Do we see reality as it is?

[dilann]

nope, why would you think the video has to be the reality for me to post here?

Discussing the reality of what we see and hear using(watching/hearing) unrealistic sources is pointless. It contradicts itself.

 

[ek_rosh]

Discussing the reality of what we see and hear using(watching/hearing) unrealistic sources is pointless. It contradicts itself.

Take an example similar to what he said.

You have a message on your computer screen says "this text is not real. It is actually some pixels that you see as a text". So, since there is no real text there, what it says is not true according to your logic?

 

[dilann]

Take an example similar to what he said.

You have a message on your computer screen says "this text is not real. It is actually some pixels that you see as a text". So, since there is no real text there, what it says is not true according to your logic?

We all understand that pixels are put together in specific ways, making characters.. we can read because we are the ones who defined characters.. This stays true even for those who can't understand the text (definition). They see the same patterns as we do.
There is nothing new beyond science.

 

[SLHodahitha]

bump

---

We all understand that pixels are put together in specific ways, making characters.. we can read because we are the ones who defined characters.. This stays true even for those who can't understand the text (definition). They see the same patterns as we do.
There is nothing new beyond science.

"There is nothing new beyond science."

What do you mean by this from the above?
------ Post added on Aug 19, 2023 at 1:21 AM

 

[dilann]

"There is nothing new beyond science."

What do you mean by this from the above?

pixel කතාවේ..

 

[ek_rosh]

We all understand that pixels are put together in specific ways, making characters.. we can read because we are the ones who defined characters.. This stays true even for those who can't understand the text (definition). They see the same patterns as we do.
There is nothing new beyond science.

Yes, if you see an image or text on the screen, you call it this or that if pixels are arranged in a certain way. But, the reality is that they are just a bunch of pixels. You call it whever you want and used it as you want it. how you define it. You wouldnt say, hey, those are not real picture, they are just pixels so, these pictures and texts mean nothing. Would you?

 

[kkroxc]

ඕවා ගැන සංවාද කරන්න පුලුවන් උන් දැන් කිරියෙ නෑ බන්.ඒකයි මන් දැන් ඔයවගේ ත්රේඩ් දාන්නෙ නැත්තෙ. ඉස්සර හිටිය pessimist, jesonrulz වගේ උන් එක්ක ඔය ටොපික් ඇදගෙන යන්න පුලුවන් හොදට. දැන් ඉන්නෙ මංපොර එවුන් විතරයි.

ඔව් බං ඉස්සර මං හොඳ jontek ගහලා එළකිරි ත්‍රෙඩ් කියවන එක කරන්නේ හොඳ ත්‍රේඩ් තිබ්බා කම්මැලි නැතිව කියවන්න

 

[dilann]

Yes, if you see an image or text on the screen, you call it this or that if pixels are arranged in a certain way. But, the reality is that they are just a bunch of pixels. You call it whever you want and used it as you want it. how you define it. You wouldnt say, hey, those are not real picture, they are just pixels so, these pictures and texts mean nothing. Would you?

It makes no difference to what we see. Everyone sees the same pixel pattern as it is.. and we know we're looking at pixels... Some of us can read it as previously interpreted.
We can name the pattern with different names(pictures/text). It is just an identification...
Imagine there's an object. We can assign it any name we choose. However, we're aware that it's made of atoms. naming is just for identification only

 

[ek_rosh]

It makes no difference to what we see. Everyone sees the same pixel pattern as it is.. and we know we're looking at pixels... Some of us can read it as previously interpreted.
We can name the pattern with different names(pictures/text). It is just an identification...
Imagine there's an object. We can assign it any name we choose. However, we're aware that it's made of atoms. naming is just for identification only

It is because we know what pixels are. Thats why i brought the example.

Think of a person who doesnt know about the pixels (reality). When he sees the image (or text) he thinks it is a real thing there. But the message it says ("this is not a real thing; this is only pixels") will lead you to go beyond and the question the reality of what he sees. So, he goes from the message on non-reality domain (image/text) to question about the real domain (pixels).

 

[imhotep]

OTOH we the humans can't perceive everything. We lack the sense of detecting the Earth's magnetic field like the birds, our sense of smell is limited, we can't see infra-red or ultra-violet, we are deaf to both low and high pitch sounds (many animals have this ability)
Also our brains are evolved and geared to filter out certain data even we could perceive them. If you place a cat near a clock that emits an audible click and place an electrode on the auditory nerve to the brain, after a while the nerve doesn't even send the "click" signal to the brain. It's categorised as something that doesn't carry any information and hence not important for survival. But if you stop the clock, that signal gets carried to the brain and the cat responds. That's how the Nature works.
Everytime you blink, do you see your nose? But the nose is there.

