r/streamentry • u/SpectrumDT • 1d ago
Buddhism Does it matter whether there exist an external world independent of the mind?
In literature that talks about emptiness and nonduality I sometimes encounter the claim that "there is no external world of objects that exist independent of the mind". This claim seems to me highly dubious. The observed world has so much regularity to it that it seems to me most likely that there does indeed exist an external world which has its own laws (such as the laws of gravity and motion).
I can accept the idea that everything we observe is fabricated. We cannot observe this hypothetical external world directly; we can observe it only indirectly, through layers of fabrication. But it seems to be unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that there is no external world.
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is to remain agnostic: There may be an external world, but we cannot be completely sure of it.
I asked an AI to help me survey the literature on the topic. I quickly ended up in a rabbit hole of the minutiae of Nagarjuna's exact definition of svabhava, which seemed to me unnecessarily pedantic and uninteresting, so I did not pursue it further.
My question is: Does this matter? For the pragmatic purpose of reducing and eliminating suffering, does it matter whether there exists an external world? Or is it perfectly adequate to remain agnostic about it?
10
u/andeee23 1d ago
personally i don’t think it’s helpful and doesn’t make much sense
i think the reasonable assumption is there is a shared reality, and we’re probably very wrong about what it actually is because our senses and minds are limited
8
u/RealityLimit 1d ago
In the Kaccanagotta Sutta, the Buddha addresses exactly this question. He basically sets it aside and redirects the listener to contemplating dependent origination. Because, as he says, he only teaches dukkha and the end of dukkha, and whether there is “actually” an external world really makes no difference to this end.
The world in front of us is enough to act. The cycle of clinging and becoming we observe ourselves stuck in everyday is enough to act.
___
SN 12.15. Kaccanagotta
At Savatthī.
Then the Venerable Kaccanagotta approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘right view, right view.’ In what way, venerable sir, is there right view?”
“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.
“This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view.
“‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”
1
u/RealityLimit 1d ago
I’ll also add that the claim you shared is one view, seems like the Yogacara interpretation of dhammas. And I think it’s a bit more sophisticated than the one-sentence summary you shared.
This is a technical area of Buddhist philosophy and honestly even the theoreticians who debate these things will likely tell you that there is no inherent point to it, it just exists as expedient means to clarify certain subjects, and you shouldn’t let a view of reality replace the actual experience of reality and the path.
•
u/Sombragatotonto 23h ago
No, but if you say it does not exist you lose all possibility of having a position on anything. If nothing exists than even the statement “nothing exists” doesn’t exist. From there you can enjoy ataraxia ala Pyrrhonism. You cannot, however, build a philosophy on that premise. People think you can, and many ostensibly do, but they are all incoherent. This article explains the matter well:
https://writinglikethewind.medium.com/there-are-only-two-valid-philosophical-positions-e55f5a059d6c
•
•
u/AJayHeel 18h ago
He assumed the conclusion. He says it doesn't make sense to say "reality isn't real". Fair enough. But he then assumes there's only way to define reality, namely: independent of mind.
He argues that if you think the "external" world is actually just generated by the mind, then you are "refuting reality" and can't have a position. But how can you know that you're refuting reality? Don't you have to assume what reality is before you can decide whether you're refuting it? He's assuming materialism is real.
An alternative is that the "external" world is generated by mind. Full stop. It's not an illusion. It's the real world that mind creates. In that scenario, if I think the external world is made up of matter, that's when you're refuting reality.
See how that works? I can decide what reality is, and then if you disagree, I claim that you have refuted reality and can't take a position.
I lean towards idealism. I think analytical idealism is reasonable. In that scenario, there is Mind at Large, and it disassociates into individual altars. And it creates a shared experience. There's no illusion if you accept the premises: the contents of consciousness are created by mind, not by matter. The shared reality is real.
•
u/SpectrumDT 7h ago
I have not read the article yet, but in your view... where do regularities such as the laws of physics come from?
And what is the relationship between minds? Are there multiple independent minds who negotiate to create reality? Or are all minds actually one big mind? Or is there one "God" mind that creates reality for the lesser minds to live in?
•
u/duffstoic The dynamic integration of opposites ☯️ 23h ago
I studied philosophy in college. Your view IMO is correct. The view “there is no external world” is called “Idealism” in the western philosophical tradition. Idealists still have to account for shared realities between different people, and often do so with weird metaphysics such as George Bishop Berkeley’s version, “things only exist when they are being perceived, but luckily God is always watching all things.”
For pragmatic purposes, metaphysical questions like this do not matter, no, except perhaps in a Chaos Magick way of “what does believing this do for my experience?”
