[lzwha]

As a novice I am having difficulties with the notion of "illusion"
I am sure it does not mean that everything is illusionary in the sense of not existing , other than as a phantasm or delusion in the hardest possible sense. For example solipsists believe that nothing exists other than that produced by their brain.

If we look at 'illusion', it seems to me, we need a 'reality' upon which to relate it to and this requires value judgements.

I can see where Buddhism may be a good approach at the secular level; as for the 'reality' as opposed to 'illusion' is this a highly personal, intuitive groping towards some vague form of idealism? Thank you

[Intory]

in my experience, i have not read very much in the Pali suttas that mention "illusion", apart from the Phena Sutta, which emphasises the transcient (impermanent) and ultimately insubstantial qualities of the five aggregates, that is, the five component parts that make up a human life

so possibly a reading of the metaphors in the Phena Sutta may help clarify what 'illusion' is

to me, the Phena Sutta seems to focus on the illusory nature of mentality (rather than an illusory quality of the 'external' world)

to me, the Phena Sutta seems to challenge the common notions of 'solidity' & 'substance'

kind regards

[Flieteewell]

Hi Murchovski.

A good question, but in my experience most teachers are quite careful to word it "like" an illusion, by way of analogy in a sense. As in "mere appearance", sort of pointing to what element was saying about the impermanent and transient nature of all phenomena. By saying "like an illusion", this can help to sway us from entertaining a nihilistic view.

The "very short" answer...



Terma

[bjacogaerllyo]

For me, illusion is closely connected to impermanence. The illusion being that we see things as solid and permanent when in-fact everything is in constant flux. The idea that nothing exists is taking it to far to be of practical use in our life and for me is not the middle path. I find a similar situation with the notion of no self and it can lead to confusion.
Metta

[ulnanVti]

I had an insight into this the other night, its very difficult to put into words but taking it as literally an illusion seems to be a mistake from my point of view, Terma's like an illusion is a good way of describing it. My post hasn't been much help, its just that I can't really express it, sorry.

[EvonsRorgon]

Thanks Traveller.

Maybe "illusion" is looking at all phenomena in the worst, and most selfish, and destructive ways.
Like your new avatar...........

[fameintatenly]

One big illusion is that of permanence even if this "permanence" is temporary. If you can stand by a bud continuously until it becomes a flower, you will be amazed to see that the condition of the bud at one moment appears to be no different from its condition at the next moment and so on, until before your very eyes, the change has taken place through you could not discern it at all.

The process is so gradual, one stage merging into the next so imperceptibly. It is a becoming. If you close your eyes to this process, if you see the bud one day and then see it a day later, then only will you see a change. Then only will you speak in the terms of "buds" and "flowers" and not in terms of a process of a becoming.


If you can keep on looking at a new-born babe without a break for ten years you will not perceive any change. The baby born at 10 a.m. appears just the same at 11 a.m. or at 12 noon. Each moment shows no difference from the next. One condition merges into the next so imperceptibly. It is a becoming, a continuous process of becoming. Close your eyes to this process and see the baby once a month. then only will you perceive a change. Then only can you speak in terms of "baby" and "boy" and not in terms of a process or a becoming.

The baby boy becomes an old man. They are different. By giving this "person" a name eg. John there is an illusion of an entity. By convention John was born on such a date, he grew old and died on such a date. In reality John the old man was never born, only the baby John. John the baby never died, only the old man John. In terms of ultimate truth no one was born and no one died.

Everything is becoming. This is a universal process, a constant flux. It is when we miss the continuity of action that we speak in terms of things (atta/self) rather than processes or becomings. Upadana pacaya bhavo [Existence is dependent on clinging to a self/being].

[geraint.faughn]

It is this changingness ( is that a word?! ) and the conciousness which travels
with it which unites all of us - there is no stable personality to take refuge in and the conciousness is not personal either.

[harriettvanders]

I think I can express my idea a little better now, its not that "reality" is a dream
or illusion, its our perception and interpretation of its nature that is the illusion - of course I just could be full of it!

[videolkif]

The baby boy becomes an old man. They are different. By giving this "person" a name eg. John there is an illusion of an entity. By convention John was born on such a date, he grew old and died on such a date. In reality John the old man was never born, only the baby John. John the baby never died, only the old man John. In terms of ultimate truth no one was born and no one died.

Everything is becoming. This is a universal process, a constant flux. It is when we miss the continuity of action that we speak in terms of things (atta/self) rather than processes or becomings. Upadana pacaya bhavo [Existence is dependent on clinging to a self/being].

Hajurba likes this quote very much...thank you for sharing this insight, dear Pegembara

"illusion" has also an other (sometimes entertaining) quality for an audience as we all know. An "illusionist" has skillful "magic" tricks to mislead us by showing something that is not real. In India and here in Nepal our kids like to watch these tricks....they have a centuries old tradition. (often misused by clever Sadhus to impress poor remote villager folks. It's off topic...but there maybe a lesson in it.

[tinetttstation]

Greetings Murchovski,

How could one ever know whether anything did or did not exist "out there", when all one knows is what they experience through the six senses?

See....SN 35.23: Sabba Sutta - The All
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....023.than.html

Indeed, the Buddha encouraged us not to think in terms of "exists" or "doesn't exist"...

