Cosmogony

[Stan42]

Please treat me as a complete newbie. Most religions and atheism have an approach to the creation of the universe, for instance the Genesis creation narrative in Judaism and Christianity. What does Buddhism have to say about the creation of the universe?

[noahvail]

Interesting question, Those more knwledgable than I will no doubt follow up on this. In the meantime, here's a short but interesting read: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution

[Brucenkhamen]

The Buddha had nothing to say about how the Universe came about.

I'm not really sure why other religions consider it their job, I think it's the job of science.

[RandomSand]

I found a reply on another forum which quotes the Pali Canon's Agganna Sutta on the subject of Devas (Angels in Buddhist cosmology?) and their devolution into human form.

There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through the air, glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious and they stay like that for a very long time.

At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not yet distinguished, nor months and fortnights, nor years and seasons; there was no male and female, beings being reckoned just as beings. And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with color, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or butter and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.

Then some being of a greedy nature said: "I say, what can this be?" and tasted the savory earth on its finger. In so doing, it became taken with the flavor, and craving arose in it. Then other beings, taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with their fingers. They too were taken with the flavor, and craving arose in them. So they set to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the stuff in order to eat it. And the result was that their self luminance disappeared. And as a result of the disappearance of their self luminance the moon and the sun appeared, night and day were distinguished, months and fortnights appeared, and the year and its seasons. To that extent the world re-evolved.

Edited March 17, 2015 by RandomSand

[Brucenkhamen]

I found a reply on another forum which quotes the Pali Canon's Agganna Sutta on the subject of Devas (Angels in Buddhist cosmology?) and their devolution into human form.

That could be a candidate.

It's interesting it starts out talking in terms of it appening in the future. Looking at Wikipaedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta it appears some scholars see it as being satirical take on the Brahmins claims regarding the divine nature of the caste system, otherwise you've got to wonder why an account on the evolution of the universe is buried inside a Sutta about the caste system. Another scholar sees it as consistent with big bang and evolution.

[VincentRJ]

Whatever the mythology, and the selected quotes from scriptures, the fundamental principle of Buddhism that clarifies the situation and (hopefully) enlightens one, is the concept that the mind is an illusion.

If that is true, then all fanciful interpretations of the origins of the universe, the existence of God(s) etc. are illusory.

Sometime when I have conversations with religious people who believe in God, I tell them that I definitely believe that God exists. He exists in the human mind as a simplistic interpretation of unfathomable and extraordinarily complex phenomena.

[rockyysdt]

In Buddhism the universe involves Samsara or state of being. A state of impermanence & conditioning.

Buddhist practice, culminating in Awakening, aims at escaping from the state of Samsara into Nibbhana, a permanent & unconditioned state.

Interestingly, the first religion you quote involves elevating oneself upon death to a heavenly state.

The Buddha did not deny the existence of heavenly realms, but simply relegated these to different levels of Samsara.

If one goes to heaven, one continues to remain Unawakened.

Edited March 18, 2015 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

Whatever the mythology, and the selected quotes from scriptures, the fundamental principle of Buddhism that clarifies the situation and (hopefully) enlightens one, is the concept that the mind is an illusion.

If that's what you believe you may as well kill yourself now as it's all pointless.

Luckily the Buddha didn't teach that.

I'm curious where you picked up such an idea. My understanding is some Mahayana philosophies say only mind is real everything else is illusion, a quick google reveals quite a few references to mind being illusion-like for example "In Mahayana Buddhism, mind is illusion-like in the sense that it is empty of inherent existence. This does not mean it does not exist, it means that it exists in a manner that is counter to our ordinary way of misperceiving how phenomena exist, according to Buddhism."

I find the word illusion quite misleading in this context.

[VincentRJ]

Whatever the mythology, and the selected quotes from scriptures, the fundamental principle of Buddhism that clarifies the situation and (hopefully) enlightens one, is the concept that the mind is an illusion.

If that's what you believe you may as well kill yourself now as it's all pointless.

Luckily the Buddha didn't teach that.

I'm curious where you picked up such an idea. My understanding is some Mahayana philosophies say only mind is real everything else is illusion, a quick google reveals quite a few references to mind being illusion-like for example "In Mahayana Buddhism, mind is illusion-like in the sense that it is empty of inherent existence. This does not mean it does not exist, it means that it exists in a manner that is counter to our ordinary way of misperceiving how phenomena exist, according to Buddhism."

I find the word illusion quite misleading in this context.

Well, I'm sorry you've misunderstood my use of ordinary words, Bruce. Of course Buddha didn't precisely teach that the mind is an illusion. The English word 'mind' didn't exist in his vocabulary. As far as I know, there is no specific word in either Pali or Sanskrit which exactly translates to our modern concept of the word 'mind', although I understand there are overlapping terms such as citta, nannas and vinnana which might in total approximate to the general English term 'mind'.

