The problem with all religions

[beautifulthailand99]

The problem with all religions.......is that they are all superstitions based on the false existence of invisible friends.

​Invisible friends are somewhat acceptable for children, but not adults.

People kill people over who's invisible friend is best.

The world needs to wake up and ban religion!

Let's grow up!

( Buddhism should not be referred to as a religion. It is a philosophy, not a religion. The Buddha was not a god, just an enlightened man. )

But apparently an enlightened man who could perform miracles.

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

[fabianfred]

The Buddhas are always born as men, not gods. If they were gods then people would not believe that they could also do as the Buddhas and achive liberation.

However, although they are men and born into the human realm they are certainly very special and capable of many things an ordinary person is not. This is because they are Boddhisattas, having trained and practiced the ten perfections for countless aeons. Their peneltimate existence is in the Deva realm of Tushita heaven where they await conditions to be right for their final birth and eventual becoming a Buddha.

When the person called Sumedha met a past Buddha called Dipankara and made the Boddhisatta vow to become a future Buddha, he was already an accomplished meditator and had attained to the jhanas, thus was capable of super powers. Throughout the subsequent 4 asongkaya plus 100,000 aeons he practised as a Boddhisatta he often attained to the jhanas in many existences. But we now know that attainment of the Jhanas without knowledge and practice of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness will never lead to attaining ariyahood.

[slipperylobster]

It would be much easier to follow religion, if each God were to duke it out between themselves. The winner would get all the followers.

[VincentRJ]

I suspect that stories of miracles in religious scriptures are considered to be necessary in order to impress the ordinary person and to gain followers.

For example, in the Wikipedia link from BeautifulThailand, we have the following example:

"It is said that immediately after the birth of Siddhartha Gautama (BC 623), he stood up, took seven steps north, and uttered:

I am chief of the world,

Eldest am I in the world,

Foremost am I in the world.

This is the last birth.

There is now no more coming to be.

Furthermore, every place the baby Buddha placed his foot, a lotus flower bloomed."

Now that's a very charming and alluring story, but does anyone take it literally? Perhaps some people do, so one has to be careful here. I don't wish to upset anyone. I feel I have to show some Buddhist compassion here for those who might have an emotional need to believe in miracles and supernatural phenomena, to get them through the hazards and ordeals of life.

[fabianfred]

In the last century a Western woman practisioner of Tibetan Buddhism who had made great progress was reborn. In the hospital they were astounded to see the baby sit upon its mother's belly in the lotus position and chant some stanzas in tibetan. Not immediately after birth though.

The word miracle just causes panic and doubt ... I would tend to avoid it.

[beautifulthailand99]

The real miracle is that we exist and are conscious of our existence and are ultimately aware of our coming demise. Buddhism is the only organised religion which taps into that wellspring of the mind and makes sense. It's a shame it so difficult to follow in practice when we live in the world red in tooth and claw.

[VincentRJ]

In the last century a Western woman practisioner of Tibetan Buddhism who had made great progress was reborn. In the hospital they were astounded to see the baby sit upon its mother's belly in the lotus position and chant some stanzas in tibetan. Not immediately after birth though.

The word miracle just causes panic and doubt ... I would tend to avoid it.

Hi Fabianfred,

You should provide a link to the report of this event so we can all form an opinion as to its reliability. Perhaps these astounded people in the hospital had all been partying on some hallucinatory drug, such as LSD, which just happened to be readily available in the hospital's drug store because some doctor was doing research on the effects of the drug.

I have no problem with the word miracle. However, alternative expressions can be a bit cumbersome. The simplest and closest synonym I can think of would be 'supernatural'.

What I find interesting about Buddhism is that its own teachings would appear to explain (to me, at least) the phenomenon of miracles. Everything is an illusion, or a phenomenon which exists only in the mind.

[RandomSand]

What I find interesting about Buddhism is that its own teachings would appear to explain (to me, at least) the phenomenon of miracles. Everything is an illusion, or a phenomenon which exists only in the mind.

So basically your stance is: Life is a dream, and I'm simply a dreamer within the dream having a dream. However; my consciousness is somehow rooted in an absolute and permanent firmament... i.e. MIND.

I'm not saying your wrong, not at all, but I'd like to point out that this model accords with a transcendent truth. According to transcendentalism relativism is a form of ignorance.