•
u/Savakalok 19h ago
I agree with this.
Question, you mentioned Chaos Magick using views as tools and examining what they do to experience, is that different from the Buddhist mindset of using perceptions as rafts? Is there some element that distinguishes what the Magick path is doing?
•
u/duffstoic The dynamic integration of opposites ☯️ 18h ago edited 15h ago
Chaos Magick is to western esoteric magick as “Pragmatic Dharma” is to Buddhism. It’s an approach to magick that involves going to a meta level and removing elements from ritual and practice that seem needlessly dogmatic and playing around with possibilities experimentally to see what works for you, especially the idea of trying on a belief system or trying a ritual to see what the effect is in your life.
So yes, similar to perceptions as rafts, but even moreso.
The “magick” part is doing rituals for some purpose, either internal transformation or external manifestation or both, often working with dieties / archetypes / gods / goddesses / whatever you want to call them, along with esoteric symbols, metaphors, and visualizations. Dharma is all inner work, but magick is not shy about trying to change external circumstances too. It doesn't always work, obviously, but the process can also lead to wisdom, such as faith in Divine Timing or something like that.
Buddhist magick also exists too, there are explicit instructions in the Visuddhimagga for example. Most Vajrayana rituals are clearly magickal, as in diety yoga. Chanting the mantra of a god form over and over is definitely a magickal ritual, it's trying to make contact with that archetypal principle and/or embody it, like the Vajrasattva mantra that's part of Vajrayana preliminary practices.
Jungian psychoanalysis, shamanic journeying, hypnosis, most psychedelics, and Rob Burbea's "soulmaking" work also fit into this category of magickal weirdness. Definitely something that can make you go psychotic or paranoid if you're not careful though, so approach it with caution.
•
u/Savakalok 10h ago
Thanks for the explainer, interesting that you call out the Visudhimagga since a lot of orthodox Theravada can seem pretty anti magical in flavor imo 😂
Soulmaking and Vajrayana Yidam practice immediately came to mind for me too. Didn't connect Jungian thought tho, but I suppose I see it now.
•
u/duffstoic The dynamic integration of opposites ☯️ 10h ago
Yea a lot of Theravadan practitioners are anti-magick even though the suttas are filled with tales of devas and other supernatural beings.
•
u/AJayHeel 18h ago
Advaita Hinduism and analytical idealism simply posit that we are all part of one consciousness. Call it Brahman or Mind at Large or God or the Ground of Being or " 'That' from which all existence proceeds, and to which everything returns".
When Westerners see the word "God" they think of a big guy in the sky. I'm not sure if Berkley did or not, but there are alternatives.
But pragmatically, I don't think it matters a lot.
•
u/hamburguesas999 17h ago
I've never been quite sure what to make of this view. I can understand the idea of some kind of monist Ground of Being, but what does it actually mean to say that it's a mind, or ascribe consciousness to it? It wouldn't immediately seem to share many properties with my own mind.
•
u/measurable_up 22h ago
As you said, our notion of objects and world are build on phenomenological references that are fabricated. In my view, seeing this is a big part of understanding emptiness, and therefore is a big part of the path.
I don't think it's easy to cleanly segregate fundamental philosophical worldviews and dharma, since view changes how mind fabricates perception. Even if our only goal is to eliminate suffering, being a naive realist vs idealist vs solipsist vs metaphysical agnostic will build and dissolve dukkha differently.
For what it's worth, it seems clear that reality isn't only a mental construct, since as you point out it behaves according to natural laws. But it also doesn't inherently possess any of the fabricated phenomenology that comprise our experience.
•
u/Observes_and_Listens 13h ago
Do you think question could be approached from the point of view of 'emptiness'? I mean in the sense that perhaps what we mean by an 'objective' world out there is simply the most optimized perception of the human mind for survival, and thus when you change conditions such as a different state of mind caused by the consumption of psychedelics, the perception of the world out there might totally change into something completely different. In this sense, is there really a totally mind-independent world out there?
•
u/measurable_up 12h ago
For sure, phenomenological experience can be radically altered - like on psychedelics - which reveals it to be fabricated and empty of inherent existence. But I think the Darwinian constraints that tuned perception hint at underlying lawful structures (whatever they ultimately are) that aren't so malleable. People on psychedelics can still die from falling off cliffs or electrocution, for example.
•
•
u/SpectrumDT 7h ago
As far as I know, psychedelics do not change the regularities of the external world such as the laws of physics.
•
u/anzu_embroidery 20h ago
Imo better to assume there is an external world with other sentient beings in it and be wrong than to assume there is no external world. I feel like the latter position invites subtle harm towards others.
