gregkavarnos wrote:...coz you have you are day dreaming about a bizarre theory of non-existence without perception,
It isn't a bizarre theory, it's pretty self-evident if you look at it empirically. What you are directly experiencing is all that is, there is only this present moment which is the sum total of what is presently happening.
You can claim that something is happening elsewhere, that things exist without your perception, but you can never prove it, it's a story, a very believable story, but still only a story. I understand that what I'm saying sounds ridiculous and bizarre, but I assure you I am not some fool who is blindly adopting some extreme view without having investigated it thoroughly.
gregkavarnos wrote: and the car runs over your ass and perception (via bodily feeling/sensation of intense pain) suddenly makes the car existent for you, well you may stop and think how silly your theory really is (if you are not dead).
Isn't that prime example of the car's absence in experience prior to the arising of the expressions which convey "car"(i.e. intense pain)? One can tentatively say the car is indeed composed of sensation(though sensation is a misnomer). So the appearance of those sensations in experience(which IS experience) then makes the "car" fully evident, however it is only ever experience itself.
gregkavarnos wrote: Just because YOU do not perceive a phenomenon does not mean it does not exist. And if, as you believe, existence is dependent on perception then all phenomena must exist because there is not a single phenomenon that the mind of an Omniscient One (a Buddha) is not aware of.
Right, you just said it yourself... there is not a single phenomenon that the mind of a buddha is not aware of (i.e. what is not presently occurring in awareness, is NOT). Existence isn't dependent on perception because both existence and perception themselves are misnomers. But again, tentatively yes, we can say that existence is dependent on perception(and vice versa for they are not two). Of course proper application of dependent origination would see the emptiness in both of those designations right away, being that they are inseparable.
gregkavarnos wrote: So do phenomena exist or not then???
They certainly seem to