yadave wrote:You are correct. I will try to dot my i's in future and use "idealism" rather than "solipsism" to describe the view that "reality is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."
Ok, but it isn't "mentally constructed" either, a mental construction would have to originate from a mind.
yadave wrote:I did not know you were a guru. Right on.
I didn't know I was either, but yes... right on!
yadave wrote:I would need you to unpack this for me before I know how to respond.
Modern cognitive science and buddhism may have some parallel similarities on a relative level but ultimately they're not of the same nature.
yadave wrote:Well, there is no "me" as you pointed out above and my concern was how your (1) and (2) treat the brain as a source of things. I compare the brain to the heart. Some years ago, Israeli scientists successfully coerced stem cells into heart cells and the damn things were beating. It's amazing, they know how to be a heart on the cellular level. Similarly, brains know how to think, brains exude thoughts.
I didn't say there's no "you", i said there's no "you" apart from the concept of "you", apart from the conventionality of language the self or agent has no inherent existence. But i suppose that's irrelevant since you're thoroughly convinced you're not equipped with any frame of reference with which to gauge what i'm saying. I'm essentially some guy talking on an internet forum, you can't believe there's no self or substratum, it isn't a philosophy, it requires first hand experience for validation. How can the brain be the source of things?
yadave wrote:"Reality" is a word. It is subject to the world's shared definition of it if we are to heed Buddha's advice and "accept what the world accepts."
Yes reality is a word, so is every other word on this forum. I'm using the term reality to describe this "happening" called life. If the Buddha truly believed that one should "accept what the world accepts" then everyone would remain in ignorance.
yadave wrote:But it is a new paradigm, my Lord. I think that should count for something.
I'm sure that day countless centuries ago when someone declared the world is indeed flat, that paradigm counted for something then as well.
yadave wrote:Actually, lots of people are saying "the car really doesn't exist" or "ultimately, the car doesn't exist." It's awful. If this Ultimate Reality is not unreal then the car really doesn't exist and Buddhism reduces to Idealism.
Why would that be awful? Idealism asserts that reality is fundamentally a mental construction, again a mental construction would depend on the existence of a mind.
yadave wrote:Seems simpler to just say "for Buddhists, the car is not what it seems" and if anyone is curious we explain how the car depends on many factors. I mean, look at the expression "inherently existing". Does *anything* have this property? No? The darn thing (i.e., the concept "inherently existing") is metaphysical to start with yet it litters every other sentence. I appreciate its importance but wonder if we could leave existing language conventions, like "exists" and "reality", out of it and simply say "the car is empty" which has a specific meaning that differs from the notion of "empty space" which is what "nonexistent" brings to mind.
Why would this only apply to "Buddhists"? No-thing has inherent existence, every-thing is empty, including emptiness. It's no more metaphysical than believing you're a subjective entity encased in a body experiencing a physical world which is separate from you. And sure say "the car is empty".
yadave wrote:The car will pass by and we will see it regardless of whether:
4) We both somehow magically create mental projections of the same blue car moving at the same speed; or
5) The car possesses an external reality / existence that causes us both to experience the same thing.
I'm a Number 5. I think both (4) and (5) require us to grow up in similar environments where there are cars and such.
Ok, if you want to believe the car has an external existence have at it! I'm not here to win you over, i have no way to convey to you that essentially all that is, is timeless "consciousness" devoid of duality. Those are just words typed onto a computer screen, I really wouldn't want you to believe what i'm saying anyways in all honesty... adopting that as a belief and attaching to that would be just as counterproductive as insisting any other point of view.
yadave wrote:The language is too far from the world. Trust me on this one.
Yes that point of view certainly mirrors what you believe to be true.
I don't really understand the nature of this debating going on, refuting what's said, i mean it's all well and good refute what's said all you want it's just a conversation... but what is your perception of buddhism? Are you just here to stir the pot? Because that's great if that's the case, debates of this nature are good to get people thinking and answer questions for not just the ones debating but for others reading it. Or are you just attempting to have someone thoroughly convince you out of your conditioned point of view you've had your whole life? Only YOU can do that. You don't seem to be very "open" to the teachings, insisting the point of view you champion is some kind of ultimate truth.... almost like you're trying to convince yourself that your point of view is correct for reassurance. I'm not here to propagate some belief system or philosophy, the teachings may be presented in that manner but ultimately they're to be applied to yourself and to your experience, empirically, to bring about a change in perception and being. Buddhism is meant to radically alter life in it's entirety. The effects of the teaching are real, the change is real, but you have to want it, and you have to be open to it, otherwise you remain attached to an archaic conditioned point of view which only leads to suffering.... liberation is here for the taking, everyone wants you to know that love, but nobody can save you except yourself.