See...SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta - To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....015.than.html

Once you get into metaphysics, you're deviating from what the Dhamma is about - namely, knowing suffering and its cessation.

See...SN 56.31 - Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....031.than.html

The cessation of suffering is cool.

Metta,
Retro

[Jueqelyl]

Please kindly allow a new member to add his two cents here.

First cent: I would like to submit that Sunyata (normally translated as 'emptiness') is not all about illusion. As others have mentioned before, impermanence might be better. But just because something is impermanent, doesn't mean it's not useful. Battery has a limited shelf-life too, but while it has power, it is very useful.

Second cent: Even if you are right to view the world as 'illusion', why think of this with negativity? Why don't you use this view to your advantage? Use your creativity to create the world that you want. Heck, it's just an illusion after all right? So if you can figure out the projector that projects the illusion, you can use it to project anything that you want, right? (OK, maybe not anything, because the world still operates under laws of physic.) So it should be 'anything within laws of physic and laws of human nature.'

[georgshult]

thanks Yuan

sunyata certainly offers only one real purpose, which is the freedom & usefulness you well described

[Seeseeskeva]

I think of "illusion" as a vision in the mind, a picture dream of what we desire the perceived object to be. For instance when we are young we are attracted to another who we perceive as "beautiful" or "handsome", because all we see is flawless youth. We want that youth to be permanent. When we fall in love the object of our desire is "perfect". We tend not to see what things will be or might be , but what we want them to be. It could be a table, or a new pet. This "illusion" leads to attachment, followed by jealousy, anger or greed. I am a beginner in the beginner's forum. And, I can't keep up with a lot of the expert's arguments, but I'll try.

[FelikTen]

Hi Dawn,

Yes, I think that this is a good way of perceiving how and why we become attached to things, especially people. And as an extension, how what we perceive is really our own mind, as opposed to having any of those "qualities" from their own side.

Good insight!

By the way, I think even the most "seasoned" dharma student has much more to learn. In fact in one commentary I was looking at, there were some things mentioned that were not specifically addressed in that commentary, and it was explained that the reason was to remind those studying that there were so many things that they don't know. Even after practicing a while, it is good to keep the mind of a "beginner", so we will not have such a full head, and we will always be able to learn more.

By a full head, I mean full of pride and arrogance, as opposed to knowledge!

Terma

[Gintovtosik]

By the way, I think even the most "seasoned" dharma student has much more to learn. In fact in one commentary I was looking at, there were some things mentioned that were not specifically addressed in that commentary, and it was explained that the reason was to remind those studying that there were so many things that they don't know. Even after practicing a while, it is good to keep the mind of a "beginner", so we will not have such a full head, and we will always be able to learn more.

By a full head, I mean full of pride and arrogance, as opposed to knowledge!

Terma

The problem I've always had with religion is the competition among practitioners. I realize the room is filled with very educated intellectuals! In my short time as an observer in these forums, I have learned some things. (It has been difficult, however to see past the feathers of the strutting peacocks!) I mean no offense to anyone.

[Gymnfacymoota]

I think of "illusion" as a vision in the mind, a picture dream of what we desire the perceived object to be. For instance when we are young we are attracted to another who we perceive as "beautiful" or "handsome", because all we see is flawless youth. We want that youth to be permanent. When we fall in love the object of our desire is "perfect". We tend not to see what things will be or might be , but what we want them to be. It could be a table, or a new pet. This "illusion" leads to attachment, followed by jealousy, anger or greed. I am a beginner in the beginner's forum. And, I can't keep up with a lot of the expert's arguments, but I'll try.

Hi, Dawn. I'm afraid I'm guilty of throwing in a lot of philosophical jargon into the Beginners' Forum. Sorry about that! None of that stuff is as important as daily practice, so please don't be put off by it.

[fuslssdfaa]

If I may return to the original post for a moment again now.....

As a novice I am having difficulties with the notion of "illusion"
I am sure it does not mean that everything is illusionary in the sense of not existing , other than as a phantasm or delusion in the hardest possible sense.

Hi Murchovski,

It might be helpful for you to read about the Three Universal Characteristics of Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness and Not-Self (Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta) from Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's 'Handbook for Mankind'.


http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa6.htm

[Casyimipist]

evening everyone

after reading all the posts here ,

it shows the importance of keeping things simple ,
yes , sure there are a lot of different levels to realise when discussing any principle but ..
a simple realisation can be applied to all future questions .

I think I can express my idea a little better now, its not that "reality" is a dream
or illusion, its our perception and interpretation of its nature that is the illusion

I think you have expressed this very nicely , simply

of course I just could be full of it! ha ha , it might just appear so to some people , and just simply what it is to another !!!
it is all a matter of perception


namaskars ratikala

[DP5Ups8o]

How could one ever know whether anything did or did not exist "out there", when all one knows is what they experience through the six senses?

See....SN 35.23: Sabba Sutta - The All
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....023.than.html

Greetings Retrofuturist

The Sabba Sutta does refer to the internal & external (eye & forms, etc,) sense media

Thus it is quite debatable that refuting "out there" has any real importance in Buddhism

"out there" is impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self

"in here" is impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self

"neither-here-nor-there" is also not-self

With metta

Element

[The Buddha said:]

'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. 'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the first sextet.

'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the idea-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet.

Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets [The Buddha said:]

When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

Bahiya Sutta