 

[Candid-B]

LOL I was so embarrassed myself to have been mentioned on this thread. plus.. I don't have sufficient knowledge on this subject to talk about.
subject - do we see reality as it is ? (අපිට ඇත්ත, ඇති සැටියෙන්ම පෙනෙනවාද ?)

නොගැබුරු පිළිතුර - ඔව්. මේ තියෙන්නෙ බෝතලයක් මේ තියෙන්නෙ පෑනක් ආහ්..ඒ කෑ ගහන්නෙ පූසෙක්.. කියල අපිට කියන්න පුළුවන්. ඉතින් අපිට අපේ senses වලට අනුකූලව දකින ඇහෙන දැනෙන දේවල් සැබෑවක් කියල පිළිගන්නවා.

ගැබුරු පිළිතුර - නැහැ. අපි බෝතලයක් දැක්කට ඒක වීදුරු වලින් හදපු එකක්. වීදුරු හැදිල තියෙන්නෙ සිලිකා උණු කරලා. ඒ විදිහට atom එක දක්වාම ගියත් අපි එතනින් එහාට discover කරල නෑ මම හිතන්නෙ.

ඉතින් ඔව් නෑ කියන පිළිතුරු දෙකම ගන්න පුළුවන්නේ.

 

[greenthunder]

Everytime you blink, do you see your nose? But the nose is there.

Below is a part of a discussion happened between Ven. K. Nanananda and Bhikku Yogananda. I think it's relevent to both OP and Imohteps reply.


And then Bhante falls silent, and looks on with a smile.

After a few moments, he asks: “What do you hear?”
There is a bird singing in the distance.

“Did it start singing only now?”
It probably had started earlier (and now that I am listening to the tapes as I transcribe this, I know that it had started manyminutes earlier).

“It must have been singing all this while, but only now…”
I say.

“Only now…?”

“Only now did the attention go there.”

“There you have tajjo samannāhāra! So is it only because
of the sound of the bird that you heard it? Didn’t you hear it only after I stopped talking? There could be other reasons too: had there been louder noises, you may not have heard it. So we see that it is circumstantial. That is why we mentioned in our writings: everything is circumstantial; nothing is substantial.

.........................................................

It is because of this nature of the Buddhadhamma that the
later Indian philosophers called it a saṅghātavāda – pluralism, or a theory of aggregates, where the causes are not limited to one or two or none. So my silence paṭicca, the sound of the bird paṭicca, absence of other sounds paṭicca etc. there was the arising of a different ear-consciousness.

.........................................................

Here I ask a recurring question, probably because I still can’t bring myself to accept the already given answers due to my own materialistic tendencies (of those days): what would one see if one looks at the world ‘objectively*’ – if such a thing were possible? Perhaps this is another way of asking what one sees in the arahattaphala samādhi.


“Suññatā” comes the quick reply.


- Heretic Sage, Chapter 5.

* I am unsure of authors use of the word "objective" here. I think he himself saw that word as problematic.

 

[ek_rosh]

LOL I was so embarrassed myself to have been mentioned on this thread. plus.. I don't have sufficient knowledge on this subject to talk about.
subject - do we see reality as it is ? (අපිට ඇත්ත, ඇති සැටියෙන්ම පෙනෙනවාද ?)

නොගැබුරු පිළිතුර - ඔව්. මේ තියෙන්නෙ බෝතලයක් මේ තියෙන්නෙ පෑනක් ආහ්..ඒ කෑ ගහන්නෙ පූසෙක්.. කියල අපිට කියන්න පුළුවන්. ඉතින් අපිට අපේ senses වලට අනුකූලව දකින ඇහෙන දැනෙන දේවල් සැබෑවක් කියල පිළිගන්නවා.

ගැබුරු පිළිතුර - නැහැ. අපි බෝතලයක් දැක්කට ඒක වීදුරු වලින් හදපු එකක්. වීදුරු හැදිල තියෙන්නෙ සිලිකා උණු කරලා. ඒ විදිහට atom එක දක්වාම ගියත් අපි එතනින් එහාට discover කරල නෑ මම හිතන්නෙ.

ඉතින් ඔව් නෑ කියන පිළිතුරු දෙකම ගන්න පුළුවන්නේ.

Nothing to be embarrassed. We talked about the credibility of our sensors sometimes back. Thats why I copied you.

ඔතන, ඔව් නැ කියල දෙකක් තියෙනව කිව්වට..ඔව් කියන එක විතරයි කියල තියෙන්නෙ...බෝතලය වෙනුවට, ඇටොම්ස් ආදෙශ කරල...


What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."-Werner Heisenberg

---

Everytime you blink, do you see your nose? But the nose is there.

The question is how you know if the nose is there for sure when you blink.
------ Post added on Aug 20, 2023 at 8:15 AM

 

[Emios]

Why all these nonsense

 

[asliyanage]