Do you really think existence is an illusion

[Rael]

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"

[ground]

But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Kind regards

[Rael]

But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Kind regards

from the "Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View)"

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

to which Our lord replies:
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases.


and then goes on to give us a way with dealing with this world in the rest of the sutta and the right view of it..

from the site;
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



what i'm trying to find out is do you feel or think that this is all an illusion....not real....or do you think it is reality..

I am going somewhere with this....lol....but for now i gotta ask the question...


it's one thing to teach us how to deal with the reality we dwell in ...it's another to define it...yes no....

the sutta given doesn't really address the reality of it all..but how to deal with it with right view in order to evolve....


from the sutta;
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

I feel this is teaching for seeing the nature of existence and then dealing with it...kinda like that cute lil sign some parks put up"leave nothing but your footprints, take nothing but the joy in the experience"...

[ground]

what i'm trying to find out is do you feel or think that this is all an illusion....not real....or do you think it is reality..

Invalid papanca.

the sutta given doesn't really address the reality of it all..but how to deal with it with right view in order to evolve....

This is your impression because you cling to the thought/view "reality" and are fabricating what might be beyond direct perception.

from the sutta;
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

I feel this is teaching for seeing the nature of existence and then dealing with it...

The thought "existence" occurs to you. Why? Because you don't see "the origination and the cessation with right discernment".

What you don't seem to understand is that even contacting the thought "existence" or the thought "non-existence" is invalid papanca.

Kind regards

[ground]

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. That is how you should train yourself.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen." What does that mean?

Kind regards

[Tilopa]

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"

Dream-like definitely. Illusory in so far as it doesn't exist the way it appears to our ordinary mind - yes. An illusion - very interesting question and I'm not 100% sure of the answer. Probably yes except it implies a cittamatrin type view in which there are no externally existent phenomena at all so we need to be careful lest the partisans of Chandrakirti take exception.

[Sherab]

When existence is an illusion, then one can understand why the Buddha said 'existence' and 'non-existence' as not occurring to him.
When existence is an illusion, then one can understand that dharmas/things/phenomena are neither conditioned nor unconditioned.
When existence is an illusion, then one can understand why "samsara" and "nirvana" is neither same nor different.
When existence is an illusion, then one can understand the progression from the first to the third turning and therefore no contradictions in the Dharma.
When existence is an illusion, then one can make sense of all the paradoxical statements found in the sutras.
When existence is an illusion, then one can make sense of tantric practices.
That is how it seems to me.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings TMingyur,

"In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen." What does that mean?

It means without any conceptual overlay or active arresting/categorisation of experience as discrete dhammas (things).

Maitri,
Retro.

[ground]

Greetings TMingyur,

"In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen." What does that mean?

It means without any conceptual overlay or active arresting/categorisation of experience as discrete dhammas (things).

Maitri,
Retro.

Thanks.

When existence is an illusion, then one can understand why the Buddha said 'existence' and 'non-existence' as not occurring to him.
When existence is an illusion, then one can understand that dharmas/things/phenomena are neither conditioned nor unconditioned.
When existence is an illusion, then one can understand why "samsara" and "nirvana" is neither same nor different.
When existence is an illusion, then one can understand the progression from the first to the third turning and therefore no contradictions in the Dharma.
When existence is an illusion, then one can make sense of all the paradoxical statements found in the sutras.
When existence is an illusion, then one can make sense of tantric practices.
That is how it seems to me.

There appears to be much of conceptual overlay. Why? Because "existence" is "contacted" and fabrication occurs. The mere thought "existence" entails another mere thought "illusion". Mere thought serves as legitimation for mere thought. That is fabrication, isn't it?

Kind regards

[ground]

Greetings TMingyur,

"In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen." What does that mean?

It means without any conceptual overlay or active arresting/categorisation of experience as discrete dhammas (things).

Maitri,
Retro.

Retro

I find it even more tricky in the context of "In reference to the cognized, only the cognized."
Because "cognition" appears to be readily associated with "re-cognition" which may be discerned as "conceptual overlay".

What's your view?