Edited November 4, 2014 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

What I find interesting about Buddhism is that its own teachings would appear to explain (to me, at least) the phenomenon of miracles. Everything is an illusion, or a phenomenon which exists only in the mind.

So basically your stance is: Life is a dream, and I'm simply a dreamer within the dream having a dream. However; my consciousness is somehow rooted in an absolute and permanent firmament... i.e. MIND.

I'm not saying your wrong, not at all, but I'd like to point out that this model accords with a transcendent truth. According to transcendentalism relativism is a form of ignorance.

Not really. My current stance is that I find it interesting that a major part of the Buddhist doctrine appears to teach that everything we interpret as reality, is in fact an illusion, or a transitory, temporary appearance in the mind. This is a concept I like to consider and think about, and meditate upon.

The first problem I encounter is that there appears to be at least one exception to this rule. Is the teaching that 'everything is an illusion' the exception? Does it make sense to claim that everything is an illusion except the teaching that everything is an illusion?

How does one resolve this paradox or linguistic dilemma? If there's one exception to the rule, might there be many other exceptions? However, again there appears to be a satisfactory explanation within the Buddhist text.

In the conversation between Gotama and Vaccha.in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, with regard to the appearances and reappearance of physical forms, we have the following statement from Gotama.

'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."

And, as Trd has has quoted in post #51 in this thread, "'All exists,' Kaccayana, this is one extreme. 'All does not exist,' this is the other extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the dhamma by the middle way."

I tend to conclude from this that it is misleading or confusing to claim that everything is an illusion. I think such a concept would be more usefully described along the following lines (my own interpretation).

Everyone's mind is subject to illusory influences in accordance with a person's cultural conditioning, background, education, personal experiences and inherited genetic qualities.

To put it another way, the mind is easily tricked, in accordance with our conditioned receptivity to certain ideas, concepts, desires and needs. Buddhist teachings and practices should, hopefully, lead to an understanding of how such trickery takes place.

Such understanding could be considered as 'enlightenment'. But again, I think it can be misleading to consider that a person is either enlightened or not enlightened. It makes more sense to me to consider that there is a continuum of various degrees and stages of enlightenment.

What the ultimate, transcendental, absolute state of enlightenment might be, I wouldn't claim to know. I tend to think that even speculating on its existence might be as fruitless as speculating on the existence of an Almighty Creator God.

[RandomSand]

It's hard to see past relativism as oneself exists as a part of a relative world.

So your own perspective is relative.

It's easy to overlook this simple fact.

[VincentRJ]

The concept of the Absolute has meaning only in relation to our understanding of the relative, just as 'good' has meaning only in relation to 'bad'.

If one were to imagine a world in which nothing was 'bad', or nothing was 'not good' to any degree, then there would be no reason for the words 'good' or 'bad' to exist. They would be meaningless.

[trd]

1. The absolute cannot be a concept.

2. The absolute has no meaning.

[VincentRJ]

1. The absolute cannot be a concept.

!t's a concept that exists in the human mind. All concepts exist only in the human mind (and perhaps the mind of certain other animals). In terms of temperature, there is a concept called 'Absolute Zero'. In relativistic, mathematical terms, that temperature is -273.16 degrees C.

2. The absolute has no meaning.

In terms of ordinary language, temperature is a measure of the degree of 'disorder' or 'messiness' of a material system. When the materials of the system are cooled down to absolute zero, then all the constituent atoms and molecules become perfectly ordered. They stop vibrating and jumping around.

This concept seems to me very analogous to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana and/or the cessation of all thought. When the mind is completely still, it's in perfect order (I imagine. I'm not speaking from direct experience), just like the atoms and molecules of a substance at a temperature of Absolute Zero.

Okay?

[RandomSand]

I've heard that this "normal world" which one is born into is actually Nirvana but we don't perceive it as such because we exist organically as itself. Transcendentalism and NDE are supposed to be temporary respites from the organic experience.

I find it weird that many non-transcendentalists refute a transcendental absolute yet still believe that this world is illusory. I don't understand this philosophy of illusoriness (or Mind) and (thank-you) I'm not asking for any further explanation.

