we cannot have a discussion about reality unless it's it's it's it's a discussion there's courses involved 01:35:20 but all the discussions i didn't know about reality um as far as i know happened um through sounds or writing in which atoms were 01:35:32 moving so we cannot have a discussion without atoms right um and so on i could i could so then atoms are fundamental no uh 01:35:44 the fact that something is it's it's part of our discussion about this doesn't mean that uh it's primary with respect to the rest i think we have to take this that's my that's my own personal um 01:35:56 view of that so of course we talk about uh from today from within our consciousness of course and of course we have information about reality from within our senses and of course we talk in 01:36:08 english we talk in tibetan we talk in pali but that's not because english tibetan empire consciousness or atoms are a necessary starting point for understanding the rest i think it's uh 01:36:20 that's exactly the uh the the uh what i read in a gardener's uh uh uh chapter about the self um 01:36:33 it's uh we recognize his dependence uh of of i i would i would say levels of the pieces of the story one respect to the other one 01:36:45 and uh uh but also at a clear at a clear logical analysis this is what nagajuna does none of this stands up as primary with 01:36:57 respect to the other that's my reading uh professor halcyas georgios my dear friend and colleague um i agree with you when we talk about reality we are we are talking not about 01:37:13 reality uh we're talking about reality it's not reality and that is not the reality of the uh of nagarjuna nevertheless it's very useful because 01:37:35 without this conventional reality of words and concepts that are correct in understanding nagarjuna without that it's very difficult for us to have that experience that non-conceptual experience of reality so you know 01:37:49 there's a kind of a metaphor that's used is you you know you take a boat and you cross the river and then uh you leave the boat or the other analogy is you you're out in the forest and it gets cold and you 01:38:02 take two sticks and you rub them together and with a friction you get fire and the fire then burns the sticks so the sticks are conceptuality as was the boat that got you across the 01:38:14 river not any conceptuality but very clear understanding of nagarjuna and of course the buddha his discussion on on the buddhist wisdom
The answer to the question given does not feel satisfactory. The question appears to be a variant of the "If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear". Does reality have an objective, autonomous existence? In other words, the question asks: does objective reality exist?