Merle, If you think the communication on the Forum is just between two or three or four individuals - YES! - that's a big illusion.
I don't know for sure but I'd guess there are at least 20, and probably 50, and maybe 100 people that regularly read our posts but never (or very rarely) post themselves. The technical term for people like these in forum-ese is 'lurkers'. So...watch your P's and Q's. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > > Â scary..as sometimes one feels the communication is between > individuals...this then is an illusion?..merle > Â > Merle, > > Of course you can 'butt in'! > > That's what an open forum is for; but when we do that in the forum we call it > 'spontaneously participating in the discussion'...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ÃÂ may i butt in:...ÃÂ > > > > folk have preconceived ideas about most things by the time they can speak > > as babies... > > > > ÃÂ as adults they are filled to the brim in their minds with preconceived > > ideas...programmed up so to speak... > > > > to see the truth...one must take off the blindfold and see with a fresh eye > > and an open mind > > > > just as it is > > > > away from the shadows..into the clear light of day... > > > > merle > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > Edgar, > > > > Thanks for posting this. > > > > As you know I've struggled for sometime about just what term to express > > what I call 'illusions' - thoughts, logic, forms, etc... I rejected > > 'delusions' and 'hallucinations' because they do carry with them a sense of > > falseness or mental disorder. I've thought about using 'mental models' and > > I like 'perceptions', but in the end, or at least for now, have stuck with > > the traditional Buddhist term 'illusions'. > > > > The definition given below of Maya is the definition I intend when I use > > the term 'illusion', I've carefully read the article below through twice > > and I believe it supports everything I've said in the past and certainly in > > recent posts. > > > > I myself think of the term illusions as very similar to the way we use the > > term 'illusion' when we describe 'magic' or 'sleight-of-hand' tricks. The > > actions seem to show something happening that is in fact not happening, or > > at least is not happening the way we think it is. It is our mind > > (intellect) that adds-in non-existent 'clues' or ignores existent clues and > > then makes assumptions that lead us to a false conclusion about what happen > > and how it happened. This is especially a good example because it is us, > > our intellect, that projects the misleading clues or filters out the missed > > clues and creates as a false perception of what we are experiencing (seeing > > in the case of 'magic' tricks). > > > > Since you posted this I assume you also think it supports your worldview > > but does not support mine (or at least what you think mine is). If you'll > > point out areas of the article that you think do either of those I'd be > > happy to engage with you on a discussion about those. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Philosophy and illusion > > > [edit] > > > > > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in > > > spirituality the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in > > > Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate > > > illusion from truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, > > > Illusion is something which is not true and not false. Whereas in general > > > usage it is common to assume that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy > > > makes a distinction between Maya (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of > > > this philosophy maya is true in itself but it is not true in comparison > > > with the truth. As per this philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of > > > truth or reality. Based on these assumptions Vedas declare that the world > > > as humans normally see is illusion (Maya). It does not mean the world is > > > not real. The world is only so much real as the image of a person in a > > > mirror. The world is not real/true when compared to the reality. But the > > > world is also not false. Falsehood is > > something which does not exist. if we apply this philosophy to the above > > example, the illusion is not actually illusion but is false. This is > > because in general usage people tend to consider lllusion to be the same as > > falsehood. As per adishankar's a guru of monist teachings the world we > > think is not true but is an illusion (not true not false). The truth of the > > world is something which can only be experienced by removing the identity > > (ego). > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
