Do you really think existence is an illusion

[Rael]

This is way more than i can handle right now....lol....

i really need to digest this thread before saying anything....

but i will be back....

thanks for allowing me a place to really ask

[Rael]

It would be a mistake to think that nothing exists, because that would be nihilism. But anything we can say about it (or, more exactly, any concept we can form about it) is incomplete and imprecise and therefore delusional. The idea that we can say anything meaningful about reality is an illusion.

though it may appear illusionary it not necessarily is an illusion

Perhaps that statement is logically consistent, but it misses the point. The essence of illusion is that it does not appear illusory. It appears true when it is not.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

ok nihilism dictates that it is all an illusion....but we know the Buddha was not a Nihilist and Sunyata dictates we are to conduct ourselves in a certain manner due to all of it being codependant and co arising....toss beings into the picture and you have karmic law....

so even though it is illusory in nature it isn't .....there is cause and effect....

discussing cognizant qualities of the finger pointing at the moon is fun but break that finger and a set of causes is set in place that will one day be realized with your cognizant senses .......

[ground]

But the point of the metaphor of illusion and such is to make beings less attached to their experience.

It boils down to just that. Correct. But people get obsessed with all these metaphors.

E.g. the metaphor "emptiness" ... some really believe that they can experience emptiness ... that this is the goal of practice. But it is the experience of non-attachment which is it. Emptiness is just a mere thought.

Kind regards

[Rael]

But the point of the metaphor of illusion and such is to make beings less attached to their experience.

It boils down to just that. Correct. But people get obsessed with all these metaphors.

E.g. the metaphor "emptiness" ... some really believe that they can experience emptiness ... that this is the goal of practice. But it is the experience of non-attachment which is it. Emptiness is just a mere thought.

Kind regards

i beg to differ....

You have to first understand how the word emptiness is being used..

It's as close to what the reality and nature of this existence is and the word can be used to demonstrate that quality....

i put to you.....

if it is mere thought...how then did the concept of sunyata come about?

by thinking or experiencing in samantha meditation.....

just because one does not know a thing does not mean a thing can't be....

i say that sunyata can be experienced....and that knowledge can be expressed and pointed to....


i agree with you in the sense one cannot experience an adjective....but when used in the sense emptiness is ..then yes it can be experienced for like any nature or quality of existence....it can be experienced.... Sunyata takes a certain physiological change though...hence Vajrayana practice and such.....

does that turn you into some walking god or something....no...not necessarily ....can you tell by looking at the person....

[ground]

Just had the same discussion with Greg. The nonsense is where it is not mentioned what is empty of what. See? "emptiness" does not make sense. But "emptiness of" would make sense.

So we may agree that "emptiness" stands for "empty of attachment".

Kind regards

[Rael]

Just had the same discussion with Greg. The nonsense is where it is not mentioned what is empty of what. See? "emptiness" does not make sense. But "emptiness of" would make sense.

So we may agree that "emptiness" stands for "empty of attachment".

Kind regards

Actually i use it in the sense of empty of inherent existence....hence the emptiness if existence..

thats what experiencing Sunyata leaves one with...

everything is codependant co arising...

i thought you knew that?

[meindzai]

It may be that it's pointless to speculate about anything not in our sense sphere. As far as that stuff goes, it's anitta, anatta, dukkha. Everything you want to know about existence is right there.

-M

[ground]

Just had the same discussion with Greg. The nonsense is where it is not mentioned what is empty of what. See? "emptiness" does not make sense. But "emptiness of" would make sense.

So we may agree that "emptiness" stands for "empty of attachment".

Kind regards

Actually i use it in the sense of empty of inherent existence....hence the emptiness if existence..

thats what experiencing Sunyata leaves one with...

everything is codependant co arising...

i thought you knew that?

Yes I know that ... but the field is that of philosophy. Philosophy is moving away from the source of direct experience because it is grounded on mere thought, abstract thought.
Nobody experiences "inherent existence" but everybody experiences attachment. Why fabricate an alleged cause for attachment when attachment is easily accessible to experience but the alleged cause is just mere thought ... that is ... BTW ... negated? Why first fabricate something in order to negate it afterwards? Why not focus on attachment and its conditioned mode of arising and ceasing instead to generate insight?

Kind regards

[Rael]

Just had the same discussion with Greg. The nonsense is where it is not mentioned what is empty of what. See? "emptiness" does not make sense. But "emptiness of" would make sense.

So we may agree that "emptiness" stands for "empty of attachment".

Kind regards

Actually i use it in the sense of empty of inherent existence....hence the emptiness if existence..

thats what experiencing Sunyata leaves one with...

everything is codependant co arising...

i thought you knew that?

Yes I know that ... but the field is that of philosophy. Philosophy is moving away from the source of direct experience because it is grounded on mere thought, abstract thought.
Nobody experiences "inherent existence" but everybody experiences attachment. Why fabricate an alleged cause for attachment when attachment is easily accessible to experience but the alleged cause is just mere thought ... that is ... BTW ... negated? Why first fabricate something in order to negate it afterwards? Why not focus on attachment and its conditioned mode of arising and ceasing instead to generate insight?

Kind regards

Vajrayana is well beyond philosophy....i mean wow dude.....

talk about enlightenment then describe it...what is it....philosophically of course.....
i'm hedging my bets it won't lead anyone to enlightening experiences from reading about it.

Nobody experiences "inherent existence"

true , cause nothing is inherent...and somewhere someone experienced Sunyata and came to tell us about it...


the rest you posted is based on inaccurate assessment of Sunyata or the emptiness of inherent existence

but everybody experiences attachment. Why fabricate an alleged cause for attachment when attachment is easily accessible to experience but the alleged cause is just mere thought ... that is ... BTW ... negated? Why first fabricate something in order to negate it afterwards? Why not focus on attachment and its conditioned mode of arising and ceasing instead to generate insight?

you should not discuss something that actually takes many many years of study , meditation and years of thought to actually get a glimpse of what it is all about.....


edit:
actually that last statement was unfair and rude....

i apologize timingur ...we all our trying to learn....and actually you help crystallize some of my thoughts to type...


It's Kenner It's Fun

[Rael]

note tp board....

please note my edited apology in my last post here....

last line was well off civil debate and learning....quite ignorant thing to say.....

[ground]

...and actually you help crystallize some of my thoughts to type...

It is good to be of help.

Kind regards

[Anders]

someone said time is an illusion and i said it wasn't...It got me to thinking...
do you think life is an illusion or illusionary..or more exact is existence an illusion...

I make the distinction because though it may appear illusionary it not necessarily is an illusion.

How real is this world to you?
do you think it really is as someone once said in the Buddhist community "like a dream within a dream"

I always liked Nagarjuna's take on the illusory nature of things:
The Ten Similes

[KeithBC]

So we may agree that "emptiness" stands for "empty of attachment".

So, "All things are empty of attachment"? No, all things are full of attachment, hence samsara.

When Buddhist scriptures talk about all things being empty, the meaning is very specifically that they are empty of inherent existence. Not that they don't exist, but that their existence is not inherent.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[ground]

So we may agree that "emptiness" stands for "empty of attachment".

So, "All things are empty of attachment"? No, all things are full of attachment, hence samsara.

A fault may occur if you do not consider "all things" from the perspective of the subject, i.e. the way the buddha taught. "All things" are taught to be the aggregates.

When Buddhist scriptures talk about all things being empty, the meaning is very specifically that they are empty of inherent existence. Not that they don't exist, but that their existence is not inherent.

Again:

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

and

Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.

Now where are those "things" of which you assert "all things being empty" that are beyond the aggregates?
Therefore "empty of attachment" is the "clinging aggregates" rid of the "clinging". This then refers to the seeing, hearing etc.

Kind regards

[Anders]

this is getting anally retentive. You do realise there are more than a a handful scriptures in the early canon, let alone the mahayana canon (you know, this being a mahayana board). You are aware of the sutras that Nagarjuna based his argumentation on in the Mulamadhyamakarikas?

Not even pre-mahayana buddhism interpreted emptiness to merely means 'empty of attachment'. It was, as was said by the Buddha, emptiness of self.

[ground]

this is getting anally retentive. You do realise there are more than a a handful scriptures in the early canon, let alone the mahayana canon (you know, this being a mahayana board). You are aware of the sutras that Nagarjuna based his argumentation on in the Mulamadhyamakarikas?

Not even pre-mahayana buddhism interpreted emptiness to merely means 'empty of attachment'. It was, as was said by the Buddha, emptiness of self.

Yes the aggregates are taught as not being the self, not belonging to the self etc. I do not deny this.
However the Mahayana philosophers fabricated a different sort of emptiness referring to persons and inanimate things. Thus speculating beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards

[Anders]

this is getting anally retentive. You do realise there are more than a a handful scriptures in the early canon, let alone the mahayana canon (you know, this being a mahayana board). You are aware of the sutras that Nagarjuna based his argumentation on in the Mulamadhyamakarikas?

