On existence from an apparently Buddhist sense

The mind has a deep interior and for Buddhists (from what I've read) reason itself must be transcended. Reason seems most real and intuition seems like a dream, so we assume the dream is less real. We always think "about" and feel "for" something. It's hard to see the interpenetration and convertibility of the cosmos, and maybe we are the eye of the universe. Why do we need to ask "whose awareness?" or "awareness of what?" Emptiness means undivided and perfect means connected. I read once that the Buddhist equation is infinity=1=0=infinity. The infinite "in" the finite is kinda expressed in geometry when we say a segment has infinite points along it. We shouldn't be indifferent, but we should react to the world with agreeableness because life is "perfect like unto vast space" (Seng Ts'an)

Our constant habit is to become attached to those people and things that we find attractive, averted to those we find unattractive, and indifferent toward those we find neither attractive nor unattractive. We perpetuate this habit because we have another mental habit which spontaneously apprehends the conventional distinctions between objects as existing seperate from mind. Ultimate truth tells us that nothing exists independent of mind. We lack equanimity, and therefore have the ongoing potential to suffer.

The first two pages make remarks about existence in general though.

In a world stripped of concepts, there is no existence as existence is itself a concept. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for existence is the existence of concepts. Concepts however cannot exist without a conceiving entity. Therefore, existence requires consciousness.

The existence of a thing implies the existence of the concept of a thing. If the concept of a thing does not exist, we cannot refer to it in any way and thus its existence becomes a null concept. Thus, the concept of a thing and by consequence the thing, is a mere state of a hypothetical system that is responsible for consciousness or is conscious. I will refer to it as the conscious system.

Quoting Darkneos

it's also arguing that things like bright and loud exist only in the mind

While I can't currently access http://www.drugaddict.com/ official forums in order to find a reply of equal merit .. (perhaps they only existed in my mind as well) I'll try my best. Things as they are defined by the senses may only exist in the mind, but the properties that make them as they are remain quite independent of any conscious mind. Something is bright if it produces a luminosity beyond what the observer is relatively used to. Something is loud if it produces an audible wavelength of vibration also what is beyond whatever the particular observer happens to be used to. Absent of an observer, an audible wavelength of vibration (sound) can shatter a window, thus not only changing its default state of matter or being, but shattering or otherwise destroying it. Most people would call that pretty loud.

Ultimate truth tells us that nothing exists independent of mind

So what is he a corpse? I mean, if he's not speaking using his mind using thoughts or ideas formed using said mind .. yet tries to refer to a concept of "ultimate truth" processed, formed, or otherwise understood by again said mind, that is somehow and for some reason NOT dependent on (his or her) mind .. all there is would be the body. Long story short, just don't do drugs, kids.

Edit: Nah.. I have a cousin who knows people like this. He sounds like someone who has his "third eye opened" .. ;)

Reply to Outlander Sorry I had a reply that addresses these properties that was part of the previous quote I had listed up above:

In a world stripped of concepts, there is no existence as existence is itself a concept. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for existence is the existence of concepts. Concepts however cannot exist without a conceiving entity. Therefore, existence requires consciousness.

The existence of a thing implies the existence of the concept of a thing. If the concept of a thing does not exist, we cannot refer to it in any way and thus its existence becomes a null concept. Thus, the concept of a thing and by consequence the thing, is a mere state of a hypothetical system that is responsible for consciousness or is conscious. I will refer to it as the conscious system.

(1) Constant change implies that there is a never-ending action, because if action would cease to exist, then change would be at some point impossible and therefore it will not be constant. Thus infinity is an inevitability.

(2) The concept of a thing is distinguished by the concepts of other things through the concept of not that thing. Thus, discreteness can exist, so that all experience does not merge into a single point, which allows dimensions to exist.

(3) The fact that a thing is defined by a set of conditions, reflects the state of the conscious system, which further determines the next state of the system but also forces it to never be in (experience) the same state twice, because that would put the system in a loop which contradicts buttonion's first proposition as it would cause a stable organization in the system (that is all that is) and therefore no more change.

Thus far I have asserted that all that exists is an infinite non repeatable experience.

So when we say that a thing exists, we are really saying that the experience of everything that can exist, has existed or will exist if it does not now. Which sucks.

Quoting Outlander

So what is he a corpse? I mean, if he's not speaking using his mind using thoughts or ideas formed using said mind .. yet tries to refer to a concept of "ultimate truth" processed, formed, or otherwise understood by again said mind, that is somehow and for some reason NOT dependent on (his or her) mind .. all there is would be the body. Long story short, just don't do drugs, kids.

I think what is meant is that the borders and distinctions we make between "things" are what we make of them. Sort of like what the guy in the long quote is saying about in a world without concepts.

But I'm still iffy on the notion they are getting at. I mean even without the concept of a bird it's not like they don't exist.

Thoughts?

The link didn't work for me, btw.

To address the concept of existence, I don't believe anyone can be a hard solipsist. We operate under the assumption that everything is real because that's the only thing we have access to.

To the point about loud and bright, like you said, those are simply descriptors. In the same way there is only heat or absence thereof, we had to have a way to describe that, so we used cold, even though coldness itself is not extant.

Can you expound on the borders point? I agree that there are conceptual borders, but there are also physical borders.