Everything is an illusion

[blazeofglory]

Do not confute others. What you perceive to be truth is not truth, but the shadow of it or the façade of it. After a while it no longer becomes existentially visible. What we see is a series of manifestations only.

We are obsessed with things, love, wealth, sex, territory. But see their impermanence, evanescence. All fleet.

I do not mean to dispel all these things. But to be aware of the fact that we must be indifferent to these things. While we are too much with the world, a sense of detachment must embody us.

We know things keep on happening eternally and we simply go adrift with the phenomena and swept by all that take place or happen we must try to understand them.

This is what the Buddha realized and he awakened himself. We are still in deep slumber.

[Mr. Vandemar]

I knew you were a buddhist before I opened the topic. I agree with you. Nothing is permanent, nothing is stationary, and nothing is for certain. How could it be?

[blazeofglory]

I knew you were a buddhist before I opened the topic. I agree with you. Nothing is permanent, nothing is stationary, and nothing is for certain. How could it be?

This idea that all things disappear and vaporize can help overcome a great many maladies we live with in point of fact. We value things beyond a limit. We erect skyscrapers knowing that they cannot endure the ravages of time. The obsession is too strong and we can not think of parting with anything we possess. I do not say we must renounce everything. No. The point is if we do not obsess our minds with anything beyond limits we will lessen our blood pressure levels. When we attach too much importance to things to the extent that we feel we are the things and also thinking that without them life is measurable. Once we forgo such feelings thinking that everything is an illusion we can be happy. The happiness I have in mind is not the one you will get after getting a pay raise or promotion or getting married to a very lovely spouse or after buying your dream home or car. Pure happiness transcends all these things. I do not say I have a leaning towards spirituality to say all this. No. I meditate deeply and feel like that. Ideas coincide or collide.

I do not mean I win over all mundane things. No. I am attached to it yet I have this feeling embedded deep down me. I do not mean you have to agree, yet I feel happy to share the realization I arrived at in life

[Mr. Vandemar]

Once again, I certainly agree with you. I strive my entire life to detach myself from material possessions. These ideas allow me to suffer losses indifferently which I would have previously suffered with a great anger or sadness. The only solution to find enlightenment is a middle way of life, is it not? Take the novel Siddhartha for example, Siddhartha does not become the Buddha (or enlightened) until he has experienced both riches and asceticism and has chosen a path between the two. Material possessions must be the last thing on our mind (they are the first thing on the mind of both the rich man and the ascetic) and we must learn to forget about them. Do you agree?

[Bakiryu]

True, all that we perceive as real is only pure energy. Only our eyes are not sharp enough and see only the matter and not the atoms. All the things that occupy our time are only transient and in the end, there's nothing but molecules and their covalent bindings.

[caddy_caddy]

I agree with u;but I would prefer to say everything is temperory. If we conceive our presence and the presence of everything in life as temperory we would feel much better.
We are obsessed with the idea of eternity in everything!!
I think of life as a cycle in which we have a limited role ( in time and space);it makes me endure loss , pain and be able to have a new beginning, a new cycle.

I strive my entire life to detach myself from material possessions. These ideas allow me to suffer losses indifferently
This is what I call "freedom
I completely agree with u

[Mr. Vandemar]

Why do you prefer temporary to impermanent? Don't they mean the same thing?

[caddy_caddy]

Why do you prefer temporary to impermanent? Don't they mean the same thing?

It is temporary vs. illusion.
I would prefer to say everything is temporary not illusion; I think there is a big difference between them.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Oh, I understand what you mean. Everything but your thought process is an illusion. Nothing can ever be proven to you, absolutely nothing.

Everything, including your thought process, is impermanent. Then again, to you it would be permanent...since when your thoughts end...you end. How do I know the world exists after my demise? How do I know it existed before my birth?