So, it seems to me, the problem with all religions is that confusion arises, concepts like God, Mind, Heavan, Nirvana, etc are introduced and from these superstitions we then perform rituals rather than simply living out a "real" and "genuine" life.

Don't all religions basically say "Don't be selfish", "Treat others how you'd like to be treated", "The kingdom of heaven lies within".... yet we still run around making up concepts and rituals in the hope of somehow controlling our destiny.

How can destiny control its own destiny?

Destiny is.

Edited November 6, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

Everything the mind produces is a concept. It would be far more meaningful to say I have a concept about the relative than the absolute. If I have a concept of the difference between hot and cold, I could demonstrate that in relative terms by comparing the temperatures in two glasses of water to show one was hotter than the other. But what about the absolute? It cannot be observed in nature, so we are left with a mental concept which can only be described in the case of the physical world by some intermediary such as mathematics. We call that "knowledge". But if you think about it, we can see that all knowledge is known through an intermediary mechanism. If you hold the glass from the temperature experiment in your hand, can you really say you "know" it? You certainly can say you perceive it. Light is reflected from the object and on to the retina, and then to the brain, where the mind interprets it and labels it according to a model of the word formed by memory and experience.

There are no absolutes in nature (the relative). Absolute Zero does not actually exist anywhere in the universe. The coldest regions of space are always a fraction of a degree higher than absolute zero. It has been hypothesised that the Hadron Collider has been able to create an even colder temperature than interstellar space, but it is still slightly above 0 degrees Kelvin. At the other extreme, in theory, the singularity at the centre of a black hole has infinite mass, but in the relative universe this is not so. Stephen Hawking postulated that there is radiation leakage (Hawking radiation) which is emitted from a black hole despite the commonly held view that nothing escapes, and that a singularity would actually disappear in time, so there is no possibility of infinite mass. Such absolutes cannot exist in the relative because the laws of physics wouldn't work with such anomalies.

So to bring this back to something more relevant to Buddhist teachings, the absolute, that which is beyond the constraints and limitations of mind, is something which has to be directly experienced. The absolute may exist as a concept in the mind, but it has no use or value as an abstract notion. It always comes back to the practice of transcending mind and becoming that which is without form and without attributes and dependencies, in other words, the absolute. And unlike the perception of looking at the glass, real knowledge which is knowledge of one's true nature does not rely on an intermediary mechanism. It is the knower directly knowing itself.

[RandomSand]

The mind, the ego, the imagination, is like a ghost; an insubstantial apparition. To say it really exists is certainly an unfounded statement, and, to then say it "produces" anything is highly superstitious.

So let's move away from an entirely false mind, and talk about a transcendental Mind...

If we say Mind exists, even un-manifestly, then it seems we have admitted a noumenal spirit world. Yet "spirits of the dead" and other such mediums are easily cast aside as childish and made-up within most hypotheses.

Imho; Mind could only exist like a shadow. Not Absolutely. Mind may exist in the shadow of Matter just like the black-hole singularity only exists by virtue of the universal sphere surrounding it.

The truly transcendental, the absolute, would seem to be beyond time & space. It's said that we should strive to "be in the now" but how do we know that "the now" isn't simply the widest departure from the "absolute" possible. The "transcendental absolute" might be ALL space, past and future, except the momentary experience you're now trapped within ?!!

From this momentary experience, this "now" which seems to automatically arise, you seem to have a grand view of events happening around you. Ahhh, how easily we take it for granted. Is it really confusing? Let's be realistic, it all fits together so well that we can measure it with highly sophisticated apparatus and the results are consistently the same year after year. It's actually amazing and wonderful yet we grow bored of it and want to escape it. Why are we in such haste? How many years till we move on from our own lives? 10, 20, 40 years? Just a drop in the ocean of time. "patience is a virtue".

Edited November 7, 2014 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

There are no absolutes in nature (the relative). Absolute Zero does not actually exist anywhere in the universe. The coldest regions of space are always a fraction of a degree higher than absolute zero. It has been hypothesised that the Hadron Collider has been able to create an even colder temperature than interstellar space, but it is still slightly above 0 degrees Kelvin. At the other extreme, in theory, the singularity at the centre of a black hole has infinite mass, but in the relative universe this is not so. Stephen Hawking postulated that there is radiation leakage (Hawking radiation) which is emitted from a black hole despite the commonly held view that nothing escapes, and that a singularity would actually disappear in time, so there is no possibility of infinite mass. Such absolutes cannot exist in the relative because the laws of physics wouldn't work with such anomalies.

