Post Reply
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Illusion Confusion
5 years ago  ::  May 27, 2009 - 2:20PM #1
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves.


Nagarjuna


 


When mystics talk about the world being an illusion, many take that as referring to the world itself. This is not the case; what they are talking about is that it is our ideas about the world that are illusory. Mundane and Divine are logically, not existentially, separate realities, for example.


It is through the mundane the divine is expressed - the mundane is the candle while the divine is the flame. When the mystics say the ego is an illusion, what they are calling illusion is the idea of the ego as a real and separate entity unto itself. The self is an Icon of the Self and neither self nor Self have independent existence.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2009 - 1:02AM #2
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,402

May 27, 2009 -- 2:20PM, Neomonist wrote:


Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves.


Nagarjuna


 


When mystics talk about the world being an illusion, many take that as referring to the world itself. This is not the case; what they are talking about is that it is our ideas about the world that are illusory. Mundane and Divine are logically, not existentially, separate realities, for example.


It is through the mundane the divine is expressed - the mundane is the candle while the divine is the flame. When the mystics say the ego is an illusion, what they are calling illusion is the idea of the ego as a real and separate entity unto itself. The self is an Icon of the Self and neither self nor Self have independent existence.



You said that it is our ideas about the world that are illusory,what about the idea that the world is transitory, that can't be illusory. Not all mystics believe ego is illusion, they believe false ego is illusion. Real ego is "I am spirit soul" false ego relates to the body and its extensions.Since we change bodies ( reincarnation ) what body can we say is actually ours, is it this body, my last body ( which doesn't exist anymore ) or my next body. We change bodies like we change clothes, therefore the body is just the covering of the soul and to make it your identity is to be in an illusory state.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2009 - 8:49AM #3
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

williejhonlo


>You said that it is our ideas about the world that are illusory, what about the idea that the world is transitory, that can't be illusory.


Thinking the world is transitory is just as illusory as thinking the world is permanent. Without a 'this', there would not be a 'that'.


>Not all mystics believe ego is illusion, they believe false ego is illusion. Real ego is "I am spirit soul" false ego relates to the body and its extensions.


I submit 'Real ego' is an illusion - it is a mental image, just as is 'false ego'.


>Since we change bodies ( reincarnation )...


I submit there is no 'we' to 'change' bodies. The Buddhist concept of Transmigration comes closest to what I think is going on - the Divine incarnates in each of us.


This is an illusion as well, if I were to postulate it as what is actually the case. I offer it as an allusion - what may be the case.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2009 - 4:24PM #4
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,402

Jun 17, 2009 -- 8:49AM, Neomonist wrote:


williejhonlo


>You said that it is our ideas about the world that are illusory, what about the idea that the world is transitory, that can't be illusory.


Thinking the world is transitory is just as illusory as thinking the world is permanent. Without a 'this', there would not be a 'that'.


>Not all mystics believe ego is illusion, they believe false ego is illusion. Real ego is "I am spirit soul" false ego relates to the body and its extensions.


I submit 'Real ego' is an illusion - it is a mental image, just as is 'false ego'.


>Since we change bodies ( reincarnation )...


I submit there is no 'we' to 'change' bodies. The Buddhist concept of Transmigration comes closest to what I think is going on - the Divine incarnates in each of us.


This is an illusion as well, if I were to postulate it as what is actually the case. I offer it as an allusion - what may be the case.



This or that are just two words that describe something. you say the world being transitory as well as it being permanent are both illusory, then my friend Neo just what is the nature of the world? outside of describing something ( this or that ) as temporary or permanent in nature how would you describe it? You say, real ego is as illusory as false ego but then you say the divine incarnates in each of "us", since this represents knowledge, how are we to understand it if we have no ego!! If the false ego ( body ) is illusory or unreal then just what is the "us" the divine is incarnating in since both soul and body are both unreal.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2009 - 6:14PM #5
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

williejhonlo


>This or that are just two words that describe something. you say the world being transitory as well as it being permanent are both illusory, then my friend Neo just what is the nature of the world? outside of describing something ( this or that ) as temporary or permanent in nature how would you describe it?


The descriptions are our ideas about what the nature of the world is and it is these ideas that are illusory. Neither ‘temporary’ nor ‘permanent’, in and of themselves, is Truth - they are interdependent truths and cannot exist apart.


