Does anyone have an experience of visions of the future?

[asunthatneversets]

...coz you have you are day dreaming about a bizarre theory of non-existence without perception,

It isn't a bizarre theory, it's pretty self-evident if you look at it empirically. What you are directly experiencing is all that is, there is only this present moment which is the sum total of what is presently happening.

You can claim that something is happening elsewhere, that things exist without your perception, but you can never prove it, it's a story, a very believable story, but still only a story. I understand that what I'm saying sounds ridiculous and bizarre, but I assure you I am not some fool who is blindly adopting some extreme view without having investigated it thoroughly.

and the car runs over your ass and perception (via bodily feeling/sensation of intense pain) suddenly makes the car existent for you, well you may stop and think how silly your theory really is (if you are not dead).

Isn't that prime example of the car's absence in experience prior to the arising of the expressions which convey "car"(i.e. intense pain)? One can tentatively say the car is indeed composed of sensation(though sensation is a misnomer). So the appearance of those sensations in experience(which IS experience) then makes the "car" fully evident, however it is only ever experience itself.

Just because YOU do not perceive a phenomenon does not mean it does not exist. And if, as you believe, existence is dependent on perception then all phenomena must exist because there is not a single phenomenon that the mind of an Omniscient One (a Buddha) is not aware of.

Right, you just said it yourself... there is not a single phenomenon that the mind of a buddha is not aware of (i.e. what is not presently occurring in awareness, is NOT). Existence isn't dependent on perception because both existence and perception themselves are misnomers. But again, tentatively yes, we can say that existence is dependent on perception(and vice versa for they are not two). Of course proper application of dependent origination would see the emptiness in both of those designations right away, being that they are inseparable.

So do phenomena exist or not then???

They certainly seem to

[gregkavarnos]

It isn't a bizarre theory, it's pretty self-evident if you look at it empirically. What you are directly experiencing is all that is, there is only this present moment which is the sum total of what is presently happening.

I repeat: just because YOU are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist. That's the gist of what I am saying. Now if you want to put the "YOU" in the centre of the universe and define all existence realtive to it, well that's YOUR problem not MINE.

They certainly seem to

"Seem to"... hmmmmmm...??? Well if you put it that way.

[asunthatneversets]

It isn't a bizarre theory, it's pretty self-evident if you look at it empirically. What you are directly experiencing is all that is, there is only this present moment which is the sum total of what is presently happening.

I repeat: just because YOU are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist. That's the gist of what I am saying. Now if you want to put the "YOU" in the centre of the universe and define all existence realtive to it, well that's YOUR problem not MINE.

Ah! Yes, however there's no "I" either(even though I surely seem to be saying that ), I wasn't suggesting a solipsistic view at all.

[Son]

In the Aggañña sutra, and I believe the same is found in the Abhidharma, it says that the world expands and then the world contracts. If you have read something of modern astromony and physics, like Stephen Hawkins' Short History of Time, that is a very interesting idea. The system that is expanding is much larger than the thousand million worlds of Saha universe, which means the Milky Way Galaxy. It is all the galaxies in our space and time continuum.
K. N. Jayatilleke and Mahayana authors of Abhidharma have in fact said that there are more world systems in the universe than this local galaxy of Saha world, and that this is mentioned in the sutras.

Actually, the correct translation is not "expand" and "contract." The Buddha didn't teach the expansion and contraction of the universe, sorry.

Also, Saha world does not refer to the galaxy. It refers to the land on Earth.
I think you should study some of these translations more carefully and read the texts yourself. It's very bad to confuse the Buddha's teachings into different terms so you can apply them to modern theory. Scientific theory is scientific theory.

Maurice Walshe uses the words expand and contract in his translation of Digha Nikaya and its Aggañña sutta. It is true that other translators use other expressions, like increase and decrease.
It is very clear from the Abhidharma and sutras like the Diamond sutra, that Buddha indeed considered Saha world to consist of different worlds. The Abhidharma author Vasubandhu gives the distance there is in the Saha universe between its four-continent-worlds. The number given by him is vast, but not enough for the distance between Earth and the nearest star Proxiam Centauri, it nevertheless is in the right direction. And it shows that Saha universe consists of different and distant worlds. Not all buddhists have the courage to think like that, and see like that.

That's being crudely assumptive. I'm not cowardly, and there's no reason for you to suggest I don't "see" the value of the special teachings.

I. DESCRIPTION OF A WORLD-SYSTEM

"One sun, one moon, one Mount Sumeru, and one set of four great continents is what is called 'a set of four continents under heaven,' that is, a world-system. Every world-system has these four great continents, and perhaps sometimes the directions of the four can be different.

II. A GREAT WORLD SYSTEM OF A BILLION WORLDS

A thousand world-systems of four great continents, etc. comprise a 'small world-system.' A thousand small world-systems comprise a middle-sized world system, and a thousand middle-sized world-systems comprise a great world-system of a billion worlds, or literally a thousand times an thousand times a thousand worlds (Skt. trisahasramahasahasralokadhatu).

Thinking that the four continents and subcontinents refer to four planets in the corners of the galaxy is not "open-minded," it's just unfounded. It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the teachings. Yes, there are innumerable planets that support life, and there are many worlds or spheres in reality--actually, there are 31, and they form and dissolve in their own cycles, according to the karma of beings. When people try to integrate the teachings to fully into modern science, they confuse their true meaning.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/kalachakra/external_internal_alternative_kalachakras/brief_discussion_kalachakra_present.html

[Aemilius]

But the physical GWC really exists whether you know about it or not.

1. Great Wall of China is an idea, you can't perceive it as such without knowing this idea.

As I said the physical GWC exists to ordinary perception whether you know about it or not. You could take a person to the GWC (perhaps blindfolded) and they would perceive the structure without having to be told about it in advance.

In fact this happens frequently for little children.

If you were an ignorant person what would you see?

gwc1.jpg

2. Artists, builders, politicians, etc each see a different object, because their minds, values and habitual tendencies are different.

They don't see a different object at all. They have different concepts about the objects they see that we collectively call the GWC. But all humans without defective senses see the same set of tones, etc.

3. Material things can just disappear from our world when nobody anymore knows about them. This is difficult to test and verify, but it is true.

This is not actually true but it is also untestable. In order to test it one would have to eliminate the consciousness of all beings with a propensity to perceive a particular object. Then we would have forgotten what it was that we were to test.

The meaning of material things can just disappear from our world but the material object itself doesn't (except naturally over time). For example, a rock/wall carving was just discovered from some 10,000 years ago that may be a vagina or it may be an explanation or a sign for good hunting, etc. Or perhaps none of the above.

Another example is that you shouldn't walk in subway tunnels even if you haven't seen a subway before or try to cross the street in Manhattan even if you've never heard of or seen a taxi before (I remember both of these examples from my early childhood and was rescued from exactly that).

Kirt

You can't prove that anything exists prior to perception. In your thinking it is you who are thinking that it exists there when you don't see it. In that case it is an object of your mental perception, an object of your thinking mind.
Trained people really see a very different object. You would have to be able to borrow their perception for a while to be able to understand it.

[gregkavarnos]

Relativist nonsense!

[Aemilius]

That is not a statement, could You be more articulate, please?

[gregkavarnos]

Exists prior to perception.
Does not exist prior to perception. <------ Relativist nonsense.
Both exists and does not exist prior to perception.
Neither exists nor does not exist prior to perception.