Hi Mark
On 18/04/2011 05:05, 118 wrote:
Finally, I would like to present what I have been reading concerning the use of the term
"illusion". It seems that this word is being used to represent something that
isn't real.
I think this is a common enough mistake that most people fall for it.
What we think of as real are those things that we believe to be true
about reality. However, given that the data we work with is not the
'true' or 'actual' data that 'exists' (i.e. we are not in direct contact
with what we call objective reality) and that whatever data we do have
is generally buggered about with via our senses then it's pretty much a
foregone conclusion that the entirety of what we call reality is an
illusion.
However, it is quite clear that an illusion represents a specific real thing,
such as an illusion of an oasis in the desert. Therefore, illusions are
misinterpretations of very real things. This would be in contrast to delusions.
Or hallucinations or....
Illusions themselves can appear to be very real - as per your mirage or,
better still a rainbow. A rainbow is so real you can photograph it and
show this illusion to someone else - and yet it's still a total
illusion. There really is no coloured bow in the sky but everyone can
agree that it definitely seems to be there. Illusions can, and more
often than not do, appear to be entirely rational and objective - i.e.
real.
So when it is said that the self is an illusion, this would mean that such
"self" exists, just not as we think it does. Otherwise it would not be called
an illusion.
I think that's about right. And the same goes for the argument about
free will AND determinism. Both of which are illusions. In fact, I would
say that the majority of disagreements on this list are to do with the
illusory nature of what we believe to be real.
If we take the premise of Buddhism that the self does not exist, but arises as
a result of what some fondly call Patterns in this forum, then what exactly are
we pointing to with the concept of self?
Well to start with it's not a simple one-to-one mapping. The self is a
family of concepts which have to be examined in the light of our beliefs
about what exists, what we know about them and how they fit together.
Although that's just my opinion.
I certainly know that I exist, be it as a codependent arising or whatever. The
fact that things do
not inherently exist is obvious from chemistry and physics where everything is
made up of something smaller, down to the infinitely small.
But even saying that you know that you exist is the result of a belief
in concepts, many of which are themselves derived from illusions - and
I'm not sure how co-dependant arising helps either. Trying to
dis-entangle real from illusory is an almost impossible task - even
starting from something as basic as 'I think therefore I am' or whatever.
It's all a bit tricky really!
Horse
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