First, let's address your claim that Absolute Zero does not exist anywhere in the universe. You seem to have fallen into the same trap of 'so-called' atheists who might have a positive belief that there is no God,.or no creator-entity that broadly fits the descriptions of a God. How could anyone be certain that 'something' does not exist in this vast universe without having first explored every nook and cranny in the universe, a task which is clearly impossible.

I think you are also failing to make a distinction between 'known fact' and the predictions of 'tentative theory'. All our scientific theories are always subject to review and fine-tuning in the light of new evidence. That's the beauty of science, and also the beauty of the Kalama Sutta in which Gotama encouraged people to question scriptural authority.

Next, let's address your definition of a 'fraction of a degree'. We all know what a fraction is, right? The scientific temperature scale called Kelvin, which is used to describe Absolute Zero, has intervals which are of the same magnitude as the normal Celsius scale. That is, a 1 degree difference in temperature on the Kelvin scale has the same magnitude as a 1 degree difference on the Celsius or Centigrade scale. The main difference between the two scales is in the starting point. Zero degrees C is the freezing point of water, whereas Zero degrees Kelvin is 'theoretically' the lowest temperature that can be reached. 0 degrees K = minus 273.15 degrees C, and 273.15 degrees K = 0 degrees C, approximately. Okay! So that's the background.

But how close a temperature to Absolute Zero have we managed to achieve so far? A check on the internet should reveal that the temperature is so close to 0 degrees Kelvin that for all practical purposes we have achieved that temperature. If one wishes to put a very, very, very fine point on it, the lowest temperature achieved so far is only one tenth, of one billionth of one degree above absolute zero, or 0.00000000001 degrees K.

Is that not close enough for you, Trd?

This brings me to another problem of all religions, the lack of precise definitions of, not only key words used, but also of common words used. It is often claimed that most philosophical disputes are caused by differences in the understanding of particular words, in the minds of those arguing the different positions.

For example, 1/10th of a degree is a fraction. That's a true statement. However, 1/10th of one billionth of a degree is also a fraction, just as 1/10th of one hundred trillionths of a degree is also a fraction. Also, if one changes the scale, what is a fraction on one particular scale might not be a fraction on another scale. A change in one degree Fahrenheit is a fraction of a degree on the Celsius scale.

Let's take another example of a very commonly used word, such as 'Liar'. A check in any dictionary should reveal that a 'liar' is a person who tells lies. It's a very simple and unambiguous definition. Surely there can be no misunderstanding here. We all know what a lie is, don't we?

However, when one thinks about it, the issue is not nearly as clear as it might initially appear. There are 'little white lies', which most of us tell to some degree, in the interests of good relations, and then there are big blatant lies.

Among the big blatant lies, there are lies which are told in order to further one's own selfish interests, such as a criminal asserting his innocence. Then there are other blatant lies which are told in the interests of national security, and yet other lies told in the interest of helping to cure a sick person with an incurable disease, for example, by offering a placebo drug or procedure with the assertion that it is a known cure.

If one were to claim that one is being truthful and accurate in calling someone a liar, how could one justify the use of the term? Is a person who has told just one blatant lie in his entire life a liar? Is a person who has told frequent 'little white lies' a liar? How many big blatant lies does a person have to tell before being considered a liar? One, ten, a hundred?

Perhaps we could claim that everyone without exception is a liar, and that all that differs is the degree to which he/she is a liar, the frequency with which he/she tells lies, and the scale of the consequences of such lies. Do you see the problem?

[trd]

0.00000000001 degrees K.

Is that not close enough for you, Trd?

I don't need a physics lesson from you Vincent. To make such a statement about the closeness of the temperature (What? Close enough for your mind?) demonstrates a complete lack of logical and scientific rigour on your part. Not only would it take an infinite amount of energy to bring all particle movement to a standstill, but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum dynamics would prevent an observer from actually measuring it. I repeat, there are no absolutes in the relative universe. Back to Physics 101 for you and see me after class for extra homework.

[trd]

If one were to claim that one is being truthful and accurate in calling someone a liar, how could one justify the use of the term? Is a person who has told just one blatant lie in his entire life a liar? Is a person who has told frequent 'little white lies' a liar? How many big blatant lies does a person have to tell before being considered a liar? One, ten, a hundred?

If only you could learn important lessons from your own statements. What you say is absolutely true in a relative sense. There are so many interpretations and degrees of how you could use the word "liar". Doesn't that tell you that you cannot use such relative truths to define what is real and what is your true nature. Surely this is the basis of Buddha's message. And what is this love for the Kalama Sutta. It won't teach you anything except to satisfy your need to question scripture. So what? Better to focus your attention on anicca, dukkha and anatta.

[rockyysdt]

Hi V.

I suspect TRD is correct.

Although infinitely small and approaching zero, you can continue dividing forever.

A half of a small number is not zero.

[trd]

The mind, the ego, the imagination, is like a ghost; an insubstantial apparition. To say it really exists is certainly an unfounded statement, and, to then say it "produces" anything is highly superstitious.

The mind appears to exist but is it real? When you say it is an unfounded statement to say it exists, who is making this unfounded statement. Is it not your mind? It is neither real nor unreal. If you see a snake, but then on closer examination discover it is a rope, you can say the snake was an illusion and never existed, but nevertheless it did appear momentarily. This is the same with mind. It is unreal because there is no solid core which exists as a personal self, yet we falsely believe it to be real because of ignorance.

So let's move away from an entirely false mind, and talk about a transcendental Mind...

If mind is just a collection and sequence of thoughts, how can there be such as a thing as a transcendental mind? If the mind is transcended, then there are no thoughts, there is no mind, only awareness.

If we say Mind exists, even un-manifestly, then it seems we have admitted a noumenal spirit world. Yet "spirits of the dead" and other such mediums are easily cast aside as childish and made-up within most hypotheses.

What's with the spirits? We could say the noumenon is the absolute, umnanifest value of pure being. No room for spirits there. It is only the manifest which can appear as mind. If it is unmanifest, it is not mind.

The truly transcendental, the absolute, would seem to be beyond time & space. It's said that we should strive to "be in the now" but how do we know that "the now" isn't simply the widest departure from the "absolute" possible. The "transcendental absolute" might be ALL space, past and future, except the momentary experience you're now trapped within ?!!

You cannot be anywhere but in the "now". It is always "now". If you strive for it, it will elude you. If you don't experience it that is because you identify with the mind/body mechanism. Turning the attention back to simple awareness removes that illusion. To be totally present is outside of space and time. It is only mind which creates the experience of space and time. That is why your true nature is unborn and deathless. Sages like Buddha expressed this truth, but then the ignorant just read the words and declared them to be mere beliefs based on superstition.

The trap of momentary experience you refer to is only a trap if you identify with it. You are bound. In your natural state, both unmanifest awareness and the expression of duality in the relative are both experienced as freedom. There is no binding, attachment or impression that results in losing the knowledge of pure being.

[VincentRJ]

0.00000000001 degrees K.

Is that not close enough for you, Trd?

Back to Physics 101 for you and see me after class for extra homework.

Bravo!

Not only would it take an infinite amount of energy to bring all particle movement to a standstill, but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum dynamics would prevent an observer from actually measuring it. I repeat, there are no absolutes in the relative universe.

Perhaps you can help me out here, Trd. I have an impression, right or wrong, that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or any other principle, cannot prevent anything. Principles, whether scientific or not, are merely concepts in the human mind. They may be written in books and described in mathematical terms, however, what actually prevents, or causes something to happen is a 'real', natural phenomenon or process.

We may attempt to explain and describe as best we can such observed phenomena and processes, using our peculiarly human imagination, and attribute names to such explanations, such as Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but is it not a confusion of language to fail to distinguish between the theory and the real event associated with the theory in the human mind? Just wondering, and applying the principles of the Kalama Sutta.

Now I know it is claimed there are some weird things happening at the quantum level. As I understand, the mere act of observation can influence the behaviour of what is being observed, so I'm not surprised that we cannot measure a temperature of precisely 0 degrees Kelvin.

I recently came across the following quote from Einstein, which I find inspiring.

"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as someone separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

[VincentRJ]

If one were to claim that one is being truthful and accurate in calling someone a liar, how could one justify the use of the term? Is a person who has told just one blatant lie in his entire life a liar? Is a person who has told frequent 'little white lies' a liar? How many big blatant lies does a person have to tell before being considered a liar? One, ten, a hundred?

If only you could learn important lessons from your own statements. What you say is absolutely true in a relative sense. There are so many interpretations and degrees of how you could use the word "liar". Doesn't that tell you that you cannot use such relative truths to define what is real and what is your true nature.

Not really. It tells me that I should exercise my mind and not jump to conclusions or be easily tricked. It tells me I should try to be aware of all the possible interpretations and meanings of such words and their limited usefulness, and that I should try to 'qualify' statements which include such words, for the sake of clarity if nothing else. For example, I presume it has to be true that a person is a liar whilst in the process of telling a lie. A minute later, whilst the same person makes another statement which is not a lie, then that person is no longer a liar.

And what is this love for the Kalama Sutta. It won't teach you anything except to satisfy your need to question scripture. So what? Better to focus your attention on anicca, dukkha and anatta.

All learning must be carried out by the individual student. A teacher can be no more than a guide or inspiration. The Kalama Sutta emphasises these qualities very remarkably. The Kalama Sutta even gives the advice, "Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so." In other words, think for yourself.

I have no problem with the concept of Anicca, that things, including the self, are impermanent and constantly changing. I have no problem with Dukka. I'm in good health, and my worries and concerns are very trivial, compared with some folks.

Anatta is more of a problem due to the lack of a precise definition of 'self'. We are perhaps into a similar situation to the previous example of the use of the word 'liar'. Not having a self of any description is much more incomprehensible (to me) than not being able to measure a temperature of precisely 0 degrees Kelvin.

[RandomSand]

To be totally present is outside of space and time. It is only mind which creates the experience of space and time. That is why your true nature is unborn and deathless. Sages like Buddha expressed this truth, but then the ignorant just read the words and declared them to be mere beliefs based on superstition.

How do you mean that ?

What the heck is this mind ?

Are you saying that ultimately the duality of mind and matter is real and there are two dimensions ? 1. MATTER & 2. "SPIRITUAL" MIND

Are you saying this "duality" is an illusion?

Where / how does this illusion occur ? -in mind or matter ?

• MIND (which is not material) creates matter.
• MIND (which is not material) is aware of matter.
• MIND (which is not material) creates the perspective of an expansive time & space... and the experience does not occur in the brain.
• MIND (which is not material) creates the perspective of an expansive time & space... and the experience does occur in the brain.
• mind (which is a function of material brain-ware) creates the perspective of an expansive time & space.
• mind (which is a non-material function of non-material MIND) creates the perspective of an expansive time & space.
• Brain (which is a material function of a non-material mind) creates the perspective of an expansive time & space.
• Brain (which is a function of a non-material MIND) creates the perspective of an expansive time & space.
• Brain (which is a function of a non-material MIND) creates matter. (similar to the first option).
• etc etc etc

Edited November 8, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

That is why your true nature is unborn and deathless.

Who are you talking to?

RandomSand existing in MIND or RandomSand composed of flesh & blood ?

Are you saying that; RandomSand composed of flesh & blood, sat here and typing on this keyboard, is not having true nature ?

You are saying I'm false, that the world is false, that everything I know is a lie ?!!!!

That's quite a claim indeed. Seems like you're the one creating an illusion in your assertion that everything is an illusion.

Read my sig... in contradiction to that quote; you're saying that noumenal mind is real, more real than reality itself. I suggest you wake up to the real world, mind doctor TRD.

If this "mind" is so fabulous and true in nature, then like multiple personality disorder, why not consider breeding more than one "mind" in your brain ?

Edited November 8, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

I'm sorry RandomSand, I'm finding it difficult to follow your reasoning or understand your questions. Perhaps you can tell me what you think the heck this mind is because nothing you say is clear to me.

[RandomSand]

I'm sorry RandomSand, I'm finding it difficult to follow your reasoning or understand your questions. Perhaps you can tell me what you think the heck this mind is because nothing you say is clear to me.

What's actually real;

A "mind" which can't be found,

or the earth beneath your feet ?

Edited November 8, 2014 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

I also find some of these concepts very bizarre; even more bizarre than Alice in Wonderland.

I can understand that our mind is easily tricked and that most, if not all, of our problems in this world result from certain people accepting such trickery as reality and attempting to force, coerce, teach and condition others into accepting as reality the same trickery that they have been fooled by.

The simplest and most obvious example I can think of is the observation of the sun rising in the East and setting in the West, and the observation of certain prominent stars in the night sky appearing to slowly traverse across the sky during the course of the night.

It seems so utterly obvious and indisputable that the sun and the rest of the visible universe revolve around the Earth, it is not surprising in any way that for most of human history most people have accepted this geocentric concept as true. (Although to be fair, a heliocentric model was first proposed by the ancient Greek scholar, Aristarchus of Samos, as early as the 3rd century BC. But his idea didn't catch on, obviously.)

One problem I have with Trd's concept of the unreality of the mind, is the linguistic difficulty of understanding how the mind can be tricked if the mind itself has no reality.

If the whole of the mind is itself a 'trick' and has no reality, then it makes little sense to describe specific ways in which the mind can be tricked, as in my example of the geocentric view of the universe.

To get back to Trd's rope and snake analogy, it's quite understandable that even someone who has no more than a normal concern about the dangers of snakes, could easily be tricked into thinking that a coil of rope on the ground is a snake, especially if one is in a natural, wooded environment where snakes are more common occurrences than coils of rope.

However, having determined that the coil on the ground is not a snake but a rope, it seems strange to place these two impressions, the initial incorrect impression that the coil is a snake and the later correct impression that the coil is a rope, in the same category. Is Trd claiming that both impressions are illusory?

I would agree that the impression we have of the qualities of the rope might still contain illusory elements. We might think that the rope looks strong and attempt to use it to lift or tow something, only to see the rope break. It wasn't as strong as we imagined it to be. We were tricked again.

On the other hand, if the rope didn't break, and was strong enough for the task, then we were not tricked.

If we reverse the situation and consider an environment where workmen frequently leave coils of rope lying around, and whilst searching for a coil of rope to use, we attempt to pick up a coiled viper snake, thinking it is a rope, then the reality of the situation should become undeniable. The viper is deadly poisonous. It bites us and we die. Is that also an illusion?

[RandomSand]

I'd like to ask you, VincentRJ; Do you think the universe is performing a rotation around a central axis ?

As for "mind exists because it can be tricked";..

Mind only exists like the shadows cast by real objects. Although shadows appear to exist, apparent existence of shadows is a trick.

A camera can capture an image of these shadows. Does the camera have a mind? Is the camera tricked? --No.

Still you say the trick has been performed. That the mind has been tricked. Consider this: how can the "trick itself" be tricked ?

Edited November 9, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

This is a Buddhist forum is it not? I presume you are here to discuss the teachings. What I am saying is perfectly consistent with those and other teachings from the Vedic tradition.

The world of objects is impermanent. That also includes the mind and body. They are continually changing from moment to moment as well as appearing and disappearing. All of this changing phenomena is perceived by mind alone. The ancient sages including Buddha recognised this and looked within to find the source of mind. That source which is unbounded, undifferentiated silent awareness, being, emptiness, call it what you will, is unchanging, impersonal and without attributes. It stands alone, unaffected by and uninvolved with external phenomena. It is the background awareness from which mind rises.

Because it is unchanging it is defined as real, and because the world is ever changing and impermanent we can say it is unreal or an illusion. These are only words. I think both of you are getting too hung up on words. These two words real and unreal differentiate between what is unchanging and what is changing.

When you refer to yourself as "I", there is an identification as a person or self who is a body and mind and who interacts with the world of objects. The ego in order to bolster this identification grasps for and clings to objects as the ego feeds on more and more experiences. This is the cause of suffering because there can be no ultimate satisfaction in it. This feeling of being a person which suggests something immutable and solid is at odds with the reality that everything is always changing. So by investigating this sense of "I" by using practices that are well documented in the scriptures and discovering that your true nature is the unchanging, you become free of the false identification of mind, body and world and know who you really are. That is how you should think of the meanings of these words, real and unreal.

But know this. No amount of intellectual analysis will provide you with answers because any answer is also subject to change. It is just mind stuff. The only way is to be still. It is only silence which reveals your true nature.