Subjective and Objective

  What does 'subjective' and 'objective' really mean? When I was meditating tonight in the group practice, I started to see there are  no clear boundaries between a subject and an object. It's only when I pre-define an experience as separate from my seeing it that I declare myself to be the subject and the thing 'out there' to be the object. And the resulting categories include subjective (meaning coming from my own mind) and objective (an external thing which somehow exists out there to be viewed).
   If Buddhism sees all phenomena as creations of mind, does this imply that there is no objective existence? In one particular Dharma talk called "Subjectivity and Objectivity", Master Sheng Yen suggests that what we call objective is not an independent object, but is rather a collective subjectivity that is agreed upon by the collective wisdom of many people. For instance, when we decide to drive on the right side of the road instead of the left, this is often considered  objectively correct, but  it only applies in specific countries or cultures where this convention happens to have been settled upon. Information is organized in this way because communities have somehow worked upon it to be perceived in a fairly predictable way. Even the statement "the sun rises in the morning" may seem objective, but the words 'sun' and 'rise' are conventions that refer to discrete bundles of information. When a person analyses what the sun is, they will find that the sun consists of many instances of changing information (particles and energy  transfers constantly taking place). We use the term 'sun' (or in France, "soleil", etc) as a way to conveniently understand and communicate information, not as an absolute reference point for something that is fixed and unchanging.
     But at the same time, knowing that knowledge consists of agreed or collective subjectivities does not mean that people should only follow the whims of their perceptions or feelings. On the contrary, it suggests that truths are always negotiated across people's interests, and is subject to change based on shifting needs. I  am thinking of the case of medicine. It seems that models of medicine change according to the needs of societies, and what was once a fashionable mechanistic approach to medicine (treating the illness as an invader and the body as a machine) is not so much in fashion these days. What I get from Master Sheng Yen's talk in particular is that truth is something that depends upon relationships and how they are played out between people. If I subordinate those relationships to an obsessive search for 'the truth', I may end up isolating myself in a fantasy. It is a bit like Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, who obsessively learns whatever he can learn to conquer a whale, only to succumb to the unpredictability of nature.
    Another consequence of this view is that I am neither stuck on 'my own belief' nor trying to prove that my belief is objectively true. When I understand that knowledge  is an inter-subjective and need-based process, I am seeing that what is 'true' really depends on the needs of that moment, which are conditioned by many different perspectives. Rather than seeing this as a weakness, I can celebrate the beauty of shifting , changing perspectives around me.



Master Sheng Yen, "Subjectivity and Objectivity" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmCX2yrEE5E