[caddy_caddy]

Our thought process has to do with our consciousness ; how could be an illusion?
I think u are making a correlation between acknowledgment and existence which I don't really make.Human consciousness is related to his experience in time and space ; so it is limited by nature. Our acknowledgment and consciousness is not the centre of existence .If I am not able to proove it it doesn't mean it cannot exist or does not exist.

All the best,

[dramasnot6]

Ah, and who could put it better than the Bard?
"There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so." -Hamlet

Biologically, we do perceive a lot more than what we 'actually' sense. I agree with caddy in that "Our acknowledgment and consciousness is not the centre of existence". What is considered 'real' versus what is considered an 'illusion' is a subjective matter.
For instance, Sigmund Freud considered much to be an illusion and/or a delusion. He considered most of our conscious thought and belief (including religious belief and even our memories) to be of the making of the individual. A great deal of psychological study is dedicated to determining why and how we create illusions. If one was to spend one's life struggling to identify what was false and what was true in the minds of men, one would come out with a very pessimistic impression of mankind .
Illusions and perception can cloud our consciousness and even block our reception to new knowledge and understanding. However, there is also a beauty and a uniquely human element to illusion. What is reading fiction literature but imagining and perceiving what is not physically there? What is all art, for that matter?
I like what is said in the OP of this thread. We may dream up most of what is around us, but this does not mean we are useless as a species. Art, love, money, dreams...these have all fuelled and inspired some of the most dangerous and the most wonderful acts of man. To 'make-believe' is fundamentally human, and can be the means of achieving amazing things for 'reality'.

[curlyqlink]

We are obsessed with things, love, wealth, sex, territory. But see their impermanence, evanescence. All fleet.

I do not mean to dispel all these things. But to be aware of the fact that we must be indifferent to these things.

Yes, well...

I've just been reading How To See Yourself As You Really Are by the Dalai Lama. I have read other Buddhist things, and while it is intriguing, I can't help the feeling that it is... plain nonsense. Yes, everything is fleeting. Yes, material things don't necessarily bring happiness. Fact is, though, and as un-spiritual as it may sound, those material things often do bring happiness! And while wealth may not make you happy, poverty sure can be relied upon to make you miserable...

The works of man must all eventually fall to dust. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy them until they do. So why, then, must we be "indifferent to these things"? In the end, it seems to me like a case of cutting of your nose to spite your face.

There's an odd, fatalistic, counterintuitive aspect to Buddhism which is startling and mystical and, well, fun. But in truth it's based on a false promise: achieving an eventual Enlightenment, a golden never-never land that seems no different from the heaven offered by the priests of other religions.

As for rejecting material things and not worrying about trivial things like promotions at work or getting laid off or bringing in the crops, well I always seem to see myself cast in the role of the poor villager living under the shadow of the monastery. It's fine for them up there to reject crass materialism, with nothing to do all day but meditate and eat the rice we grow!

The Dalai Lama's book struck me as offering the same empty promises as any other book in the self-help aisle. Several long winded and rather pompous statements of the obvious, followed by easy platitudes, and a program that if the reader embraces completely and follows faithfully will lead to happiness and success. It struck me as disappointingly shallow. Frankly it also struck me as a rather cynical attempt to exploit a ready market for a kind of instant spiritual gratification, a kind of spirituality lite, the kind of self-centered spirituality that is such a growth industry in the US these days. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is selling easy answers to complex problems.

[Mr. Vandemar]

And while wealth may not make you happy, poverty sure can be relied upon to make you miserable...

The answer to this is the Middle Way, something that Buddhism and the Dalai Lama support. From what I've read, he seems to be a Marxist. The People's Republic of China hate him. Maybe it's because he opposes their authoritarian regime and because they are not real communists.

The works of man must all eventually fall to dust. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy them until they do. So why, then, must we be "indifferent to these things"? In the end, it seems to me like a case of cutting of your nose to spite your face.

That's epicureanism, baby! I'd be epicurean if I hadn't realized that my luxuries resulted in the harm and abuse of others.