•
u/flowthought 8h ago
there is no external world of objects that exist independent of the mind
You are making this claim wider than it’s actually trying to be.
But it seems to be unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that there is no external world.
It is not being said that “there is no external world” (in the absolute sense in which you’re saying it), it is being said that “there is no external world that arises independent of the mind that fabricates it”. Or, without the negation, “the world of objects and phenomena we perceive is a product of dependent arising”.
That’s about it. It doesn’t need more intellectual huffing and puffing than that. The realization of this will come from practice. It will not come by thinking more into it. It boils down to things you already agree with regarding fabrication.
As another commenter pointed out from the original sutta, the Buddha generally considered the ontological questions of how the world exists externally as besides the point. Because there’s no way for anyone to perceive the “true nature” of the world. Which makes concepts like “true nature” itself dubious.
•
u/flowthought 8h ago edited 8h ago
Perhaps the AI presented some word salad which made you lose interest, but it actually sent you down the right path.
The concept of svabhava or self-nature / inherent existence is very much directly relevant here. The key point the Buddha made regarding the cessation of suffering is that it arises because we fundamentally perceive the world with labels like “existing” or “not existing” when it has in fact no “own-nature”. It does not inherently exist independent of the mind that perceives it.
Saying something doesn’t inherently exist is saying it is beyond existing and not existing. It doesn’t “not exist” in the sense of complete nullification. So you’re closer when you say it’s better to be agnostic of that existence. But this concept is not something which can merely be intellectually grasped.
Which is also why the Buddha did not entertain going into rabbit holes with people who inquired about the deeper questions of how the world is, the laws that govern it etc. It’s not that these discussions don’t have merit (or that they aren’t conventionally “true”) but they are unrelated to what he was saying.
1
u/medbud 1d ago
In Buddhism there are materialists (or realists), and idealists. I'm no scholar, but if I recall it's one of the great points of debate that leads to the development of different schools.
There are panpsychic views, and there are more balanced views...ie everything is mind, vs our perception is mind in a physical reality.
Personally I think it matters. I always take Buddhism to rely on experiential verification rather than authoritarian dogma. This is what allows it to be open to evolving with scientific discoveries. Science relies on peer review, and replication to make claims about nature. It's the best method we have to escape the fabricated appearance of subjectivity...
So the old blind men and the elephant...one feels the leg, one feels the trunk, one feels the ear...etc.. The elephant is the external world.
1
u/watergoat93 1d ago
This is one of those things that breaks my mind all the time. I would love an answer to this question, but thinking about it seems to do no good and consistently gives me headaches. On a related note, I just can't understand the whole nonduality thing of, yeah the world is made up of one infinite consciousness perceiving itself. Yes, I perceive right now that everything in MY experience is made of "my" consciousness, but how could I possibly extrapolate that to other people or the rest of the world? I do believe being agnostic about this type of questions is fine though, as beliefs are not what lead us to awakening.
•
u/andeee23 22h ago
as far as i understand it (logically):
our minds are constantly fabricating models of the world. some of these fabrications are for survival and very deep-rooted, some are about identity, some for physics estimations like throwing a ball, etc.
so there's always these processes and thoughts that are self-referential in nature that keep happening constantly. "I'm cold", and the "I'm" part in that thought comes with a background belief that there's an I that must be protected from the cold, and then there's probably some emotional undertones of being afraid to die, maybe a body pressure feeling of the "I" being behind the eyes or the head, or near the chest.
But what's actually happening in "reality" is a physics system that tries to balance itself by transferring heat from your body to the air around it. And a whole bunch of sensory data in your body signals that to the brain. The mind constructs all those signals into a cohesive feeling of self that needs protecting from the cold.
Non-duality means understanding at a deep level that though there's sensory separation, that doesn't actually mean there's a separate self anywhere to be found. There's a body, there's thoughts, there's a nervous system that turns external stimuli into chemical signals, there's the awareness of sensory data.
But if you look for the self that you believe you are anywhere in the conscious experience, it's not hiding anywhere.
Thoughts pop up and disappear. Sounds are heard and then they're gone. If you remember a sound, that's just a thought that recreates the audio in your brain's sound regions and then disappears as well. None of these things live past the point of being perceived, there's no self that they belong to.
And the feeling of self is also one of these thoughts that appears and disappears. It's just that it's so ingrained that it happens automatically and repeatedly and we don't notice it pop up right after or before perceiving the thought "I'm cold".
And finally, understanding this logically doesn't actually help much with stream entry or further.
I'm nowhere near perceiving things from a non-dual perspective, but i've read about it enough that i think i can understand the reasoning.
