. If anything, logically, you are never going able to prove it. It's like trying to see the inside of your eye.
Before one can let go of this distinction, one has to clarify what one means by it to begin with. Hence discussion/discernment is necessary. Forcibly shutting it down, without looking into what one actually means by the problematic terms - that sounds like a recipe for confusion and trouble down the line.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by reflection »

binocular wrote:
reflection wrote:I think you are putting up some straw men, probably not deliberately, but to me being not clear enough. But the points you are addressing are not what I was arguing. As I said, I don't really care what's real or not, so what followed was mostly out of a practical point of view, not making a definitive statement about reality.
I think there is a thin line between a practical statement and a metaphysical statement.
While a good case can be made for "skillful means" (that include even lying), I think there is a limit to the use of such "skillful means". At some point, a practical statement is a metaphysical statement. One's practice cannot be totally divorced from one's metaphysics. One can say that the end justifies the means; but sometimes, the means one uses simply do not lead to the intended end.

So in my experience it is better to let go of this distinction and look at experiences as they occur without wondering if they are based on an "outside world" or not. If anything, logically, you are never going able to prove it. It's like trying to see the inside of your eye.
Before one can let go of this distinction, one has to clarify what one means by it to begin with. Hence discussion/discernment is necessary. Forcibly shutting it down, without looking into what one actually means by the problematic terms - that sounds like a recipe for confusion and trouble down the line.
Sure, you are right. I have some ideas that shape my practice. But your analogies of the Africans or the falling trees were way more metaphysical and set in stone than I was intending to be. I hope that's cleared up now.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by acinteyyo »

binocular wrote:
reflection wrote:Earlier I said I think it doesn't matter what's real. 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".
It cannot possibly be "just as much."
If what you're saying would be true, you could eat, and all the poor hungry Africans would be fed. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.
Come on binocular, this analogy is nonsense. The total of our experience through the six sense media is the all or the world. This is the frame of reference in order to understand each other. Then even what is perceived as "out there" or "in here" is nothing else but an experience and thus, what reflection was trying to point out, any experience may it be "in here" or "out there" happens within the world (loka). So "out there" is just as much "in here" as well as "in here" is just as much "out there" with reference to the world.
binocular wrote:
reflection wrote: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.
For an individual, yes: And in another way, all there is can only come into reality for the individual if it is experienced by the individual, so if there is no six senses, it makes no sense to speak about the world
But to say that the Buddha, or Mt. Everest etc. do not exist unless there is someone to experience them - that the falling tree in the forest makes no sound if there is noone to hear it - that ventures into the absurd.
And to say that the Buddha, or Mt. Everest etc. do exist although there's no one there to experience them - that the falling tree in the forest makes a sound if there is no one to hear it - that also ventures into the absurd.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by acinteyyo »

Spiny Norman wrote:
acinteyyo wrote: 1......the skin is the border which separates what is internal and external...
2......the way the suttas define internal and external, namely internal are the sense bases, external the corresponding objects.
I'm not sure I see the difference between 1 and 2.
I made the distinction above because I suppose that many people consider their thoughts and ideas as being part of their "inner" world, so to say they're thoughts and ideas are "in here" and not "out there" in the external world. So for them the border between what is internal and external is their own body or better what they consider as themselves. What "I am" opposed to what "I am not". Here the reference for what is internal or external is what one considers as him or herself. This would be the understanding of example 1.

But the suttas describe what is internal and external with reference to the world differently. Internal are the sensebases and external are the corresponding sense objects.
mn148 wrote:"'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. 'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the first sextet.

"'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the idea-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet.
My eye is external but sight is internal,
my ear is external but hearing is internal,
my nose is external but olfaction is internal,
my tongue is external but taste is internal,
my body is external but sense of touch is internal
and my thoughts and ideas are external but my mind is internal.
It's not brain external, mind internal! (dhammāyatanaṃ is external and manāyatanaṃ is internal)
Here the reference for what is internal or external is the world (loka) and the world is the six-sense media. This would be the understanding of example 2.

There is another Sutta (MN28 - Maha-hatthipadopama Sutta) where the Buddha talks about internal and external with reference to the four great elements (mahābhūta).
Here the border between internal and external with reference to the four great elements is in fact what is this or inside of this body and what is outside of this body. But both what is internal or external with reference to the four great elements is just the four great elements. Still the reference for what is internal or external is not what "I am" opposed to what "I am not" but what is this body and what is not this body.

Imho it's important not to mix up these two ways of talking about internal and external. One is with reference to the world and the other is with reference to the four great elements.
The most important thing to understand is that this all is not in any way about a real existing world in or out anywhere but that we usually make a distinction between what "I am" and what "I am not", i.e. a view of my-self and the rest of the world "out there".

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by Spiny Norman »

acinteyyo wrote:
mn148 wrote:"'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. 'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the first sextet.

"'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the idea-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet.
My eye is external but sight is internal,
my ear is external but hearing is internal,
my nose is external but olfaction is internal,
my tongue is external but taste is internal,
my body is external but sense of touch is internal
, acinteyyo
I'm not following you here, acinteyyo. Aren't the eye, ear etc internal, and the sense objects - form, sound etc - external?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by acinteyyo »

Spiny Norman wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:
mn148 wrote:"'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. 'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the first sextet.

"'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the idea-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet.
My eye is external but sight is internal,
my ear is external but hearing is internal,
my nose is external but olfaction is internal,
my tongue is external but taste is internal,
my body is external but sense of touch is internal
, acinteyyo
I'm not following you here, acinteyyo. Aren't the eye, ear etc internal, and the sense objects - form, sound etc - external?
Yes they are. I now see that what I wrote can easily be misunderstood.
Above I tried to point out that my actual eye as being form (rupa) is external while the faculty of seeing (the eye as sense-base) itself is internal. My intention in this particular example is to make clear that this body ("my" body) is external while the senses hosted by this body are what actually is internal. The same applies for the other senses. I also structured it that way because I want to make clear that ideas and thoughts are external, too. In order to point out that one from the point of view "there is a real world out there" has to accept that his ideas and thoughts are "out there" if he or she equates internal/external with in here/out there and still wants to be in line with the suttas.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is there a real world out there?...

Post by SarathW »

§ 190. These four things are real, not unreal, not other than what they seem. Which four?

'This is stress,' is real, not unreal, not other than what it seems. 'This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is real, not unreal, not other than what it seems.

These are the four things that are real, not unreal, not other than what they seem.

Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'

— SN 56.20
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... part3.html
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply