kalden yungdrung wrote:Tashi delek,
Sometimes it is not so clear, what is illusion.
There exist many explanations about what is meant by illusion.
So it is very interesting to know your suggestions what would be illusion for you.
Especially in Dzogchen it is difficult to make a clear understanding in the understanding of illusion.
"This all is unborn, but that does not mean that there are no objects; they are seen to be like the city of the Gandharvas, a dream, and Maya; objects are here, but causeless."
"The sense-organs are to be known as Maya, the sense-fields resemble a dream; actor, act, and acting—they do not at all [in reality] exist."
Harold wrote:The practice of Buddhism is an ILLUSION which replaces other ILLUSIONS.
For most sentient beings Buddhism is a necessary ILLUSION, but ultimately Buddhism is JUST ANOTHER ILLUSION.
Teaching from the long deceased Gesar Kusali Rinpoche.
kalden yungdrung wrote:
outside of you are like reflections in a mirror
That is very interesting, how are those reflections seen regarding the mirror? A mirror can reflect that is sure, but how can outer phenomena reflect regarding the mind? Does the eye here function as the reflecting factor?
- I know there is also a view / vision possible from inside to outside...........
- From the outer side are all things which do come out of Nature absolutely pure and clear.........
asunthatneversets wrote:The nature of mind is also illusory, everything is illusory according to dzogchen.
Inside/outside are merely conventional designations which are useful but are ultimately empty. Conventionally, notions of inside and outside the body (subjective and objective experience) are important because working with the body is an important aspect of dzogchen, but when it comes to the view everything is primordially pure and free from extremes, so when resting in the view there's no need to reify appearances being outside or inside, everything is just appearing.
Important not to fixate on the idea of a mirror (i.e. a substantiated background or substratum) either because that creates a subtle reference point. The mirror metaphor is implemented to make us notice how the mirror's capacity to reflect is inseparable from the reflections themselves (so we can apply that to our own experience). If that metaphor is applied to oneself; the mirror's capacity to reflect corresponds to our immediate capacity to experience... and the mirror's reflections correspond to the phenomena of experience. The mirror's capacity to reflect is inseparable from the reflections, and our immediate capacity to experience is inseparable from experience itself etc. When the direct intuitive knowledge (that metaphor is meaning to convey) is recognized, that is the view. But again, within that nothing is ever established or unestablished (kadag).
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Hansei and 19 guests