To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I disagree, morons are the ones that think they know everything.

And all things are illusions. They are as real as ever, the illusion is that they exist independent of what is seen of the mind.

For example, if someone were to be experiencing a room in a dream, that room is an illusion of the mind is it not? In the same way all things are only experiences of the mind.

How about, instead of finding which of my descriptions of understandings you disagree with, you find what you agree with and then what understandings you actually disagree with. At the moment it seems we are talking about the same thing, you just like to be a little more formal about it, or nitpick me even when you understand, all you have to do is stop assuming everyone else isn't aware. You have a Buddha picture there, in my opinion he was as correct as anyone as ever been, although he sounds very different to you, we all do.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Tomas »

Kunga wrote:I tend to think we have control of what goes on in our individual head.
We, (although ONE entity), are responsible for our actions, or at least we should take responsibility
for our actions.
We also have this material body , that needs to be controlled. Although it pretty much functions on it's own as far as blood circulation, heart beat, bone growth.....etc.
We are responsible for what actions we take with our body & mind, as individuals.
I woke up at 2:30 this morning. Tossed and turned until 4 am. The wife rolled over and asked, "Now what?"
Here I am at the terminal with my second cup of coffee.
Now what?
I know the alarm will go off at 6:00 am and I must be at my office at 8:30 am, I own the business so I set my own hours of 9-10 hours per day 5 & 1/2 (though usually six) days per week.
Otherwise (and after the wife and daughter have had their fill of me) .. it's .. now what?
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote:We are responsible for what actions we take with our body & mind, as individuals.
Tomas wrote:I woke up at 2:30 this morning. Tossed and turned until 4 am. The wife rolled over and asked, "Now what?"
Or one could as well say it's our body and mind taking actions and leave you guessing (now what??). It's easy to preach responsibility if one has not even begun to scratch the surface on how the down throdden paths in our mind ("history"), the whole order of moods and the habitual, all fears for consequences, how this tells us non-stop what to do and what not to do. It then gives you the fairy tail of being in control just so that one does not make further inquiries. Simply because any sincere inquiry in why one might be doing what one is doing now can fuck things up quite badly. Not that it would change things suddenly but it will certainly mess up any reward cycle, one empties it out, so to speak.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Dan Rowden »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I disagree, morons are the ones that think they know everything.

And all things are illusions. They are as real as ever, the illusion is that they exist independent of what is seen of the mind.

For example, if someone were to be experiencing a room in a dream, that room is an illusion of the mind is it not? In the same way all things are only experiences of the mind.

How about, instead of finding which of my descriptions of understandings you disagree with, you find what you agree with and then what understandings you actually disagree with. At the moment it seems we are talking about the same thing, you just like to be a little more formal about it, or nitpick me even when you understand, all you have to do is stop assuming everyone else isn't aware. You have a Buddha picture there, in my opinion he was as correct as anyone as ever been, although he sounds very different to you, we all do.
I agree it's possible that our "disagreement" is predominantly in the nature of the language, but the fact is, language really matters. It's possible to lead people wildly astray if we're not precise in the way we express ourselves.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote: It's possible to lead people wildly astray if we're not precise in the way we express ourselves.
More importantly, it can serve as indicator of leading oneself wildly astray first and foremost. As for John, he never had any consistent story to tell here and it mostly shifts along with a mood. As if he wants to get to the end of philosophy without ever beginning any.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Jamesh »

And all things are illusions. They are as real as ever, the illusion is that they exist independent of what is seen of the mind.
That which causes the mind to see them exists. They are independent from the mind, as the realization of them is an effect, the A=A result of causes.

They are not an illusion. Anything recognised is not an illusion - it cannot be other than what it is as that recognition.

To me things are a necessary finitude of reality. Their existence comes about due to patterns of causal flow – whether observed or not.

If I was to limit reality to causality then things would be infinite – causality would be unbounded. But that is only one side of the duality of existence - on the other side of causality is Form.

Things are not fully infinite, not infinite in all ways, because the form of their particular causal pattern at any point of time is not infinite – differentiation clearly exists. Form is not uniform, except for the form that is causality.

Causality is bound by Form. Causality has no meaning without form, as it is form that makes infinite the continuum of causality, that continuously creates differentiation. Causality can be defined as Reality creating Effects. Existence is both causality and form.

As causality is infinite then as soon as you observe anything, there is nothing else that can be observed - there is no outside to it, so the question of non-observed anything is irrelevant. On the other hand with form we observe both differentiation and non-differentiation so we can only predict or speculate of variations of form we have not observed.

Causality is one of the parents of existence, the other parent being the infinite, thus uniform, Content, but Effects are the offspring. For pities sake, sob sob, think of the children – are they of any less import than what produced them!
I disagree, morons are the ones that think they know everything.
What the QRS have does with their philosophy, their rationalisation of reality, is to create conceptual black hole.

Now that sounds pretty negative. Depends what a black hole is to you. To me black holes are like perfect centres. They have a perfectly circular logic, an infinite “vanishing-point-logic” achieved via reduction, that cannot but repel anything that attempts to divide it. One cannot pierce their logic to peer inside it as all the separate logics, the fundamental truths, are intertwined into a oneness. Black holes have pretty much the same aspects.

Funny thing is it is all quite reasonable, as what is beyond that philosophical logic cannot be seen, thus in affect empty to us. My time theory is pretty much the same thing – via reduction I’ve tied all my subjective truths about reality into a central theme, but one that has a singular content, rather than a confusing emptiness. My thoughts of reality gravitate naturally to that centre.

Although centres are themselves by necessity empty, as they are entirely caused only by the inwards “drawing-in” of reality reaching a point where it cannot “draw inwards” any further, that in itself is a creation of an added type of form within nature. Although everything in infinity is both a centre and a non-centre at the same time, Time-causality (expansion creating more content), inter-reactional-causality and its resulting form flows result in pushing more and more centres together (creating mass variations and eventually black holes).

I say you Seeker have reduced reality to a nothingness, without applying the right logic to your reduction. You don’t have a perfect conceptual sphere. As a result, it is susceptible to fracturing.

[ I wonder if this will make as much sense tomorrow as it seems to now - too late to review.. tomorrow's work intrudes]
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm sorry, but she's nothing of the kind. She simply repeats shit she's read and/or been told. Tomorrow, when a different mood takes her she'll say something completely different. By the way, if one was to take the content of her last post as sound, then there's exactly no reason to actually say any of it. Why say it? This is one of the remarkably silly things about this particular take on "Buddhist" philosophy. Those that hold to it have no reason whatever to say jack about it and yet they never shut the hell up.

This goes to show how omnipresent & omnipotent you are .
You ass hole....I actually can think logically enough to reason out, all that I say...it's not all parrotted...I can see it logically in my mind.

Apply all you say to yourself ....you jerk.

See John ?
I am still attached very much to my ego.
I shouldn't have to defend myself.
But it sickens me that this ass-hole that thinks he knows it all,
tries to shove his shit down your throat (recommending you watch his ass-hole vids),
while he hides his face, only his lovely voice to hear....

You really pissed me off Dan.
I've spent my whole life wanting to know the truth,
doing my best to understand it , and find it.
I haven't had the luxury of sitting on my ass all day doing nothing...
so my time has been limited towards my devotion to truth....
but you have no right to ridicule my mind & personality.

FUCK YOU
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Pincho Paxton »

This is the reason the Buddha said something along the lines of "idiots make guesses about the world".
This is a paradox.

The Buddha guesses that idiots make guesses about the world. So the Buddha is calling himself an idiot. So a paradox.
I disagree, morons are the ones that think they know everything.
This is the same paradox worded differently.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Kunga »

Buddha blows it sometimes ?

Actually time is an illusion too.
So when does Buddha blow it ?

He can't.

Everything is perfect.

This is logic.

I can understand it.
But I can't accept it all.
Rather, I choose not to accept it all.

I can't see the perfection in atrocities committed .
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Unidian »

Me either, but I don't think we have to.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Unidian »

This is one of the remarkably silly things about this particular take on "Buddhist" philosophy. Those that hold to it have no reason whatever to say jack about it and yet they never shut the hell up.
To some extent this is true. But I do think it is possible to hold to the "don't know shit" view in the ultimate sense, while using words as pointers in the conventional sense. There are always the "two truths," and to deny this is to argue with Nagarjuna. However, I do agree that this has to be done in a sensible manner, otherwise it simply becomes pointless nonsense, and there is indeed no reason to speak about that.

Using words as pointers isn't the same as just proclaiming "I don't know shit and neither does anyone else." This is not a pointer to anything significant, it is simply an assertion of ignorance and an invitation to embrace it.

I may know nothing ultimately, but conventionally I know a reasonably good deal, and what I know conventionally can be used to point to what I don't know ultimately. That is the proper use of "don't know" in the Zen context.

What do you think, Dan?
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Unidian wrote:I may know nothing ultimately, but conventionally I know a reasonably good deal, and what I know conventionally can be used to point to what I don't know ultimately.
It's nearly the reverse in my view: because nothing can be really known, it means nobody literally knows anything in a conventional sense, it's only positioned as such. For example, nobody knows if there ever been outside our own experience such thing as a Buddha or any "mind free of delusional thought". One is free to reason about it but it's all provisional and speculation, way less trustworthy than for example science, the knowledge of parts in isolation.

The whole understanding of not-knowing from Socrates to Lao Tzu has always been about learning something new and as requirement old "certainties" will have to go first, before anything new ever will be understood. Again this is not about "knowing nothing" in any ultimate sense, this is about accessing different modes and areas of knowing and learning. Admitting to ones ignorance really but always in a certain context and with a learning following.

Ultimately there's no position of "not knowing" to be in since ones position is ones knowledge and the context it functions in. One could of course see one-self as being in "no position" but from there cannot be any "participation" since that would be a relative position. This equals to having "no existence" which is certainly no knowledge but also no lack of knowledge.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Beingof1 »

Jamesh:
[I'm not sure that "consciousness" is the right word either though as there is only one universal consciousness]

I cannot fathom why that statement is not a result of delusion.

Consciousness is clearly an emergent property. All things are emergent properties.
Did you step outside your consciousness to come to this conclusion?
Consciousness is just like any other named thing. It is due to the creation of additional thingness that comes from the wholeness of connected forms.
This is the heart of delusion on this board. Stubborn is the self evident experience of never escaping consciousness. On this board however - that leads to a never ending blather of denial of how are experience must be denied.
To my knowledge the QRS never address this issue. Meaning they are uncertain of what infinity means.

Where does causality come from Dan, what powers the universe? Does your conceptualisation of infinity have multiple inherent properties such as expansion and contraction forces that enable dualistic manifestation?
They think infinity means potential without ever arriving at an actual reality. Like a string of dominoes has the potential to be all knocked down but it never happens because cause and effect goes back into the eons of infinite potential without ever having an actual string of dominoes.

Infinite regression of cause and effect.



Elizabeth Isabelle:
If all things are emergent properties, then they are all part of the whole. One universal consciousness and being an emergent property are not mutually exclusive.
And wisdom speaks. You will probably get the fingers in the ears treatment.


Kunga:
One Universal Consciousness, can't be proven either.
Face it....it's not possible to know the truth.
It's all what you be(lie)ve.
Yes it can be proven. You would have to love the truth to see it though.
I thought there was only one Universal Consciousness.
There is no duality in Ultimate Reality.
Buddha/Non-Buddha is a duality.

There is only THE ONE.

Only the deluded think there are delusions..........(oy)
Duality is an illusion.
If duality is an illusion,
there can't really be delusions....only our perseving them as delusional.

This is hard to grasp, I know....
But if there is Ultimate Truth
And Ultimately all is One,
Then All must be Buddha .

Ordinary beings and Buddhas are One.
It's a delusion to think otherwise.

Yes there are delusions, but they are illusions.

The piano is a delusion/illusion.
But we are so ingrained in this delusion-illusion it seems real.

Conceptualizing is duality.
"You are all Buddhas, just open your eyes."
-- The Buddha
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:I'm sorry, but she's nothing of the kind. She simply repeats shit she's read and/or been told. Tomorrow, when a different mood takes her she'll say something completely different. By the way, if one was to take the content of her last post as sound, then there's exactly no reason to actually say any of it. Why say it? This is one of the remarkably silly things about this particular take on "Buddhist" philosophy. Those that hold to it have no reason whatever to say jack about it and yet they never shut the hell up.

This goes to show how omnipresent & omnipotent you are .
You ass hole....I actually can think logically enough to reason out, all that I say...it's not all parrotted...I can see it logically in my mind.

Apply all you say to yourself ....you jerk.

See John ?
I am still attached very much to my ego.
I shouldn't have to defend myself.
But it sickens me that this ass-hole that thinks he knows it all,
tries to shove his shit down your throat (recommending you watch his ass-hole vids),
while he hides his face, only his lovely voice to hear....

You really pissed me off Dan.
I've spent my whole life wanting to know the truth,
doing my best to understand it , and find it.
I haven't had the luxury of sitting on my ass all day doing nothing...
so my time has been limited towards my devotion to truth....
but you have no right to ridicule my mind & personality.

FUCK YOU
And with a single post my point is proven. It's not an issue of the time available to you, it's an issue of the amount of control you have over your mind. My point was that it's all over the place, and there you go and prove it.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Kunga »

I was in full control when I lashed out at you.
You pissed me off.
I should control my anger ?
I am fully conscious of what I said.

Yeah, I sometimes regret my outbursts, but simutaneously
it gives me great pleasure to say exactly what's on my mind.
Especially when I am defending someone ....or even myself.

And what you were implying is that I don't know what I'm talking about,
that I am only parrotting others.
Don't tell me you haven't been influenced by all you have read.
Although I have been influenced by others, I also have reasoned what I have learned,
and can comprehend intellectually what it is that has influenced me.
I understand what I read, I don't mindlessly say things I don't understand.
I have thought it out....to the point of understanding.
Tenver-
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:24 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Tenver- »

'exactly to what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?'

None.

The only argument I can make for certain is that I don't know. I don't know if I know something that I don't know or am not aware of or any other possibility that is impossible to exclude or if I don't know anything. I don't know. I even don't know whether I don't know! Therefore the only coherent, logically sensible argument I can make is that I don't know. Any evidence I cannot provide you with.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Kunga »

Kunga wrote:One Universal Consciousness, can't be proven either.Face it....it's not possible to know the truth.It's all what you be(lie)ve.{/quote]

Beingof1 wrote:Yes it can be proven. You would have to love the truth to see it though.
I do love the truth, and I understand what you mean by being able to "see" the truth of this. But it is not a case where everyone obviously knows this reguardless of their interest in truth...like everyone can see the sun shining (that is obvious to everyone looking at the sun).

The Truth is not obvious, Universal Consciousness is only understood and realized by those that have realized it....otherwise it's not possible to know this Truth....one would only hear it from others and assume it must be true....they belive it true, without KNOWING (experiencing).

When I said it can't be proven, I was thinking empirically/scientifically.
Can you prove it right now so everyone here knows without a shadow of a doubt ?
No.
Either can I.

So the truth can not be known (obviously).
Those that don't really KNOW...believe.

That is honestly what I ment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Names are provisional descriptions of particular experiences of consciousness.

You can see the things, see what they do and feel like and how they act in relation to each other. That is the full scope of your knowledge about particular things.

Undeniable statement next sentence:

Every time you speak or describe, you are always and only referring to concepts/ideas/mental formations that arise in your mind.

Another try:
When you are speaking the name, that very experience of speaking is made up only of appearances of consciousness. And also, the thing you are referring to and naming, is only a reference to a previous object/appearance of consciousness.

Knowledge consists of referring to things you have seen/felt.

Even when you are referring to an idea, you are referring to mental formations which are essentially things you have seen or felt (they may feel or look different to the normal things you see/feel, but they are still only appearances of consciousness)

The arising in the mind that something has meaning is only a "feeling". The very feeling that something is correct or agreeable is only another experience/"feeling".

So, at the end, it all comes down to tracing back these various manifestations to their source.

Wisdom is simply recognizing what the source of everything is. There isn't much to know after knowing the source, besides maybe how to attune your provisional descriptions of your experiences of consciousness.


This is at the essence of not-knowing, all knowledge/ideas consists of particular appearances of consciousness.

All appearances/objects of consciousness, (including the "feeling"/experience that an idea has meaning) are only experiences, the objects exist only so far as what is seen of the mind, as does the knowledge/meaning.

In other words, it is all a dream. In other words, it is all only of the mind. (Found the source)

Enlightenment/wisdom is knowing you don't know anything. Or at least that all your knowledge is no different to the ideas you may have dreamt up to explain the 40 suns while sleeping.

Knowledge is made up of dreams referring to dreams.

Tenver is correct, I should have explained it like that.

Not clinging to self is also not clinging to the ideas/concepts of self.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Russell Parr »

Beingof1 wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:If all things are emergent properties, then they are all part of the whole. One universal consciousness and being an emergent property are not mutually exclusive.
And wisdom speaks. You will probably get the fingers in the ears treatment.
*sigh* Alright..

Just what exactly is "universal consciousness"? Other than an egotistical attachment to the preservation of self-existence (fear of death) expressing itself, of course. Consciousness is clearly a thing (as it is differentiated by what it's not), which is therefore caused, and therefore cannot be the whole of reality, as things are just part of the whole of reality.
Beingof1 wrote:Did you step outside your consciousness to come to this conclusion?
Sure didn't. Did you?