>You say, real ego is as illusory as false ego but then you say the divine incarnates in each of "us", since this represents knowledge, how are we to understand it if we have no ego!! If the false ego ( body ) is illusory or unreal then just what is the "us" the divine is incarnating in since both soul and body are both unreal.


The idea there is an us the Divine incarnates in is illusory - it is an idea there is an ‘us’ and a ‘Divine’ as two separate and independent realities. williejhonlo and Neo are masks -O- (My spelling of "God") wears in the Cosmic Drama. Neo and -O- are interdependent as is williejhonlo and -O-.


The Emptiness one can wrap their mind around is not true Emptiness - the Suchness one can wrap their mind around is not true Suchness. True Emptiness and True Suchness are experiences, not theories.


student - "The Buddha is a Manifestation of Dharma, is he not?"


teacher - "Yes, but it is a shame to say so."


Neos' comment - The student is attempting to paint a red rose red.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2009 - 11:00PM #6
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

williejhonlo 


>Just what is the nature of the world? How would you describe it?


When I talk about the nature of the 'world', I'm talking about everything.


Is the world 'temporary'?


There was a beginning in what is called the Big Bang. For the sake of this discussion, let us assume there is enough matter/energy to make this a closed system. This would mean there will be an end to the world in a Big Crunch. In this respect, the world is temporary.


Is the world 'permanent'?


There is no reason to assume the Big Bang is the first and only time the event took place. There is no difference between the ideas of sequential incarnations of the soul and sequential incarnations of the world. In this respect, the world is permanent.


The world is both 'temporary' and 'permanent'.


The world is neither 'temporary' nor 'permanent'.


The world is 'nontemporary' because the world always is. The world is 'nonpermanent' because the world is constantly changing.


The world is both 'nontemporary' and 'nonpermanent'.


The world is neither 'nontemporary' nor 'nonpermanent'.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 7:30AM #7
mouradrashad
Posts: 624

May 27, 2009 -- 2:20PM, Neomonist wrote:


When mystics talk about the world being an illusion, many take that as referring to the world itself. This is not the case; what they are talking about is that it is our ideas about the world that are illusory. Mundane and Divine are logically, not existentially, separate realities, for example.




Hello Neo


Well said. A better term   to use would be worldly living or worldly life as being illusory, not the world itself.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 8:23AM #8
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

Jun 18, 2009 -- 7:30AM, mouradrashad wrote:


Hello Neo


Well said. A better term   to use would be worldly living or worldly life as being illusory, not the world itself.





Hello Mourad


Thank you.


From "The Zen Teachings of Nagarjuna" by Vladimir K., June 2004


"It's also important to realise that Nagarjuna really does mean everything, without exception, including the Self, including thoughts, volition, beliefs-quite literally everything."


I see worldly life as a subset of our ideas about the world but I understand what you're saying. In the OP, I was referring to all ideas in general, not any one idea in particular.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 1:49PM #9
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,402

Jun 17, 2009 -- 11:00PM, Neomonist wrote:


williejhonlo 


>Just what is the nature of the world? How would you describe it?


When I talk about the nature of the 'world', I'm talking about everything.


Is the world 'temporary'?


There was a beginning in what is called the Big Bang. For the sake of this discussion, let us assume there is enough matter/energy to make this a closed system. This would mean there will be an end to the world in a Big Crunch. In this respect, the world is temporary.


Is the world 'permanent'?


There is no reason to assume the Big Bang is the first and only time the event took place. There is no difference between the ideas of sequential incarnations of the soul and sequential incarnations of the world. In this respect, the world is permanent.


The world is both 'temporary' and 'permanent'.


The world is neither 'temporary' nor 'permanent'.


The world is 'nontemporary' because the world always is. The world is 'nonpermanent' because the world is constantly changing.


The world is both 'nontemporary' and 'nonpermanent'.


The world is neither 'nontemporary' nor 'nonpermanent'.



I can relate to the world being 'temporary' and permanent' since as you said it is probably being constantly being recreated again and again, but the world being nontemporary because the world always is, is confusing since the world would have to become nonmanifested in order to become manifested. Can we also not say that the big bang is also just an idea and is also illusory, after all it is just a theory and theories are ideas.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 2:01PM #10
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

Jun 18, 2009 -- 1:49PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Can we also not say that the big bang is also just an idea and is also illusory, after all it is just a theory and theories are ideas.





But of course. I have a sneaking hunch that if and/or when The Truth ever comes out, we are all going to be surprised.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook