TMingyur wrote:This is not comprehensible for me and it appears as if an inherent contradiction.
Why is there this "burst out laughing"? Who is it who laughs? And about what is this laughter?
If there is no "I" who appropriates a discrepancy between illusion and non-illusion then why is there laughter?
But if there is an "I" who appropriates this discrepancy then this laughter is a manifestation of delusion.
Who could there be to compare illusion and non-illusion and burst out laughing about that?
Isn't this actually differentiating "good" and "bad" and "acceptance" and "rejection" in that it discerns that which is laughable?
With this concept you could argue that a buddha can't talk and eat either for then there should be an "I" to conceive an other and make distinction between food and non-food (not to mention acceptable and unacceptable food). It is a buddha who can't even breathe.