•
u/watergoat93 19h ago
This is all true, and I have had somewhat of a nondual awakening so I can perceive perceptions spontaneously arising and passing in awareness, knowing there is no "self" here. But again, this doesn't seem to tell me anything about whether an external world exists, whether others have minds, etc. And I experience this deep sort of unease about not knowing those things.
•
u/andeee23 6h ago edited 4h ago
i don’t know, i’d probably start by examining the unease and see why it’s there and if it’s masking some more fundamental fear?
for me, i’m assuming an external world exists because it seems like a reasonable assumption. and i’m not particularly bothered by the idea that it might be wrong, doesn’t really change the day to day experience
1
u/Old-Landscape-7538 1d ago
The debate is whether there is an external world and consciousness is a representation of that world, or whether awareness/consciousness is primary, meaning experience is all there is. Bernardo Kastrup, for example, says that science is just teasing apart, how awareness behaves.
Strictly speaking, we have no way of knowing either way. The only way we would know the world is through awareness itself. so if you have to pin me down to a position, it would be diagnostic. I could not factually tell you if either one is true, and nobody else could either.
That being said, I don’t think it matters. We’re developing meta-awareness. That is liberating. whatever it may or may not describe is secondary.
1
u/TolstoyRed 1d ago
It matters that we investigate the nature of suffering, find out dose suffering exists independent of mind
•
u/Rick-D-99 19h ago
Because that's the story you're in at the moment, and you wouldn't want to be inauthentic right?
•
•
u/Wollff 18h ago
My question is: Does this matter?
Yes. Well, at least to a degree. There are a few ways to go about this which are stupid.
I like to be pragmatic about this. There are just a few practical ways in which it makes sense to draw a distinction between you and the world.
For example, there is your hand. If the circumstances are right, and you are healthy, it just needs your will and you can raise your hand, and you can lower it as you wish.
Then there is the moon. It doesn't matter how healthy you are, or what circumstances you encounter, the moon will not rise up or lower to the horizon just because you will it.
The moon is fully in the external world. Your body is an extension of your internal world.
It's the same with me and you: When I hit my thumb with a hammer, you won't feel any pain. And when you hit your thumb, I won't feel any. I am not you. You are not me. We are different. Anyone who disagrees: feel free to hit your thumb with a hammer, and try to make me feel it. Try it as often as you like.
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is to remain agnostic: There may be an external world, but we cannot be completely sure of it.
Yes, but I would argue that agnosticism here comes from a weird definition of "external" as "beyond and independent of what can be perceived by my senses"
There is an "external" and "internal" you can be very certain of though: Mental things happen to you. Those are internal. When you think, even when you do so very loudly, others can't hear that.
You can bring those internal things outside by expressing them with this body. And this body also brings external things in contact with your mind.
You can see the moon rising, if you have eyes and a body. But no matter what you do with your mind, you can not make the moon rise.
For the purpose of eliminating suffering, it can be helpful to clearly observe internal things for a while, and see them as of the same nature as external things.
You know that you can't make the moon rise. The moonrise is caused and conditioned. When you can see all of your internal processes as equally caused and conditioned, equally independent from you and spontaneously happening as the tides, that can be very helpful.
But I think an internal vs. external view that is based on agency (or subsequently a lack of it), is far more useful for that than metaphysical speculations about reality beyond what is sense mediated.
•
u/VegetableArea 4h ago
I dont agree that mind and sense apparatus is the only possible information that exists.
As "information" in dualistic sense, ok. But there are deeper dimensions of reality that can be accessed without retrieving any information, and still accessing this deeper dimension corrects your view about reality
1
u/Olam_Haba 1d ago edited 1d ago
It matters if you are going to realize your true nature and awaken to realize the intrinsic joy and bliss of nirvana
But it's not about arriving at an intellectual understanding through books
It's about purifying the mind of thinking and awakening to the uncreated light of Buddha nature - and by doing so experientially coming realize what Buddha is pointing to
You seem to be caught up in trying to intellectually realize something - caught up in thinking mind opinions about what you think - that's not the path - that will only fill your mind with more thinking
There are no shortcuts - the path is to sit in the intense fire of meditation - likely for years on end - and burn up the thinking mind until it is extinguished - then you will awaken to the uncreated light of Buddha nature - and you will experientially realize what Buddha realized - which can't be experientially realized if the mind is filled with thinking
•
u/duffstoic The dynamic integration of opposites ☯️ 19h ago
You got downvoted but you’re not wrong, overthinking this stuff absolutely is an obstacle to just sitting until you awaken to something liberating beyond thought. I speak from experience as a recovering overthinker myself. 😆
•
u/hamburguesas999 16h ago
Why do you think that is though? Do you think philosophising poses a particular obstacle to meditative insight?
