Illusion

[Lightkeeper]

We sometimes hear "everything is an illusion." That may or may not be true, but we need to have some agreements on some things in order to get along in society.

I was thinking about people from 4 different countries in a room with a chair. Each person would have a different name for this object, but there would be some agreement about what to do with this object if you had seen this object before.

How do we benefit from saying everything is an illusion? If everything is an illusion is the chair not holding us when we sit on it?

[vivamis123]

In "Reality" there is no chair...nor a need to sit...nor a person to sit on it.

The identification of being a person creates the need, the appearance and the experience of being a person. When one lets go of the belief in being a person, one opens up to a world of all possibilities.

So, rising above/beyond the appearance (illusion) one has choices....where as one within the illusion is a victim to circumstances.

[shaw-n]

Our understanding of history and who and what we are is definitely illusionary. Many fantasies abound.
Consider this forum, we all share our ideas about religion and things we believe to be true and the bulk of it is pure fantasy which people consider to be real as they grew up with it or it appeals to them for one reason or another. Illusions galore. But who can prove what is definative and therefore "REAL".
But for the sake of unified action we need to agree about fundamental things and that is where the scientific method comes in which seeks to create a universal set of standards which can help us make some progress.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by vivamis123

In "Reality" there is no chair...nor a need to sit...nor a person to sit on it.

The identification of being a person creates the need, the appearance and the experience of being a person. When one lets go of the belief in being a person, one opens up to a world of all possibilities.

So, rising above/beyond the appearance (illusion) one has choices....where as one within the illusion is a victim to circumstances.

Why stop there?

Why don't we just suppose that nothing, not even appearance, experience, illusion or consciousness exist?

The rest is ... silence!


Well, as it turns out, there is a reason to suppose that experience exists...I'm having it. There is a reason to assume that consciousness exists...I'm conscious of it. And as Descartes suggested, that's reason enough to allow the existence of a conscious "me."

But if appearance, experience, consciousness can be considered "real" because they give evidence of themselves, then why on earth should we not consider the chair, which gives equally good evidence of itself, to be just a chair?

Or can you, perhaps, give a good reason why an immaterial consciousness would suddenly, for no particular reason whatever, begin to imagine itself as material, surrounded by an immensely complex material world, filled with other consciousnesses (which -- one really must suppose -- are also inventions of the only consciousness in existense) that all feel the same interiority as the itself?

Cause I sure as heck can't.

[sendy47]

taping fingers waiting....
ok listen...only expert i know....ok well i dont know...i know of...you should all know him...mind freak...chris angel...so perhaps we should invite him for some answers....

what answers might he have...hmmm....

[vivamis123]

E.H first of all an experience (as ALL experiences are real....experiences). But how do you know you are experiencing it? And how do you know your experience is real? If I have a vision I am experiencing it...yet some claim they are illusions. What makes one experience real and another an illusion? Maybe through sharing? Can you share your experience with anyone? Truly?

To see an appearance as an illusion is a little harder, since we agree on naming an item. But let's look at L.K.'s example. Is a chair a chair? Will it be a chair in 100 years from now? 200 years from now? 1000 years from now? If it changes, decays or dies can we truly know that the names and values we have given an appearance are real? Can we assume that there is an underlying truth behind all appearances? I would say one thing all appearances have in common is that they are subject to change.

This is how we can discern between that which is "real" and that which is a so called illusion. If it is subject to change...it is an illusion.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by vivamis123

E.H first of all an experience (as ALL experiences are real....experiences). But how do you know you are experiencing it? And how do you know your experience is real? If I have a vision I am experiencing it...yet some claim they are illusions. What makes one experience real and another an illusion? Maybe through sharing? Can you share your experience with anyone? Truly?

To see an appearance as an illusion is a little harder, since we agree on naming an item. But let's look at L.K.'s example. Is a chair a chair? Will it be a chair in 100 years from now? 200 years from now? 1000 years from now? If it changes, decays or dies can we truly know that the names and values we have given an appearance are real? Can we assume that there is an underlying truth behind all appearances? I would say one thing all appearances have in common is that they are subject to change.

This is how we can discern between that which is "real" and that which is a so called illusion. If it is subject to change...it is an illusion.

First, you are making a false equivalence: "subject to change" is not the same thing as "illusion." Oranges are not elephant seals, either.

Now, let's suppose, just for a moment, that you and I are on a boat off Washington state. Several questions:

1. Are there two such people as you and I? If not, why are we having a conversation, why do you use a different name than I, etc.?
2. If I point and I say "wow, do you see that?" and you say "yes!" What is it we saw? Since I haven't said and you haven't said, do we have the same sight in our "illusion" or do you have one and I another? If they are the same, how did they get to be so?
3. Let's assume we saw a killer whale, and we agree that this big, black-and-white orca is what we saw. How did we both come to the same "illusion" at the same time?
   1. Sub-question to the above, since you may answer that "all consciousness is one, that's why we see the same thing." If that's the case, let's go back to question 1, and rephrase a bit. If all consciousness is "one" why are you and I, obviously part of the "one" differing in our opinions? If we both see a killer whale, why do we not both see the same view of consciousness?

You see, if I can't truly share my experience with someone, than why would we assume that I can share ANY of it. When I looked off the side of the boat and saw an orca, there's no reason, from what I can make of your world-view, that you should see it, too. And if you do see it, then it must be the case that either:

• the orca is "really there" in some sense or other, or
• we are connected, in which case there's no reason for the connection to exist only over an "external view," of which you insist there's no such thing, and not our internal view as well. Therefore, all of out thoughts should be identical, and we should not be able to have this conversation.

The notion that consciousness precedes material reality, or "esse est percipi (aut peripere)" leads to endless absurdities once you start to really probe them. And reductio ad absurdum is a pretty generally accepted logical tool.

[vivamis123]

E.H, It's not a false equivalence from a spiritual perspective to say that that which is subject to change is an illusion. Who is to say it's not? You? Who made you the source of all opinions/conclusions?

If I say that oranges are the same as elefants...it's not that I am right or wrong...but maybe see something different than you. You may perceive through your sences...where I may perceive an underlying truth: they are both appearances...or expressions within consciousness.

To your questions...it's not that I don't see what you too see (through our sences) but for me they have a different value. You value appearances as real...whereas I see appearances as temporal.

The whole idea of overcoming "Illusion" is to discern between that which is real and that which is temporal.

[statrei]

Originally Posted by vivamis123

E.H, It's not a false equivalence from a spiritual perspective to say that that which is subject to change is an illusion. Who is to say it's not? You? Who made you the source of all opinions/conclusions?

If I say that oranges are the same as elefants...it's not that I am right or wrong...but maybe see something different than you.

You would know when you tried to ride the oranges. At the end of the day we have to "do" something with the ideas we entertain.

[Tonyamendola]

I agree with Vivamis on this


Anything that changes is not reality