Dexing wrote:This point has been disagreed upon for over 20 pages. People have been saying it is totally wrong to say that external objects don't exist when you can obviously see, touch, hear, smell, and taste them.... which is the fundamental mistake- thinking you can see, hear, smell, and so on, external objects.
And so we are back full circle.
As your previous post explained very well...
"These "objects of consciousness" are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, flavors, tactile sensations and concepts based upon them. Therefore, the so-called "external objects" we refer to are interpretations of our sensations, not actual objects. It's very plain to see."
Nobody would dispute that what we conceptualise as "table" is not the reality of it, the concept contains a collection of characteristics, and components, and assumptions about it's uses that we roll up into the concept "table".
But to then say, as you appear to be in the above quote, that because of the above there is nothing there at all, there is just illusion, there is just figment of our imagination, the componants of the table don't exist, the characteristics don't exist, the matter doesn't exist, the conditions that cause our senses to perceive don't exist. Then yes, that would be a mistake.
At the end of the day "table" isn't the best example, one doesn't gain insight through understanding the nature of "table", one gains insight through understanding the nature of mind.