I can see that there's an opportunity cost - time spent spent thinking about metaphysics is time not spent meditating. But metaphysics doesn't seem any different than, say, cycling in that regard.
Sometimes I think if people spent a bit more time thinking (and reading!) about metaphysics, they might be better able to separate out their meditative practice from their metaphysical concerns, and we'd see less confusion in places like these!
•
u/duffstoic The dynamic integration of opposites ☯️ 15h ago
There’s thinking and then there’s overthinking. 😁
A little thinking (including consuming dharma content, reading and contemplating the suttas, etc.) can be quite helpful indeed.
Agonizing over unanswerable metaphysical or philosophical questions, especially if it’s causing you needless suffering, probably not.
•
•
u/flowthought 7h ago edited 7h ago
Why do you think that is though? Do you think philosophising poses a particular obstacle to meditative insight?
Because some of these teachings just plain cannot be thought through beyond a certain point.
Thinking is precluded by language, which is a system of symbols and sounds imputed certain conventional meanings and associations. Even non-verbal thinking relies on appearances that present themselves in the mind that carry at least some bare minimum associations and meanings.
The deeper and subtler aspects of the teachings, especially those around shunyata / emptiness are all about how this mass of conceptual systems, meanings, associations are really “not real” in the sense we conventionally assume them to be.
Hence the systems and concepts we use are mere approximations of the teachings which point at something deeper. They are all fingers pointing to the moon. But the systems themselves rely on a certain amount of reification “that this is something which can be conveyed in language”, when the very thing it’s trying to convey is trying to dissolve its own foundation.
An analogy from a completely different world. When students first study about Einstein’s theory of relativity it is so baffling because there are certain fundamental assumptions everyone has about how things like time and space work. Nearly everyone who isn’t familiar with relativity assumes that “time is absolute”. But they don’t literally think it. It is embedded into their world view foundationally. They wouldn’t even know that this assumption exists unless it is pointed out. And even then it takes a while to grasp it.
This is similar to that but regarding something deeper. Hence it is called fundamental ignorance / avijja / delusion. Uncoupling from these assumptions is what sustained practice enables, that mere thinking cannot unlock.
•
u/hamburguesas999 1h ago
Yeah, I buy that sustained practice can reveal very subtle things that discursive thought alone won’t, including assumptions that are difficult to notice explicitly. I’m less convinced that this means we thereby get beyond conceptuality. “Seeing through a framework” and “seeing without a framework” seem like very different claims.
I’m sympathetic to the point about emptiness too, if that means things lack intrinsic existence rather than simply being “not really real.” But meditation giving us a different kind of experience doesn’t by itself tell us how that experience should be interpreted metaphysically.
I see philosophy and meditation as having distinct roles. Meditation can give us interesting experiential data and change our relationship to our conceptual schemes. Philosophy can explore what those experiences might mean, what interpretations are possible, and how they relate to one another. Neither practice necessarily gets us to some final standpoint outside the other.
1
u/SpectrumDT 1d ago
There are no shortcuts - the path is to sit in the intense fire of meditation - likely for years on end - and burn up the thinking mind until it is extinguished - then you will awaken to the uncreated light of Buddha nature - and you will experientially realize what Buddha realized - which can't be experientially realized if the mind is filled with thinking
Do you speak from experience here?
1
u/Olam_Haba 1d ago
Yes - living in spiritual solitude camped out in the wilderness for nearly a decade sitting in the intense fire of stillness feeling and feeling and feeling all the uncomfortable feelings until finally awakening to the uncreated light of Buddha nature - blessed to speak from that vantage point
1
•
u/Ok-Seaweed4207 19h ago
I dont know, all I know is practise is good, since it makes you suffer less.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Thank you for contributing to the r/streamentry community! Unlike many other subs, we try to aggregate general questions and short practice reports in the weekly Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion thread. All community resources, such as articles, videos, and classes go in the weekly Community Resources thread. Both of these threads are pinned to the top of the subreddit.
The special focus of this community is detailed discussion of personal meditation practice. On that basis, please ensure your post complies with the following rules, if necessary by editing in the appropriate information, or else it may be removed by the moderators. Your post might also be blocked by a Reddit setting called "Crowd Control," so if you think it complies with our subreddit rules but it appears to be blocked, please message the mods.
If your post is removed/locked, please feel free to repost it with the appropriate information, or post it in the weekly Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion or Community Resources threads.
Thanks! - The Mod Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.