PadmaVonSamba wrote:I don't think is contradictory to buddhist teachings to suggest that a conditional reality is experienced by the mind
OK. The conditional reality (requires a tongue) of saltiness is the experience of tasting salt.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:That would include atoms, which are not salty, and the vast space between the atoms (which I am just going to guess is not salty), coming together in cube form and in so doing so, melting ice and, in the mind, making pretzels taste better.
We don't experience atoms directly. This must be the grain of salt story.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:But if Nagarjuna had an electron microscope, he might have told you that since molecules are made of atoms, that ultimately molecules have no (are 'empty of') self-inherent existence either.
If Nagarjuna had an electron microscope, he would have thought it was an alien death ray machine and freaked out. Namdrol told me the molecules-are-atoms theory and I replied that atoms weren't salty. "Self-inherent existence" is a metaphysical Buddhist notion, a stellar concept with regards to our intuitive notion of self, a misplaced idea when projected onto shared perceptions. In my humble opinion of course.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:And, if one imposes the characteristic "unchaging" as a must-have quality for a self-existent entity (as buddhists are apt to do)then, since molecules can change, it would be argued from that premise that molecules, being subject to change, thus have no ultimate existence.
Yes. Impermanence captures most of this. "Ultimate existence" is an idea. "Regular existence" is real. The lifetime of a salt molecule is not forever but so what, now it is salt, deal with it. Deal with your salt, Padma. Sorry, it's getting late.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:I believe that one of the problems in a discussion of a 'mind-created reality' is that people think that Buddhism asserts that somehow an objective reality exists which is merely a figment of everybody's imagination, as though we just wished it into existence and it suddenly became a solid reality.
This is probably just a consequence of Buddhists talking about mind-created reality and shared illusions, nothing to lose sleep over.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:This is sort of like God creating the universe, except that we all get to be God.
Every view includes ethical implications. Separate topic please.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:I am not so sure that this is what Buddhists actually propose.
Well then let's just say so!
Personally, I would love a formulation that makes realism versus antirealism irrelevant. European Humanists do this rather elegantly. One's religious beliefs, whether one is theist or nontheist, is irrelevant. Their formulation of Humanism does not depend on these distinctions.
Beatzen wrote:I think we knew more 2500 years ago, particularly the average person not being so specialized in their knowlege for technical reasons. Ancient peoples were more well rounded than we are today. Even poor and illiterate people can comprehend the dharma in ways that highly learned people cannot.
Dude, you are a Romantic. Right on.
Beatzen wrote:Those mathematical formulas are nominal projections from the realm of the sixth consciousness.
No, I believe they are the result of extensive collaboration between physicists and mathematicians to find a best physical description of salt. It's a shared thing.
Beatzen wrote:They will never uncover the mechanics of the sensory apparatus/consciousness of experience.
But they do, Beatzen. I think the damn MRI machines can even read minds now. For simple thoughts like "screwdriver" or "salt shaker." Santa knows!
Now it is late.