Did Buddha teach much on external world?
""'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."
"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."
'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."
"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology,""
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
""By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." [then it goes through DO] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
The above seems to refute certain ideas about the world. Furthermore the Buddha had this definition of the world:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling (comes to be); with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, becoming; with becoming as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world. [repeat the same for 5 other sense organ processess]
SN12.44 (4) The World BB Trans.
That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline.
SN35.116 (3) Going to the End of the World
Since the D.O. starts with ignorance and ends with "sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair" it appears that it relates to world as "world of experience" which is the only place where experience of Dukkha could ever occur. Dukkha that is not experienced and never experienced in anyway is not really relevant.
The famous Bahiya teaching also seems to teach a mode of emptiness where one stops short at sense data and doesn't imagine the storyline (which could serve as sign for lust or anger) beyond bare sense data
"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
What do you all think?