We should also bear in mind that Shakyamuni Buddha didn't even speak Pali or Sanskrit, but apparently spoke a local dialect called Magadhi or Ardhamagadhi. There is no record of the Buddha’s words in his own language. This makes knowing exactly what the Buddha said impossible.

Generally, what seems undeniably true to me is that every interpretation exists only in the mind, not only translations of esoteric texts, but even the most basic sensory perceptions of sights, sounds and taste.

As I've mentioned before on this forum, a leaf on a tree might have an existence in reality that is independent of the mind, but its independent existence is not as a leaf because the word 'leaf' is a word that exists only in the human mind. Likewise, its color green is a visual perception that exists only in the mind.

Unfortunately, the conventions of language often obscure and confuse matters. For example, my statement above, "its color green.....exists only in the mind" contains a contradiction. Did you notice that?

The term 'its color' implies that the color 'belongs' to the leaf, or is a property of the leaf. If this is true, then how can the color exist only in the mind? I should have written 'the perceived color of the leaf exists only in the mind and is not a fixed property of the leaf'. Is that clearer?

I use the word 'mind' in a very broad sense that includes feelings of 'self', 'ego', the sense of 'me' and 'mine', awareness and consciousness, perceptions of sight, sound, touch and taste, all feelings of anxiety, worry, anger, joy, and all intellectual processes and thoughts of all descriptions, including everything I've written here.

The ultimate goal of Buddhism, as I understand it, is to go beyond the mind, as I've defined it above. If we achieve a state when the mind is perfectly still with no thoughts at all on any subject, that is, a complete cessation of all thoughts and all perception of external stimuli, then the mind, if you want to continue calling it that, is outside of the description above. It's no longer the mind. It's beyond description. Hope that's all clear.

PS. By the way, the term 'kill oneself' can have a different meaning in Buddhist philosophy. Normally it means to terminate one's life, which is definitely not recommended. However, since the 'self' is considered to be an illusion in Buddhism, killing one's 'self' can be a metaphor for dispelling the illusion of the 'self'.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well, I'm sorry you've misunderstood my use of ordinary words, Bruce. Of course Buddha didn't precisely teach that the mind is an illusion. The English word 'mind' didn't exist in his vocabulary. As far as I know, there is no specific word in either Pali or Sanskrit which exactly translates to our modern concept of the word 'mind', although I understand there are overlapping terms such as citta, nannas and vinnana which might in total approximate to the general English term 'mind'.

Of course he was able to teach about the mind without the use of the English word mind, his entire teaching centres around the mind. I assume you are being facetious here as that's a lot of text just to avoid the point.

What he didn't talk about was illusion.

The nearest I know of is the Phena Sutta where he talks of form as being "like" foam and foam is not an illusion.

[VincentRJ]

Well, I'm sorry you've misunderstood my use of ordinary words, Bruce. Of course Buddha didn't precisely teach that the mind is an illusion. The English word 'mind' didn't exist in his vocabulary. As far as I know, there is no specific word in either Pali or Sanskrit which exactly translates to our modern concept of the word 'mind', although I understand there are overlapping terms such as citta, nannas and vinnana which might in total approximate to the general English term 'mind'.

Of course he was able to teach about the mind without the use of the English word mind, his entire teaching centres around the mind. I assume you are being facetious here as that's a lot of text just to avoid the point.

What he didn't talk about was illusion.

The nearest I know of is the Phena Sutta where he talks of form as being "like" foam and foam is not an illusion.

Goodness gracious me! Absolutely everything that anyone teaches, thinks, feels or says about any subject whatsoever, whether true or false, silly or serious, must involve the mind.

Whatever one studies involves the mind, and the general trend in modern societies is for the mind to become more active. Desperately poor people tend to worry about basic issues of food, shelter and health. However, those who are above the poverty line still continue to worry, but about different things, such as the mortgage on their house, their desire for a new car which they can't afford, their prospects for promotion in their workplace, their exam results which might affect their prospects of getting a job, and so on.

Those who are exceptionally wealthy, whom one might think have no reason to worry at all, still continue to worry, about losing their wealth in a stock-market crash, or about the outcome of family squabbles over the share of the wealth, and so on.

Now the goal of Buddhism, as I understand it, is to go beyond this concept of the mind as I've described it, which is a conglomeration of wishes, desires, ego, sense of self, possessions, worries, excitement, suffering, despair and even sometimes great philosophical thoughts.

This going beyond is sometimes referred to as a complete stillness of the mind. In other words, one uses the mind to study the teachings of Buddhism with the goal of learning how to, at will, not use the mind. That is, one learns how to achieve a complete cessation of all thought.