There's an odd, fatalistic, counterintuitive aspect to Buddhism which is startling and mystical and, well, fun. But in truth it's based on a false promise: achieving an eventual Enlightenment, a golden never-never land that seems no different from the heaven offered by the priests of other religions.

Hold up. You've missed the point. Enlightenment is not heaven. You don't go anywhere. You stay here. This is not a "golden never-never land". Enlightenment is the detachment from materialistic ideals and want for unnecessary luxuries. You need to read up on Buddhism before you go throwing away comparisons like that.

As for rejecting material things and not worrying about trivial things like promotions at work or getting laid off or bringing in the crops, well I always seem to see myself cast in the role of the poor villager living under the shadow of the monastery. It's fine for them up there to reject crass materialism, with nothing to do all day but meditate and eat the rice we grow!

Do you know anything about monks? Monks are ascetics. Asceticism is completely the opposite of what you think that the Buddhist monks do. Buddhist monks do not "steal" from the villagers. I hardly think that you live a less materialistic life than the average Buddhist monk does. Do you live on barely enough rice? Do you think rice is some kind of luxury? Ha! If you want to criticize somebody for stealing the rice of the villager, criticize the People's Republic of China!

The Dalai Lama's book struck me as offering the same empty promises as any other book in the self-help aisle. Several long winded and rather pompous statements of the obvious, followed by easy platitudes, and a program that if the reader embraces completely and follows faithfully will lead to happiness and success. It struck me as disappointingly shallow. Frankly it also struck me as a rather cynical attempt to exploit a ready market for a kind of instant spiritual gratification, a kind of spirituality lite, the kind of self-centered spirituality that is such a growth industry in the US these days. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is selling easy answers to complex problems.

I haven't read the book in question so I can only comment on your thoughts on Buddhism. I do, however, think that you have begun to read Buddhist literature without enough knowledge of the subject itself, or adequate knowledge of the terminology. I think you are making too many assumptions about Buddhism and connecting it with "Bible Belt T.V. Special" spirituality without proper reason. I also think that you have found the meaning for certain words, like "enlightenment", through context not definition. You should not go so quickly to associate "enlightenment" with "heaven". They are not one and the same, and the idea you have of "heaven" is certainly not the one I have. Like I said, I think you have been subjected to the horrible TV specials or spiritual "help" aisle too often, and have lost "faith" (not in the traditional sense) in religion in general.

[curlyqlink]

This is not a "golden never-never land". Enlightenment is the detachment from materialistic ideals...

Has any real person ever actually achieved this state of enlightenment? If you asked the Dalai Lama, would he claim to have achieved it? True enlightenment seems to be an ever-elusive goal. Hence, a "golden never-never land."

Do you know anything about monks? Monks are ascetics. Asceticism is completely the opposite of what you think that the Buddhist monks do.

Buddhist monks have monasteries where they live in semi-isolation, remain chaste, and they spend their days in contemplation/meditation in service to the spiritual. Seems pretty similar to what Western monks do.

I hardly think that you live a less materialistic life than the average Buddhist monk does. Do you live on barely enough rice?

I don't follow. You're praising the average Buddhist monk because he lives on barely enough rice. He does without material comforts. Yes, I know. The whole business of rising at dawn, barefoot, with only a thin robe, to meditate for hours in an uncomfortable position. That's asceticism.

I have read a good deal about Buddhism over the years. I even took a course. It's interesting stuff. I just never bought into it. It isn't a case of me not having "adequate knowledge", I'm just not buyin' what they're sellin'.

I understand that Buddhism appeals to many people who are looking for some spiritualism in their lives but who are discontented with "organized" Western religions. But it has more in common with those religions than some might think. This book by the Dalai Lama is an awful lot like something Joel Osteen might have written.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Buddhist monks don't suck the food out of the poor rice farmer like leaches, as you implied. That's all I wanted to make clear.

AND OH GOD NOT JOEL OSTEEN!