Author Topic: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe  (Read 302 times)

Offline Gabriel

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2017, 05:32:57 am »
Quote
objects do not exists and we create our world (this and next) with our mind.


Our perception of the object is the subject, not the object. Things, thoughts, beings, all inter-are. We incorrectly perceive something and we add a nature to it that without skillful insight is inherently false and that addition is more a reflection of us than a trait of the object. But the object is in no way "exists" based on our perception, it exits either way, perceivable on the one hand as it is, on the other hand as we perceive it.

We recently discussed the state of Nirvana in another thread and weather or not it is a state of mind. http://www.freesangha.com/forums/general-buddhism-discussion/is-nirvana-just-a-different-state-of-mind/msg90515/?topicseen#new

Since realizing Nirvana is a central goal you should check the topic out in regards to the creation of the next world with the mind. I believe I took one of the answers like a brick to the face and have spent some time and will spend more meditating on it maybe a long time relatively speaking.   

Academic understanding of Buddhism is not a bad thing, but I invite you to to test the more personal teachings of the Buddha and look into the four noble truths, the eight-fold path, and the ways in which he taught the cessation of suffering and disenchantment with passion. Understanding Matter and energy are wonderful things, and they have lead to medicine and helped humanity in many ways, they have also hurt us in others, but peace is always a worthy goal.  :twocents:


Through meditation i come to the conclusion that everything is empty or void, because when you think about it, everything made of smaller and smaller particles, at some point, that process must stop, which means, root of every object is void. But still, that doesn't change the fact that they somehow exist and persist at their state.


You move an object (or someone else does) and that object stays in that exact way as long as something or someone doesn't change it again.


There is really no such thing as an unchanging object, and it is more accurate to talk about processes, rather than things - ultimately one huge process, aka the universe.  So at all scales ( sub-atomic, human and cosmic ) there is perpetual change and movement.


Lets talk about technological gadgets, such as smart phones. A company builds like a billion of them and all of them have the same specific properties no matter who uses them. I will get the phone and measure it, use it, it will not be different than the experience of the person who uses the same phone at the other side of the world. We will both experience the same thing ( what we feel about it of course can change but our feelings doesn't change the reality of the object)

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2029
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2017, 08:53:00 am »
Through meditation i come to the conclusion that everything is empty or void, because when you think about it, everything made of smaller and smaller particles, at some point, that process must stop, which means, root of every object is void. But still, that doesn't change the fact that they somehow exist and persist at their state.
When something 'somehow' exists it does not exist. Why? Because it 'somehow' exists.  :fu:

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2017, 11:39:54 am »
Through meditation i come to the conclusion that everything is empty or void, because when you think about it, everything made of smaller and smaller particles, at some point, that process must stop, which means, root of every object is void. But still, that doesn't change the fact that they somehow exist and persist at their state.

"Void" means a thing is void of self rather void of "thingness".


Lets talk about technological gadgets, such as smart phones. A company builds like a billion of them and all of them have the same specific properties no matter who uses them. I will get the phone and measure it, use it, it will not be different than the experience of the person who uses the same phone at the other side of the world. We will both experience the same thing ( what we feel about it of course can change but our feelings doesn't change the reality of the object)

My phone is always playing up & breaking down. Plus I have dropped it a few times & it has many cracks in the glass.

Offline VincentRJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2017, 06:36:00 pm »
I would suggest that the problem here is that our modern, scientific understanding of the nature of matter and energy in terms of atoms, molecules, photons, gravity, the electromagnetic spectrum, and so on, simply didn't exist during the times of the Buddha.
In ancient Greece and ancient India, the basic elements of matter were described in terms of 'Air, Earth, Fire, Water, and Aether (or Void).


Perhaps, although I don't think the ancient concept of elements is all that different from the more modern concept of atoms.  Also Buddhism has a fairly "modern" view of the elements, as for example in the Phena Sutta, where form is described as a glob of foam:

"Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html


This example you've quoted tends to confirm my point, Spiny. Globs of foam, areas of mist or fog in the air, and so on, appear to be empty of substance because people in those times did not have the technology and understanding to enable them to detect the very tiny substances which are the cause of the foam or fog.

Imagine applying the same argument used in your quote, to a similar situation of smog and air pollution at its worst, in certain cities in India and China, for example. We now know that such smog contains very tiny particles of carbon that are invisible to the naked eye, but are clearly visible through a microscope. We also know that surrounding and attached to such particles are various noxious chemicals such as oxides of Sulphur and Nitrogen, and poisonous heavy metals.

The effects of these substances which comprise the smog, can be harmful to the health, especially for people who already have some lung problem, such as asthma. Do you dispute this? Does it make sense to claim such 'blobs' have no substance?

Here is your quote again, which I've modified using a different example.  :wink1:


Quote
"Monks, suppose that a large mass of smog were floating in the air in the city of Varanasi, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mass of smog? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?"


Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2029
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2017, 09:29:11 pm »
Through meditation i come to the conclusion that everything is empty or void, because when you think about it, everything made of smaller and smaller particles, at some point, that process must stop, which means, root of every object is void. But still, that doesn't change the fact that they somehow exist and persist at their state.

"Void" means a thing is void of self rather void of "thingness".
But it is the alleged thing that is proven to only 'somehow' exist by means of the rational analysis applied here. If the phenomenon under analysis would be the self and that self would not be found then you would be right but the phenomenon under analysis here is the thing as whole determinate object.  :fu:
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:33:23 pm by ground »

Offline VincentRJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2017, 11:20:40 pm »
The 'self' of a person is the totality of the person's emotional experiences, reactions, behaviour and thoughts from birth to death.

We therefore cannot identify a 'self' in one moment of time, just as we cannot identify a change in climate in one moment of time.

I think the analogy of associating 'climate' with 'self' is appropriate. We experience weather events at any particular point in time. But weather is not climate. Climate is an average of weather events over a significant period of time. Likewise, 'Self' is an average of emotional states, reactions and behaviour over a significant period of time.

The term 'climate' is a construct of the human imagination. It's a calculation. Likewise, the term 'self' is a construct of the human imagination. However, it can be quantified through an analysis, or many analyses over a period of time, of the human brain using fMRI scans, just like 'climate' can be quantified by analyses of weather events over a period of time.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal