GENIUS FORUMS

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Forms don't exist of nothing, otherwise there wouldn't be any forms

Or by your words: mind doesn't exist of nothing, otherwise there wouldn't be any mind.

they exist of the mind, as appearances, imaginations, illusions, dreams

But we're not talking about where mind came from. It just "is". The big uncaused cause? If mind is the formless then why call it mind? And even the formless can only exist contrasted by form. Beyond there lies neither and both.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... ang-po.htm

http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/arHuangpo.htm

"If the mind is formless why call it mind?"

What would you prefer I called it? It's that thing that turns nothing into something when you look at darkness. Imagination :p

Kunga

Again all you have been doing is trying to distinguish what should not be distinguished, what does it matter how aware you are at the time of a dream? Or how apparent the effects of things seem to you at the time?

The point is, all forms are of the same essence, they all arise from the same place and objects have no existence other than a shallow dream-like one, the only reason you find this place more real is because your here right now. Attached to this form.

All your trying to do is say, "oh no this isn't a dream, because dreams are when you are asleep!"

You are just distinguishing, dreams and all forms are of the same essence, waking state and sleeping state forms are also of the same essence and exist as much as each other. Everything is a "dream", (aka of the mind itself,... not with any external physical existence that would exist independent of our experience)

Causality is an illusion on the bigger picture, sure things lead to one another, for example if I wack my toe it's going to hurt, but essentially these forms arise from seemingly nothing and return to seemingly nothing, to say causality exists IN A DREAM :P is completely wrong.

Like if I were to see a door in a dream, does a room exist behind it before I open it? No, the same goes for here, then when I do open it, that room only exists so far as my seeing exists and only as a form I have distinguished.

One thing leads to another, but you don't know what it's going to lead too, and it doesn't have a beginning, therefore no causality, you could have opened that door and seen 50 chickens. Causality is only an illusion of the "smaller scale", it has no existence in the bigger picture.

Just like when you go to sleep you will dream almost anything, where is the causality in that?

Forms arise from void and return to void, you cannot understand how, causality is a limited view of a limited part of the process, nothing more.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Causality is only an illusion of the "smaller scale", it has no existence in the bigger picture.

Nothing, including the "mind" you speak much of, exists in the big picture. Do you accept this?

Which is why, again, referring to the "unknowable source" as a "mind," and to say that the mind is "all that exists," seems to be a rather poor choice of wording. It gives the impression that you are unable to let go and see beyond that certain appearance. It is like you're mixing in an imagined ultimate scenario, in which you believe all appearances are given form, into your philosophy of reality.

Regarding causality, one can observe causality as a principle in full awareness of its ultimately illusionary nature. But for all intents in purposes, causality is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all observational phenomena.

Plus, the realization of the profound implications of causation can logically lead to the deeper philosophical understanding of "emptiness."

By my estimation, I think you have a decent intuitive understanding of emptiness, though not yet fully consciously, as evident by your wording.

The bigger picture exists in the bigger picture :b

bluerap, that's because you are distinguishing yourself from that unknowable source or from me, you experience mind don't you? You have imaginative experience, you "witness" mental formations, we all do, it's the same "mental process", the same imaginative essence, otherwise we wouldn't be in the same "dream", we wouldn't be having interconnected experiences.

I personally believe that we are all simply witnessing different manifestations of the same divine mind, I call it divine because it is the source of the universe, and I call it mind because I believe our awareness of an "individual" mind-system only to be one of the appearances of one underlying awareness. I'm one of the few here that openly has a belief in God.

Yes bluerap, I am also aware that any conception I have of the totality is not a real conception, I am not actually conceptualizing this higher awareness I believe to exist and therefore my conception bares no real relation to reality.

Knowledge of divine mind is the same as knowledge of delusion or knowledge of our ignorance, it is elusive and can't be grasped properly, but it is undeniable, for me, the clearest understanding or acceptance of it's existence come's from contemplating these sentences:

An appearance cannot be aware it is only an appearance.

A collection of illusory forms cannot be aware it is a collection of illusory forms.

A false "self" cannot be aware there is no self.

Also, thoughts can't exist without thinking, whatever is thinking is the same thing thinking for "me" as it is for "you" and everyone else, hence one "divine mind"

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: whatever is thinking is the same thing thinking for "me" as it is for "you" and everyone else, hence one "divine mind"

So, are you willing to take the rap for someone (else) committing a crime ? After all...you & him have the same mind...one divine mind....his thoughts are your thoughts....are you willing to take the rap for "someone elses" crime ?

Silly question, there is one mind behind all manifestations, that doesn't mean I have the same thoughts as Kunga's exactly, just that me and Kunga are of the same One essence, experiencing the same kind of human manifestation with the same emotions, bad and good are just changing perspectives. Would you feel bad for killing an illusion in a dream? What's chaos to the fly is normal to the spider.

God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger.
Heraclitus

There is no blame to place anywhere in the entire world, and there is not a person to place it on.

I wouldn't even put blame on the man who killed his whole family, it wasn't truly "him", because truly there is no "him", it was circumstance that lead those actions, he had no control over circumstance and especially no control over his mind, otherwise he wouldn't be killing his whole family would he?

It isn't me manifesting the appearance of these words, it isn't you reading them, and it isn't the killer "killing".

So in other words...you'd try to weasle out of it....lol

Here's the mind of a truely integrated yogi :


Is That So?

The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbors as one living a pure life.

A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was with child.

This made her parents very angry. She would not confess who the man was, but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.

In great anger the parents went to the master. "Is that so?" was all he would say.

After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbors and everything else the little one needed.

A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her parents the truth - that the real father of the child was a young man who worked in the fishmarket.

The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask his forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back again.

Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: "Is that so?"

I'd try to weasel out of someone else's crime of course, wouldn't you? I'd definitely weasel out of taking care of someone else's kid

If they were putting Hakuin in prison for 30 years for some one else's crime and he replied with "is that so?" I'd also think he had some serious mental issues.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I'd try to weasel out of someone else's crime of course, wouldn't you?

Yes. I am not that spiritually awakened to be so self-less.

Kunga, you've lowered yourself based on conceptions of how a spiritually awakened person should or would act, you need to understand that everyone is just like you, no matter what else they might appear to be, little children.

"Lets face it, the only reason so many people are atheist is because of the media focusing on religious idiots, while praising atheist intelligent scientists."

No the only reason that the media focuses on religious "idiots" is because everyone except those in the particular religion being focused on think their views are idiotic. The truth is religion is inconsistant worldwide they don't even have a belief in a god in common (majority of buddhist don't believe in a god) so religion gets viewed as idiotic by the majority. In contrast science is consistant worldwide. Things that are "believed" in science are "believed" in science everywhere and there procedures for testing and verifying theory are consistant everywhere. Also not all scientist are atheists (though the percentage of atheist per capita is higher among scientist than the general population)

"Is there anyone here, who really and truly believes that our sensory experiences and consciousness originated by mere chance interaction? Through unplanned accumulation and unplanned progression?"

Yes.... oh you wanted more... the universe is near infinite the requirements for the origin of life are 2 of the 3 most common elements in the universe in the right conditions... it was bound to happen somewhere.

"Who would believe in unplanned progression such as we have witnessed on earth?"

More people worldwide do not believe in a god than believe in any one specific god (there are definately more believers than non don't misread this statement)

"Unplanned Accumulation resulting in complex neurons and plasticity of the brain?"

Yup. Micro-organism A (which came to be from even simpler "blocks" of life through abiogenisis or another process we have yet to discover) has slightly more ability to look for food than Micro-organism B and therefore lives on to pass on this slightly more complex system and advantage to it's descendants and then out of all the children from micro-organism A the one with the best ability to sense food (through what will eventauly become neurons) again lives to breed and so on and so on untill we end up with realy complex beings. No this does not require a designer it just requires a good system for passing on advantages (survival of the fittest) and a buttload of time.

"Do you not understand that evolution is simply a limited perception of a limited process in the universe?"

I don't realy understand what you are asking for here that i havn't already explained if you want to rephrase go ahead (i thought better to admit not knowing than delete it and pretend i didn't see it)

"You do not understand the matter or energy making up the process, nor the forces at play, yet you say these forces are unplanned, that the resulting animals, brains, ecosystems, planets, stars, gas waterfalls, volcanoes are also unplanned, and happened through probable interactions."

We do understand to a limited degree. From that (i admit) limited understanding the best answer we can come up to explain different subject are:
-Insert all scientific theorys (not hypothesis) here-

"And that is all assuming a physical reality that corresponds with our conscious experience. But, once you do realize that consciousness is all that exists and sensory experience makes up reality, it be comes very clear the need for a creator/designer/manifestor of our experiences. There is no self, only feelings. There is no real substance, only the perception of substance. Realize how little you know, you will see the illusion eventually."

This is all irrelevent unless you know truely KNOW how to get out of this perception not because you think you have not because a book or wise man told you how give me a logical way to get out of this "dillusion" untill then we can only live it to the best of our abilities to limit suffering and increase contentment. If this was all a dream so to speak how would that mean there must be a creator... it could be a machine, a result of drugs playing out this reality in another beings consciousness, a hologram, a quantum fluctation, maybe the universe and all the history and memory was made microseconds ago and will end in 3 seconds, maybe a new universe is made every second along with all our memories, there is infinite other options don't try and shove a 'creator' in there just because IF this is a 'dillusion' you can't think of another valid options... there are INFINITE alternatives.

"A wise man, recognizing reality is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, and so he escapes the suffering."

Well in the modern day a wiseman will soon leave this 'dillusion' when he dosn't move out of the way of an 'imaginary' truck...

onlyatheistinhere wrote: The truth is religion is inconsistant worldwide they don't even have a belief in a god in common (majority of buddhist don't believe in a god) so religion gets viewed as idiotic by the majority. In contrast science is consistant worldwide. Things that are "believed" in science are "believed" in science everywhere and there procedures for testing and verifying theory are consistant everywhere.

Really? Nice consistency here.

What your not realizing is that this whole universe you keep referring to is actually made up of your sensual experiences. You have assumed that everything you see has inherit existence, that there is a corresponding external reality which you are interpreting.

Upon closer inspection of sense experience it becomes apparent that everything seen is akin to a dream, that it exists only of the mind, that the objects don't have inherit existence, that instead the reasoning that lead you to believe in this place that corresponds to everything you sense is circular.

For the same reason that the objects you see in a lucid dream don't have inherit existence, the things you see in your waking state don't have independent existence.

There is a mystery you are entirely unaware of, the way to understand it is through wakefulness of your direct experiences of consciousness.(Being more aware of your sensory perception, viewing it without bias, observation without judgement, this is essential as all knowledge is derived from sensual experience)

After a long time being wakeful and aware, one begins to see the illusory nature of things, like looking at a painting and it appearing 3D, it appears like your looking down a long corridor, but there is no corridor, in the same way our world is illusory, there is no movement, there is no substance, there is only ever the perception of these things, the appearance of those things.

There is only ever sensual experience and mental awareness (that is absolutely everything we know), the reasoning you have used to create the conception of a corresponding physical realm that is defining your sensory perception is flawed, it is based on delusion, what else can I say? You can't reach this understanding using your rational mind or through reasoning, you first have to observe and see.

"If there was no illusion there would be no enlightenment"

The common belief of Buddhists is that reality is dream-like, that your body isn't some physical thing making up your existence but can be discarded, it is just like one of those appearances, in the words of the Buddha, "reality is but an illusion".


Now, god, a three letter word, has a different meaning for every single person on earth that hears it, do you get that? When I say it I am referring to the common source of the essence that makes up all of our experiences.

But again, "god", a three letter word, bares a different meaning for every single person on this earth, some people imagine some magical man above the clouds, some imagine light, some imagine some kind of universal spirit, some simply conceptualize the universe and believe God to be it, etc, etc, etc

When I conceptualize what "God" is, I conceptualize my own imaginative experience, that mysterious seeming of nothingness from which all forms arise. As some prefer me to call it, and have called it, "the source", "the master carpenter", "the great mother".

Now let go of all these thoughts......let go of everything you say & think......how do you feel ?

Kunga, you somehow mistake typing as an indication of if I know what it means not to know,

I personally think almost no one on here knows what it means not to know.

A few famous people knew what it means not to know, it's how you know, you may have heard of them

Something hilarious, not sure about the exact Kunga quote, but it went something about you going on about oneness of consciousness and "one mind"-Kunga.

Wish I was there.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:bluerap, that's because you are distinguishing yourself from that unknowable source or from me, you experience mind don't you? You have imaginative experience, you "witness" mental formations, we all do, it's the same "mental process", the same imaginative essence, otherwise we wouldn't be in the same "dream", we wouldn't be having interconnected experiences.

Just because you and I experience these things doesn't mean you can identify, with absoluteness, the causes of our experiences. You cannot point beyond your experience and assign an identity to it, and that's exactly what you're doing with this "mind" theory.

I personally believe that we are all simply witnessing different manifestations of the same divine mind, I call it divine because it is the source of the universe, and I call it mind because I believe our awareness of an "individual" mind-system only to be one of the appearances of one underlying awareness.

Here you've affirmed my assessment regarding whether you are mixing in your beliefs into philosophical knowledge. Mixing personal beliefs and philosophy is an oxymoronic thing to do, and by doing so you are reducing philosophy to the same level as religious beliefs; a form of illogical thought.

I'm one of the few here that openly has a belief in God.

What do you mean by "God?" It can mean many things. If by God you mean the Totality of reality, which includes all of observational phenomena, and the "unknown nothingness" that lies beyond it, then I can agree with that description, and find it useful. But again, you're repetitive use of the word "belief" further convinces that you're really aren't as knowledgeable as you like to let on.

Yes bluerap, I am also aware that any conception I have of the totality is not a real conception, I am not actually conceptualizing this higher awareness I believe to exist and therefore my conception bares no real relation to reality.

You are confusing yourself by mixing in two concepts in a contradictory manner. On one hand, it appears that you are accurately affirming that your beliefs are ultimately illusionary. But if you really mean that, then why bore us with your personal beliefs if you and the rest of us know it has no relation to reality? This is because you are, on the other hand, attempting to pardon your illogical behavior by asserting the truth that we are ultimately without free will, thus relieving yourself of the responsibility of becoming fully logical. Both concepts are useful, and have their places, but combining the two in such a manner can only lead to a stunting of spiritual growth.

Also, thoughts can't exist without thinking, whatever is thinking is the same thing thinking for "me" as it is for "you" and everyone else, hence one "divine mind"

The act of thought in individuals is a phenomena that has arisen out of an innumerable source of causes. The very fact that our thoughts are not the exact same reveals that our causes are different to some degree. Because of this, it is fruitless to affirm that our thoughts are ultimately birthed from a single source, because it negates the truth that all things have an infinitude of causes from every which way. Causation doesn't happen in singular pipe-line, and no single cause is any more significant than any other, ultimately.

This scenario of individual sense experiences sprouting out of a single 'divine' source, like the hundreds of leaves on a tree, is strictly just an imagination of yours. It has absolutely zero merit in philosophy, at least for those who want to truly understand what makes up reality, inside and out. It would be one thing if you were using your "divine mind/mind systems" story strictly as a illustrative point, but this is not what you are doing. You are granting such this scenario absolute existence, ignoring your own seemingly rational notions regarding the illusionary nature of appearances.

Believing in the "divine mind" is no different than believing that the Big Bang is the absolute source of all things. The only difference is that one relies on abstract imagination, and the other on empirical evidence. Settling the mind on either is to erroneously ignore the Truth that lies beyond such theories.

You seem to discuss a farthing of character beings. Go to China where you'll find Chinese babies whom look alike...The desperate measures of our Aztec monuments. Nobody here fancifully knows the art of war but like hypocrites or Socrates label me and my aquired' genius. I'm not black I'm Mexican. You for so long described it as lunacy. I take no breaks from this world nor the next. What you call languages I call dysfunctional hole.
WHAT can I say or use to defend myself! Through- out time and history I made myself clear that I was and am genius. You took for granted my words. Why;/? When I was a child I spake as a child but when I became a man I put childish things away.
I'm not Jewish I'm the exact number of which Demeon you posses. We are seriously going to have to devide' amongst ourselves and call in the reserves. The reserves are the people which have no choices. You have a choice. Live or die. The Aztecs took no prisoners. So, why should you;/? Point blank...The ritual you posses is taking lives.

Early in the morning, I will celebrate the 'light...:

bluerap,

"you're repetitive use of the word "belief" further convinces that you're really aren't as knowledgeable as you like to let on."

If you have any philosophical knowledge you think is true than that's a belief.

I don't know what else to say man, but that thing you are, that imagination that turns the void into a form of reality without explanation, what else is that but miraculous and divine? It is literally the source of the universe, what you are part of.

Causation isn't real, (only a limited perspective of a limited part of a process, you see things leading to eachother so you apply causation to the whole totality? It's only an abstract concept that appeared to you :P ) there was no beginning, things arise from the void and return to the void, all forms, without exclusion, come from the same source, you know this, lol, you just have to think about the fact that your physical body is an illusion, all that distinguishes us are the specific experiences, besides that we are witnessing the same "imaginative" source, when we block off our senses, we have the same consciousness.

Buddha "Not realizing there is but one common essence"
Lao Tzu " All beings return to the common source" all things arise from Tao.
Jesus... don't really have to quote him in this instance lol
Confucius "heaven means to be one with god"

I have heard both you, diebert, and dennis say how the idea of this "common essence" is a false one, I don't know what else to say besides the knowledge of a "common essence" is the most undeniable and fundamental knowledge possible.

I'm not granting anything absolute existence but me and you. Everyone here seems to think "god" is any different from "me, you, him, her", it's what you are, imaginative experience/forms arising from unknown nothingness, and what is... imagination? Well, it creates things out of nothing using nothing but the mind.... those things are *made of* the same "essence" we are all made of.

"But if you really mean that, then why bore us with your personal beliefs if you and the rest of us know it has no relation to reality?"

I said any specific conception of god bears no relation to reality, just like any specific conception of the totality or absolute bears no relation to reality, just abstract concepts, yet somehow you still use the words totality or absolute? why is that I wonder? God is a three letter word for the source, so is tao.

Like I said, I'm happy to call god the "great mother" or "master carpenter", don't see you anyone having* a go at lao tzu do I? Wtf is the difference between jesus yelling father, lao tzu saying great mother or master carpenter, and me saying god?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:If you have any philosophical knowledge you think is true than that's a belief.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

You wouldn't be here confidently preaching on about the "mind" idea if you didn't think there was an essence of absolute truth to it. You've concluded that it is an accurate representation of reality. But instead of leaving it for what it is, a blind guess, you've blended it into your philosophy, thus removing any solid ground you had in your logic up to that point.

You haven't yet gained an honest appreciation for the difference between beliefs and knowledge. As long as you think they are essentially the same, philosophy will continue to be as boring and fruitless as you insist it is.

I have heard both you, diebert, and dennis say how the idea of this "common essence" is a false one, I don't know what else to say besides the knowledge of a "common essence" is the most undeniable and fundamental knowledge possible.

Common essence is not what I am arguing against, it's this belief that reality is strictly dream-like, coming from an "divine mind" that merely imagines reality into existence. The only thing you can say of common essence is that there is one. No further inquiry can be made, the details are beyond perception. The odds of our observational reality being made up of "sensual dreams" of a "divine mind" is just as likely as it (observational reality) being an ultra-complex computer program.

Causation isn't real, (only a limited perspective of a limited part of a process, you see things leading to eachother so you apply causation to the whole totality? It's only an abstract concept that appeared to you :P )

Examples of causation are finite observations that are ultimately illusionary, but we can deduce that the concept of causation can be used in full cooperation with logic, and helps us understand the nature of existence. You use the concept of causation every time you speak of where our experiences come from.

there was no beginning, things arise from the void and return to the void, all forms, without exclusion, come from the same source, you know this,

Your use of the word "void" here is accurate and reasonable, but then...

you just have to think about the fact that your physical body is an illusion, all that distinguishes us are the specific experiences, besides that we are witnessing the same "imaginative" source, when we block off our senses, we have the same consciousness.

Now you're saying that the void is not just a void, but that it is something else, an "imaginative" source. Where's the consistency?

Also, I never said that physical reality is not an illusion. We can agree that it is just as much of an illusion as conceptual thoughts are. But what we cannot do is somehow peer beyond our experiences and declare that there is a consciousness that lies beyond the senses.

I said any specific conception of god bears no relation to reality, just like any specific conception of the totality or absolute bears no relation to reality, just abstract concepts, yet somehow you still use the words totality or absolute? why is that I wonder? God is a three letter word for the source, so is tao.

You may say these things, but do you really stand by them? Or will you continue to insist that there's a hidden "divine mind" existing beyond sensory experience?

"A hidden "divine mind" outside of sensual experience"

The only time this becomes a flaw is when you think of it as anything separate to what you are.

You implied it's hidden, and beyond sensual experience, both wrong implications, consciousness is made up of experience, there is nothing but experience known, no hidden outer external being.

Causation can be "used" surely but it is still just an appearance with no reality in itself, like time.

"what we cannot do is somehow peer beyond our experiences and declare that there is a consciousness that lies beyond the senses."

Again implying there is something more than what you are experiencing. There is nothing but changing sensual experience, the experiences flow as one, interconnected, affecting each other, that is where "one mind" comes from, the oneness of experience, consciousness, mind, our individuality being an illusion.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:"A hidden "divine mind" outside of sensual experience"

The only time this becomes a flaw is when you think of it as anything separate to what you are. You implied it's hidden, and beyond sensual experience, both wrong, consciousness is made up of experience, there is nothing but consciousness, no hidden out external being.

Actually, my statement was an accusation of your own implications. I do not hold it to be true that there is anything "hidden" beyond consciousness.

"what we cannot do is somehow peer beyond our experiences and declare that there is a consciousness that lies beyond the senses."

Again implying there is something more than what you are experiencing.

And again, nor am I implying such a thing. My statement was a criticism of your accusations based on your language.

There is nothing but changing sensual experience, the experiences flow as one, interconnected, effecting each other, that is where "one mind" comes from, the oneness of experience, our individuality being an illusion.

Already, here, your language is improving. We can find more common ground now.

I write to you in the way that I do to challenge you to become more consistent with your language and ideas. I am no sage, but I feel as though I have been through the same things you are going through when I was around your age. It can be hard to shake the instincts of believing that there's something "divine" beyond this life because of how emotionally satisfying it can be, and such beliefs are hammered into us from birth onward throughout all of society. Reducing thoughts, emotions, imaginations and all forms of appearances to "nothingness" by way of logic is dull and undesirable in comparison, as long as egotism (the urge for permanence) resides in yourself. I believe that the work of the wise is to eradicate as much of egotism as possible from oneself and rest within the peaceful wisdom that remains.

Trust me bluerap, if I knew of some perfect way to describe these things, or if I had the skill others have, (or the will to put in more effort), then I would do it hahah, but only after all those conditions.

I agree with what you wrote in that last paragraph and understand the point your trying to make, but when I think of this "divine", really all I'm thinking of are the manifestations of nature, and the unknown source of these miraculous manifestations, these make up the universe so to me that constitutes divinity, but do not fret, I do not conceptualize anything more than my own experiences and what you and I are. (my thoughts alone are enough for me to call the source of my thoughts divine, in my opinion, as I see it as "it" thinking rather than "me")

Even if there appears to be inconsistency that's really only a result of our different descriptions of the same "is". Words really do nothing more than refer to images or ideas of what "is" so really we are all talking about the exact same thing with no differences in what is being "seen" while speaking from person to person.

Although of course I do understand the need for smoother communication as everyone points out :p

I had some more revelation/epiphany/expansion of awareness last night where the illusory concept of time, and in turn all things, became much more clear to me, they were yelling silence, descriptions don't do justice, for example I tried to explain that "all things are happening at once" to someone, that before and after are illusions, and as expected the words did not come out with the same meaning.

The problem is the concepts can't be grasped while thinking

I find that such epiphanies are hints to the illusionary nature of our experiences, nothing more. It's understandable to see how others can find your way of describing these things as troublesome, because there is a tendency to convey the experience as something else, rather than just plain illusionary (as you are trying to imply). This is, of course, met with the greater tendency in others to interpret your explanation as just a different experience, rather than, again, an explanation of the illusionary nature of experiences.