Kind regards

[Sherab]

There appears to be much of conceptual overlay. Why? Because "existence" is "contacted" and fabrication occurs. The mere thought "existence" entails another mere thought "illusion". Mere thought serves as legitimation for mere thought. That is fabrication, isn't it?

Of course from your point of view, there is much conceptual overlay because you are unable to distinguish between the finger that is pointing at the moon and the actual moon itself.

[ground]

There appears to be much of conceptual overlay. Why? Because "existence" is "contacted" and fabrication occurs. The mere thought "existence" entails another mere thought "illusion". Mere thought serves as legitimation for mere thought. That is fabrication, isn't it?

Of course from your point of view, there is much conceptual overlay because you are unable to distinguish between the finger that is pointing at the moon and the actual moon itself.

I would say "not compromising the moon through the finger" because "finger" is indirect and multiple but "moon" is direct and singular. Through application of "finger" and "contacting finger" there is arising of obsession with "finger" (clinging to views) and losing sight of "moon".

Kind regards

[Sherab]

I would say "not compromising the moon through the finger" because "finger" is indirect and multiple but "moon" is direct and singular. Through application of "finger" and "contacting finger" there is arising of obsession with "finger" (clinging to views) and losing sight of "moon".

Then you agree that you still need the finger to point to the moon. If so, it is of no benefit to tell people to ignore the finger when the purpose of the finger is to point to the moon. Of course, when the moon has been shown, you can then tell people to ignore the finger but not before then.

[ground]

I would say "not compromising the moon through the finger" because "finger" is indirect and multiple but "moon" is direct and singular. Through application of "finger" and "contacting finger" there is arising of obsession with "finger" (clinging to views) and losing sight of "moon".

Then you agree that you still need the finger to point to the moon. If so, it is of no benefit to tell people to ignore the finger when the purpose of the finger is to point to the moon. Of course, when the moon has been shown, you can then tell people to ignore the finger but not before then.

Hmh ...

maybe ...

maybe not ...

maybe you are just devising your legitimation for clinging to views like these:

"... dharmas/things/phenomena are neither conditioned nor unconditioned"
"... "samsara" and "nirvana" is neither same nor different"
"... there is a progression from the first to the third turning and therefore no contradictions in the Dharma"
"... tantric practices make "sense" "


Kind regards

[Sherab]

Hmh ...

maybe ...

maybe not ...

maybe you are just devising your legitimation for clinging to views like these:

"... dharmas/things/phenomena are neither conditioned nor unconditioned"
"... "samsara" and "nirvana" is neither same nor different"
"... there is a progression from the first to the third turning and therefore no contradictions in the Dharma"
"... tantric practices make "sense" "

.. sticks and stones may break my bones but you can't take away my rock and roll ..

[KeithBC]

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"

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

[ground]

The essence of illusion is that it does not appear illusory. It appears true when it is not.

That is nicely put. However ... honestly ... there is no appearance at all that appears as if true or illusory. "true" or "illusory" are synthesized "on top of" appearances.


Kind regards

[Tilopa]

.. sticks and stones may break my bones but you can't take away my rock and roll ..

ooohh I just new this was gonna be a hot thread

[retrofuturist]

Greetings TMingyur,

I find it even more tricky in the context of "In reference to the cognized, only the cognized."
Because "cognition" appears to be readily associated with "re-cognition" which may be discerned as "conceptual overlay".

What's your view?

In that regard it is understanding cognition as cognition... not taking it to be something else, and not superimposing it over objects from other sense bases and taking that 'sensory composite' to be a dhamma (thing).

Metta,
Retro.

[Astus]

The error is in the question. To as "Is this illusion?" implies there is something that is an illusion. So even if one believes it is an illusion he still maintains the view that there is something existent that has the quality of illusion. Of course, this is how language works. But the point of the metaphor of illusion and such is to make beings less attached to their experience. So this investigation of the illusory nature of things is indeed a dream in a dream. There is quite a difference between illusion and suchness, i.e. the things as they are, in terminology. But the meaning of both is simply not to get so hooked on like and dislike.