Everything is an illusion

[sherwulff]

I've been told that Coleridge drew heavily (I think my professor put it this way: "We know he got it right because he stole it") from Kant in what I assume to be his "imagination versus fancy" categorization. Can anyone shed light on this topic?

[DooRag]

Blaze, what are you talking about?

Are you ok?

[byquist]

Politely disagree with that word "illusion" when associated with life, existence, individuality, being, identity, substance, essence, etc., although detaching from certain things, behavior patterns, and objects may, indeed, be all for the best or forced upon us against our wishes.

The little baby mouse (even got a name, Wall-E) that I saved this summer for even a week of life was not an illusion. My dog is not an illusion. My kids and the students I teach are not illusion(s). Affirming reality instead of illusion is an active means of solving problems, and most folks seek solutions. A participant in the Olympics is not going to get much help from holding to the idea that doing the 400 meter butterfly is an illusion.

You obviously do not like hearing this, probably find such a demand for practical results to be inconsequential; however, when significant results appear then you are dealing with real power and not abstraction. Some, maybe all, aspects of "illusion thinking" are abstractions, mind-games, and by entertaining its modus the divine never touches the human needs that people have. Something cures; nothingness or emptiness provides no cure to anything, however tantalizing such thinking may be.

[blazeofglory]

Blaze, what are you talking about?

Are you ok?

Dear DooRag, Of course what I talked about is likely to confuse and confound anybody. I out of humbleness would like to scribble a few more words on it. In fact what I say is a product of what I read, or pondered or came to know at some moments in life or maybe out of the software installed into my minds by society-framers. I cannot get over these conditionings in life no matter what I do, indeed in the snare of ideas. I am afraid I am tangling you with too much of what I believe in.
Friend, discard my thoughts, do not accept it to internalize. Just take it as a part of the communications I tend to have across a thousand and one people in every walk of life. Ideas as crop up and a few leave marks and the rest vaporize into this vast abyss, called the universe.

I apologize to you if I am mystifying you with more and more such words. I appeal to you if you do not find it palatable, discard it, for what I talked about have more of illusions, for everything is an illusion.

[jgweed]

It is one thing to chant "all is illusion" and another to present reasoned arguments and explanations for its truth. For example, even if our mind's hard drive is conditioned and guided by society's software, there is no reason to think that therefore the software does not provide a functioning programme. Could one not say say, in fact, that the "snare of ideas" could be considered a guarantee of their truth?

[NikolaiI]

It is one thing to chant "all is illusion" and another to present reasoned arguments and explanations for its truth. For example, even if our mind's hard drive is conditioned and guided by society's software, there is no reason to think that therefore the software does not provide a functioning programme. Could one not say say, in fact, that the "snare of ideas" could be considered a guarantee of their truth?

Been wanting to get back to you about this one. Yes, I agree that there is no lack of possibility of certainty, of discovering truth, etc. There's much, much work on all this as I'm sure you're aware. I've only read a very small amount, time does not allow a thorough study; I've read different philosophers, and my sources are scattered, etc...there are many theories, and the starting point it seems is ontology -- Who are we? What are we? Questions like this. Buddhism analyzed these questions and said that in the analysis, you can point to different attributes and so on, but other than that ego is false.

The different aggregates that go into illusion are something like sense perception, feeling, emotions, concepts, and consciousness-- I could have it slightly off. Some people consider that we are consciousness. There's a great Hindu poem that says that all is cut out of consciousness, like figures are cut out of a rock. There are different forms but they are forms of consciousness.

"All is illusion" can be explained in the way that all we know is from our sense-perception, and we can only confirm anything experienced thus, with other sense-perception. The question is what is beyond it? And it is answered in a surprising way, with parallels that point to an interesting phenomenon.

All our concepts are dependent upon many factors. Every concept we have is dependent on us, as well as factors around us. The reason is that concepts are related to values, which has no meaning except in relation to an individual. But what is valuable to one individual has no value for another; and so what has meaning for one has no meaning for another. Further, what has meaning for the individual is in constant change, so he does not value what he did previous, and his future tastes are subject to change as well. So we say it is illusion, only because it exists subjectively; one world exists for one person, which beyond them, does not exist at all.

So to go back a little, we still have the question begging, what is not illusion? The answer is what is pure reality. In my understanding there is no platform or paradigm which cannot be gone beyond. In any paradigm we can analyze it and find a higher truth. We can always reach a higher peace, or reality. What I mean is, there is always possible a revelatory paradigm shift. Our consciousness is always changing; who can know exactly consciousness they were in their entire life? There is physical and mental, and psychologically we are probably influenced by our philosophical system as well as all the other factors. We are on but on level of infinite levels, and we can never get at the absolute truth or on the other side of the scale, nothingness, and we are always between the two.

[DapperDrake]

Politely disagree with that word "illusion" when associated with life, existence, individuality, being, identity, substance, essence, etc., although detaching from certain things, behavior patterns, and objects may, indeed, be all for the best or forced upon us against our wishes.

The little baby mouse (even got a name, Wall-E) that I saved this summer for even a week of life was not an illusion. My dog is not an illusion. My kids and the students I teach are not illusion(s). Affirming reality instead of illusion is an active means of solving problems, and most folks seek solutions. A participant in the Olympics is not going to get much help from holding to the idea that doing the 400 meter butterfly is an illusion.

You obviously do not like hearing this, probably find such a demand for practical results to be inconsequential; however, when significant results appear then you are dealing with real power and not abstraction. Some, maybe all, aspects of "illusion thinking" are abstractions, mind-games, and by entertaining its modus the divine never touches the human needs that people have. Something cures; nothingness or emptiness provides no cure to anything, however tantalizing such thinking may be.