Not even pre-mahayana buddhism interpreted emptiness to merely means 'empty of attachment'. It was, as was said by the Buddha, emptiness of self.

Yes the aggregates are taught as not being the self, not belonging to the self etc. I do not deny this.
However the Mahayana philosophers fabricated a different sort of emptiness referring to persons and inanimate things. Thus speculating beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards

You are entitled to your views of course.

I don't think you should be entitled to your dogmatically dismissive attitude of foundational Mahayana tenets, nor your inflammatory rhetorical stance.

Regardless of how right you think you are, you need to realise that habitually dismissing and arguing against what is essentially the common foundations for everyone else on these forums is not only disrespectful and rude to the rest of the forum, it also makes your contributions exceedingly irrelevant here; because you not only lack the common ground everyone else here participates on, but seem to insist on criticising this common ground. What is there point of sharing on such premises?

If you wish to argue on the premise of basic Mahayana teachings being flawed, I suggest you find a pan-Buddhist forum where the validity of the Mahayana is not taken as a basic premise. This line persistent line of argumentation is just plain bad manners in a forum like this.

[ground]

this is getting anally retentive. You do realise there are more than a a handful scriptures in the early canon, let alone the mahayana canon (you know, this being a mahayana board). You are aware of the sutras that Nagarjuna based his argumentation on in the Mulamadhyamakarikas?

Not even pre-mahayana buddhism interpreted emptiness to merely means 'empty of attachment'. It was, as was said by the Buddha, emptiness of self.

Yes the aggregates are taught as not being the self, not belonging to the self etc. I do not deny this.
However the Mahayana philosophers fabricated a different sort of emptiness referring to persons and inanimate things. Thus speculating beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards

You are entitled to your views of course.

Which are based on the Buddha's teachings.

I don't think you should be entitled to your dogmatically dismissive attitude of foundational Mahayana tenets, nor your inflammatory rhetorical stance.

You are misconstruing my words. I am advocating the direct approach taught by the Buddha. There is nothing inflammatory about this. And there is nothing dogmatic about this.
If you prefer philosophical views which are based on mere thought but not on direct experience that is up to you and everybody else.

Regardless of how right you think you are, you need to realise that habitually dismissing and arguing against what is essentially the common foundations for everyone else on these forums is not only disrespectful and rude to the rest of the forum, it also makes your contributions exceedingly irrelevant here; because you not only lack the common ground everyone else here participates on, but seem to insist on criticising this common ground. What is there point of sharing on such premises?

It is about contrasting approaches. It is about learning and investigating. This cannot be disrespectful, sorry.

If you wish to argue on the premise of basic Mahayana teachings being flawed, I suggest you find a pan-Buddhist forum where the validity of the Mahayana is not taken as a basic premise. This line persistent line of argumentation is just plain bad manners in a forum like this.

You do not understand. My intentions are good.

Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

You are entitled to your views of course.

I don't think you should be entitled to your dogmatically dismissive attitude of foundational Mahayana tenets, nor your inflammatory rhetorical stance.

Regardless of how right you think you are, you need to realise that habitually dismissing and arguing against what is essentially the common foundations for everyone else on these forums is not only disrespectful and rude to the rest of the forum, it also makes your contributions exceedingly irrelevant here; because you not only lack the common ground everyone else here participates on, but seem to insist on criticising this common ground. What is there point of sharing on such premises?

If you wish to argue on the premise of basic Mahayana teachings being flawed, I suggest you find a pan-Buddhist forum where the validity of the Mahayana is not taken as a basic premise. This line persistent line of argumentation is just plain bad manners in a forum like this.

The problem is that even when referred to the Pali Canon Sutta on Sunnata TMingyur refuses to read even these teachings and come back with an informed opinion as to what the Buddha considered "emptiness" to be (and not be). It is not that he is expounding a "Hinayana" position in opposition to a Mahayana position, but that he is expounding a TMingyur position against all Canons and traditions (and failing dismally of course).

[ground]

It is not that he is expounding a "Hinayana" position in opposition to a Mahayana position, but that he is expounding a TMingyur position against all Canons and traditions (and failing dismally of course).

My position is a "hearing different teachers, studying the writings of tibetan teachers, studying the sutta pitaka especially SN and MN, practicing practices" position. So there are history, conditions and dependent origination.

Kind regards


Edit: Forgot an important one "studying Dharmakirti's thought through the lense of western 'science'".