The fact that we cannot observe anything outside of it (as observation requires consciousness), proves that we haven't the slightest idea of just exactly what is going on beyond it. The only resort is educated guesswork based on empirical evidence, which is ultimately a shot in the dark. Going any further is both impractical and delusional.

That said, it's easy to fall into the trap of believing in such a thing. Seeker/John is doing a variation of this same thing. It's all 'new agey', pop-buddhism stuff. It's empowering to the ego to believe that some aspect of conscious experience, which is familiar to the current one in some way, will continue to exist beyond physical death, and/or has always existed in some "higher realm", or anything else you can imagine that gives the impression that consciousness (and/or Love) is beyond causation or is causation.
Last edited by Russell Parr on Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:I was in full control when I lashed out at you.
2013 Winner - funniest sentence. I know it's only March, but this is a lay-down misere.
You pissed me off.
I should control my anger ?
You should divest yourself of the source of it.
I am fully conscious of what I said.
There's no such thing as fully conscious anger.
Yeah, I sometimes regret my outbursts, but simutaneously
it gives me great pleasure to say exactly what's on my mind.
Especially when I am defending someone ....or even myself.
Those two things make the error thrice as bad.
And what you were implying is that I don't know what I'm talking about,
that I am only parrotting others.
I didn't imply it at all. I stated it outright. If you were more consistent I'd have a different view.
Don't tell me you haven't been influenced by all you have read.
Of course I have. I just don't repeat it as gospel in an absence of my own understanding. I don't think you do, entirely, either; it's just that you go from one feeling to another far too much.
Although I have been influenced by others, I also have reasoned what I have learned,
and can comprehend intellectually what it is that has influenced me.
I understand what I read, I don't mindlessly say things I don't understand.
I have thought it out....to the point of understanding.
Well, in truth understanding is absent till it manifests as action. Till that happens it's theory. Your actions often tell a different story than your claims of understanding. But, it's a start.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

lol, what you just said bluerap was, "we can't know anything outside of consciousness".

If that is the case, and nothing outside of consciousness has ever been known, then why do you assume the appearances of consciousness relate to anything external in the first place?

There is one truth, anyone that doesn't know it is simply wrong, it is as simple as that.

"There is one truth, not two or three." "There is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself" -Buddha

We are on an "enlightenment" forum, are we not?

Nothing of the self remains after death, not really losing much are we? No self.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote: "You are all Buddhas, just open your eyes."
-- The Buddha
Nope! Nonsense quotation unless it's being said that Buddha equals being or being aware. "You are all waken up if only you'd wake up". Ha, get the joke? But it quickly becomes meaningless twisting and turning that way.

The quote is actually based on the extremely popular statement from Stephen Mitchell and goes: "You are all Buddhas. There is nothing that you need to achieve. Just open your eyes." As if opening eyes wouldn't be a major achievement! Now you have to understand that Stephen does not translate but just "feels" what might have been meant or some text (in this case unsourced) should have meant and puts it out in his own words. I've nothing against it as such although I think Stephen is completely deluded on the topic and just voicing what his culture wants to hear but anyway, lets not attribute it to "The Buddha" please!

-- The Budda
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Russell Parr »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:lol, what you just said bluerap was, "we can't know anything outside of consciousness".

If that is the case, and nothing outside of consciousness has ever been known, then why do you assume the appearances of consciousness relate to anything external in the first place?
What makes you think I do?

Just because I know that consciousness is just an appearance doesn't stop me from describing and defining it in a practical manner. Are you not using words which describe ultimately 'unreal' things for the same reason?

My point is that the ego loves to grant some sort of divinity to the things it holds dear, like the experience of existing.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote: "You are all Buddhas, just open your eyes."
-- The Buddha
Nope! Nonsense quotation unless it's being said that Buddha equals being or being aware. "You are all waken up if only you'd wake up". Ha, get the joke? But it quickly becomes meaningless twisting and turning that way.

The quote is actually based on the extremely popular statement from Stephen Mitchell and goes: "You are all Buddhas. There is nothing that you need to achieve. Just open your eyes." As if opening eyes wouldn't be a major achievement! Now you have to understand that Stephen does not translate but just "feels" what might have been meant or some text (in this case unsourced) should have meant and puts it out in his own words. I've nothing against it as such although I think Stephen is completely deluded on the topic and just voicing what his culture wants to hear but anyway, lets not attribute it to "The Buddha" please!

-- The Budda
Yeah, fake "Buddha" quotes are a dime a dozen. Morons fucking it up for everyone. If you can't trace a quote back to a reliable source, ignore it. This is an interesting website about this problem: http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/
Locked