jupiviv wrote:Russell wrote:No, illusion by definition means a misrepresentation of reality. The reality of things is an illusion.
Either everything is an illusion and therefore "illusion" means "reality", or "illusion" means the misrepresentation of reality and therefore the assertion than everything is an illusion is itself illusory and thus a contradiction in terms.
Non-attachment is a consequence of the state of wisdom; it occurs along with a sustained realization of the emptiness of existence. It can't really happen any other way.
What does non-attachment mean to you?
A sustained realisation of the emptiness of existence is, again, a contradiction in terms. How can any state exist, let alone be sustained, if existence is empty? The fact that you believe it can be bears out my speculation about your motive.
My motive, with my statements above, is you get you to see what the existence of things mean in context of what is absolute, i.e. that things are ultimately empty of existence, there is only the Tao, or the Infinite, to which the concept of existence cannot apply.
To put it another way, things exist by way of contrast to what they are not. Contrasts don't exist except by way of perception. Where there is no perception, there's no contrasts, and therefore no existence.
I remind you that this discussion began with your implication that the existence of things is real regardless of conscious perception. I put it to you that existence of things
seem real
because of conscious perception.
To use the Zen mountains/no-mountains story, in which the progression of wisdom describes mountains and rivers first existing, then not, then existing again, it seems to me that you haven't thoroughly completed the 2nd stage. You have to first realize the precise manner in which things don't exist before understanding what existence really is.
Why do you think Hakuin advised his monks to reflect deeply upon the prospect of dying without having attained wisdom? He would not have done so if he believed that existence is empty. Emptiness is one and the same as existence. Things are "empty" of anything besides their own existence.
I could easily argue that Hakuin is in agreement with me, in which 'ceasing all activity', 'do nothing', etc. is suggestive of the emptiness and meaninglessness of all things. Besides that, what do you mean by "emptiness is one and the same as existence"? It looks like wisdom but I can't fit it in with your other claims.
Speaking of the Zen story mentioned above, I found this in one of the old newsletters:
Jason: Do you think that the empirical model of [objective] reality can be ABSOLUTELY ruled out as a possibility? If so, why?
David Quinn: I do rule it out absolutely. The reason? Because forms (always being appearances) cannot exist beyond consciousness.
Jason: Why, in the past, have you referred to empiricism as being uncertain?
David Quinn: The uncertainty of empiricism is a different issue. It's less lofty and designed to address a cruder set of delusions.
It's a bit like that famous Zen story about the mountain/no-mountain:
"When a person starts off along the path, he sees that mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. When he travels some distance along the path, he sees that mountains are not really mountains and rivers are not really rivers. But then, when he becomes enlightened, he finds that mountains are really mountains after all, and rivers are really rivers."
The uncertainty of empiricism is a teaching that belongs to the first stage. It teaches people that everything we perceive through the senses is uncertain, and that what we experience as the "real world" may not be the real world at all.
Everything exists in the mind, on the other hand, is a teaching that belongs in the second and third stages. It teaches people that there is no "real world" to begin with, other than the one that is perceived in each moment. For the more perceptive student, it is also a pointer to the fact that consciousness doesn't really exist and that the whole issue of what lies beyond consciousness has no basis to it.