Seven Essential Ideas

[Unidian]

1. There is no self.

(therefore)

2. There is no free will.

(therefore)

3. There are no others.

(therefore)

4. No one is experiencing anything.

(therefore)

5. There are no objects of consciousness.

(therefore)

6. There is no division of awareness.

(therefore)

7. Nothing exists, except we imagine it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

7. Nothing exists, except we imagine it.

You mean, we imagine that we imagine? But that would make it all real.

[Kunga]

That's why Buddha taught the "Middle Way"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way

[Unidian]

You mean, we imagine that we imagine? But that would make it all real.

Yes, I agree. Neither "illusion," nor "reality" adequately describes appearances, for if all is illusionary, than all shares equal ontological status and thus can be regarded as "real" in the pragmatic sense.

The question of "illusion" versus "reality" thus would not arise. It does have much to do with the "Middle Way," as Kunga mentioned.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You mean, we imagine that we imagine? But that would make it all real.

Yes, I agree. Neither "illusion," nor "reality" adequately describes appearances, for if all is illusionary, than all shares equal ontological status and thus can be regarded as "real" in the pragmatic sense.

The question of "illusion" versus "reality" thus would not arise. It does have much to do with the "Middle Way," as Kunga mentioned.

But pragmatically we do assign the quality "realness" to stuff all the time, in degrees of certainty. Like the money in your pocket, the price of bread tomorrow or whatever. The question of illusion versus reality comes up each and every minute in some regard, in the mind, in mindful action. Not just as pragmatic but more as the essential way to navigate and filter and sort out thoughts and experiences.

Perhaps we could say that to distinguish between reality and illusion is a key concept of sanity? It would be insane to disagree at least. Would anyone disagree? What I find an essential idea is to discover why it is that we cannot help assigning reality to one thing but not the other. Not inherent existence, not the object but the quality or the dynamic true/false itself existing as function nevertheless.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Like an eternal dreaming, that which is aware of "me" is the same is aware of "you", got the same idea?

[Unidian]

Diebert, right - I mentioned that "realness" is useful as pragmatic tool. And yes, in the context of conventional everyday life, functionality depends on establishing some distinctions along the lines of "real" and "not real." But ultimately (as opposed to conventionally), this has no meaning on the ontological level.

Seeker - your question contains insufficient data for me to figure out how to answer it.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No one is experiencing anything, yet there is experience?

True there is not a person or observable thing experiencing, but that which is, "it", there is awareness in it's scope, and as you said there is no division of awareness, all things including individuality are imaginations, therefore that which is, is imagining, hence, one awareness, do you in agree with undivided awareness, one awareness in which the experience of "me" and "you" is contained, is a reality? Or are you saying that awareness itself is an imagination/ an illusory concept, something imagined?

[Unidian]

Awareness and experience are not necessarily equivalent terms.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Consider this, is it the appearances that have the knowledge their apparent form is made up of appearances?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, right - I mentioned that "realness" is useful as pragmatic tool. And yes, in the context of conventional everyday life, functionality depends on establishing some distinctions along the lines of "real" and "not real." But ultimately (as opposed to conventionally), this has no meaning on the ontological level.

To have meaning is no different from being real. When you look at it that way, the conventional everyday life, its intricate web of meanings and significances, is the only thing which could possibly posses any reality or falseness. The ontological level is just as real as its meaning goes.

[Beingof1]

1. There is no self.

(therefore)

Who or what made the statement "there is no self"?

2. There is no free will.

(therefore)

Who or what decided "there is no free will"?

3. There are no others.

(therefore)

Who are you making this statement to?

4. No one is experiencing anything.

(therefore)

Says who?

5. There are no objects of consciousness.

(therefore)

Did you have internet access to post?

6. There is no division of awareness.

(therefore)

TRUE - *bingo* - this is the premise. The no self comes after this premise and not before.

7. Nothing exists, except we imagine it.

I would say perceive rather than imagine.

I understand what you are driving at but to most that I encounter, the hop, skip and jump is made right over the most essential question that can be posed in all philosophical endeavors.

This one:
Who or what is asking?

I appreciate you Nat and read your paper on insanity - I roared at some points.