What is truth, what is practical reality, what is conciousness?

These things are exactly what they appear... at the mundane level. However when you look at them closely enough you find that they are just nothing. How can individual conciousness exist when we are divisible? truth is what's important but how can anything be important when we are mortal? Practical reality, your Olympic swimmer, is absurd, and its absurd that anyone takes it seriously, myself included.

Does anyone ever really come to terms with their mortality? or do we just sweep it under the psychological carpet, and tack the carpet down with distractions like "practical reality", blindfolds like "truth", and comfortable lies like "self" and "conciousness" and "individual" and "society" and "Love" etc..

Its really quite amusing, why do we bother? we spend our whole lives tacking down that carpet and then we just expire like the meat bags we are anyway.

I have little patience for people who won't at least peek under the carpet a little

"It is one thing to chant "all is illusion" and another to present reasoned arguments and explanations for its truth. For example, even if our mind's hard drive is conditioned and guided by society's software, there is no reason to think that therefore the software does not provide a functioning programme. Could one not say say, in fact, that the "snare of ideas" could be considered a guarantee of their truth?"

You could, if you wanted to, of course you don't have to because its not truth, its optional truth - you can choose to believe it. What's the point of that? I suppose its comfortable, seems like a bit of a cop out to me though.

[NikolaiI]

The main meaning of "Everything is illusion" is that everything is known by sense-perception, everything we know is in relation to sense-perception.

The first breaking out of this illusion is both what Plato describes as climbing out of cave of ignorance, and what the Buddhists descibe as realizing one's Buddha nature.

The statement and idea have to do with revelation, and since we are accusing each other of not liking our ideas, I will say that you might not like the idea of revelation.

It is like an "aha!" moment.
What falls away are our misconceptions, which prevent us from being peaceful and blissful and from knowing. Normal, conditioned, sense-perception consciousness does not go this deep. It is after deep meditation and searching, so much spiritual practice (which yes includes laughing, etc.) that one can start to see these things.

There is a part of us that is higher than the rest of all this.
Call it the stoic nature inside us
Call it the Buddha nature
Call it the Christ nature,
or call it the soul,
it is the part of us which does not die, which is not affected by the elements.

The eternal part of us does exist.

So-- everything is illusion means that everything exists materially, only it is immaterial in relation to what actually exists. What actually exists? well nothing is different, only it actually is a world completely beyond our imagination. It is blissful and full of knowledge, as opposed to being in the darkness of ignorance. The nature of reality is the reason that anyone would say the rest is illusion. It is the "aha" the "eureka" when we say, "this and the other were actually problems? I can't believe I cared about them!"

Because we realize that we are the authors of our lives.
We realize that we are in control of ourselves, and we can write our life like a story,
and since we are the authors, therefore we can raise ourselves above it somewhat, and see it based from what is actually real-- that is, we, writing the rest of our lives out; from where?

I hope I haven't been more confusing than not.

[jgweed]

"The main meaning of "Everything is illusion" is that everything is known by sense-perception, everything we know is in relation to sense-perception."

Let us suppose this statement to be true, although I think there are many things not known, but triggered by, sense perception. We reformulate this into something like an argument: everything is known by sense perception; therefore everything is illusion.

Logical argument:
How can this "therefore" be proved? For then it must be demonstrated that each and every sense perception is false; not just that we may be in error from time to time, but always. And it must be shown that there is some standard against which we can make a decision about each and every perception that it is false. But this can only be done, if it is to be done, by comparing sense impressions to something ELSE that is not dependent on sense impressions, which by definition is not possible.

Practical argument:
That everything we know through sense impressions is false is refuted countless times each day by countless people. Our world and our activities are predicated on the truth of, and reliance upon, the veracity of our experience. And if we err, we understand the procedures for clarifying our misconceptions, and these procedures always refer to the world of experience (we "take a closer look" for example).

Psychological argument:
To say that "everything is illusion" is based on a prior existential decision that either one is powerless to move about in the world of experience, or to make a moral decision that appearance is inferior to some imagined---and of course, unknowable, world of "perfection." Since there is no way to determine whether the world is illusion, it seems that it must be a matter of belief, or faith, or aesthetics.

[DapperDrake]

Logical argument:
How can this "therefore" be proved? For then it must be demonstrated that each and every sense perception is false; not just that we may be in error from time to time, but always. And it must be shown that there is some standard against which we can make a decision about each and every perception that it is false. But this can only be done, if it is to be done, by comparing sense impressions to something ELSE that is not dependent on sense impressions, which by definition is not possible.

No, you do not need to demonstrate that each and every sense perception is false. Its not a question of false or true but rather a question on the nature of our truth.
Just because something is illusionary does not mean that it is false, it just means that you have an extrapolated/interpolated picture. it is the case however that what you perceive is not what is real, for arguments sake, a colour blind person may not see the number in the dots and a person with normal vision might see the number - who is seeing reality and who is seeing illusion? the answer is both are seeing illusion but both are seeing a different illusion because their sense apparatus is different. i.e. neither of them are in fact perceiving reality but rather just the illusion created for them by their senses.
In short there is the problem of appearance and reality as described in the first chapter of Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy
and in fact chapters 1 through 4.

Practical argument:
That everything we know through sense impressions is false is refuted countless times each day by countless people. Our world and our activities are predicated on the truth of, and reliance upon, the veracity of our experience. And if we err, we understand the procedures for clarifying our misconceptions, and these procedures always refer to the world of experience (we "take a closer look" for example).

So the illusion is self consistent... does not prove that it isn't illusion. In fact its an almost irrelevant point so far as I can make out. To take a trivial example, The Matrix movie demonstrates just one sense in which our would could be an illusion and yet still meet the criteria you mention.