Now I see a linguistic problem with the concept of a 'still mind'. The brain has a physical existence which can be examined and monitored, but the mind is just an abstract concept used to describe a conglomeration of the effects of various activities in the brain. Therefore, a still mind is really a non-existent mind, during the period it is still.

A good analogy would be to equate a musician, say a violinist, with the brain, and the music he produces, with the mind.

The music gets loud and soft, the pitch rises and falls and the rhythm is constantly changing. When the music stops and the performance is over, at least temporarily, do we consider the music is just still, or do we consider the music no longer exists, because it has stopped?

[Brucenkhamen]

Goodness gracious me! Absolutely everything that anyone teaches, thinks, feels or says about any subject whatsoever, whether true or false, silly or serious, must involve the mind.

You are absolutely correct! Which is why the statement that "the mind is an illusion" is nonsense.

Since we are clearly now in agreement on that topic perhaps we can return to the subject of cosmogony.

[VincentRJ]

Goodness gracious me! Absolutely everything that anyone teaches, thinks, feels or says about any subject whatsoever, whether true or false, silly or serious, must involve the mind.

You are absolutely correct! Which is why the statement that "the mind is an illusion" is nonsense.

Since we are clearly now in agreement on that topic perhaps we can return to the subject of cosmogony.

Dear me! It seems you've misunderstood everything I've written. If you want to talk about cosmogony, that's a subject which provides some excellent examples of the illusory nature of the mind and how it is so easily tricked. During the times of the Buddha, philosophers and mathematicians in Greece were speculating on the nature of the universe, and despite their brilliant intellects, we now know they got most things wrong. Some people thought the earth was flat, and some even thought our planet is the centre of the universe with the sun and other stars revolving around it.

Even today, after a few centuries of scientific enquiry, the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe remains a hypothesis and the current, brightest Physicists and Astrophysicists at work today have to admit that the nature of 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is a complete mystery. It's totally invisible and undetectable. We give it the names Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Even the well-observed phenomenon of gravity is fundamentally an unknown force at the quantum level. We speculate that the force of gravity might consist of very small particles we've named 'gravitons', but no-one has yet discovered the existence of such particles. Some Physicists think that gravity might be just an illusion of geometry.

[Brucenkhamen]

Dear me! It seems you've misunderstood everything I've written. If you want to talk about cosmogony, that's a subject which provides some excellent examples of the illusory nature of the mind and how it is so easily tricked.

If something is easily tricked that does not mean that that something is an illusion.

If I say "the audience is easily tricked" that does not mean the audience is an illusion, anybody would realise that it's actually the magic trick that is an illusion.

To suggest the mind is an illusion because it is easily tricked is nonsense. The mind is real, the tricks that fool the mind are usually distortions of reality.

Talking round in circles to belabour a mismade point is not fooling anyone.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[rockyysdt]

the fundamental principle of Buddhism that clarifies the situation and (hopefully) enlightens one, is the concept that the mind is an illusion.

Perhaps it's down to terminology and meaning once more.

There is the 'Manas" or thinking mind.

Then there is the "Citta" or heart mind.

Then also the "Vinanna" or consciousness.

Rather than "illusion", isn't it better to say the mind (Manas) is "impermanent & conditioned", "not enduring", "not the real you". "grounded in ego", "without soul/spirit".

It may be thought of as illusory in comparison to, dare I say, the Heart Citta.

Illusory to that which is permanent & unconditioned, and has always been.

Illusory to that which already is, as the Manas/Vinanna in the unawakened has no awareness.

Naturally, to the one which walks in a state of Samsara, the mind (Manas) is very real.

Fooled by greed, aversion, & delusion, and very much rooted in ego.

Edited March 19, 2015 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Dear me! It seems you've misunderstood everything I've written. If you want to talk about cosmogony, that's a subject which provides some excellent examples of the illusory nature of the mind and how it is so easily tricked.

If something is easily tricked that does not mean that that something is an illusion.

If I say "the audience is easily tricked" that does not mean the audience is an illusion, anybody would realise that it's actually the magic trick that is an illusion.

To suggest the mind is an illusion because it is easily tricked is nonsense. The mind is real, the tricks that fool the mind are usually distortions of reality.

Talking round in circles to belabour a mismade point is not fooling anyone.

What is a distortion of reality? Can a distortion of reality exist outside of the mind? If I see a coil of rope on the ground and jump to the conclusion it is a snake, would you say the coil of a rope is a distortion of reality? Surely the coil of rope is a coil of rope, as real as it can be, and any impression that it is a snake is an illusion that exists only in the mind.

Everything that exists in the mind is a distortion of reality to some degree. Since the existence of the mind is dependent upon the existence of distorted perceptions of an illusory nature, it seems quite logical to me to decribe the mind as an illusion.

Perhaps the problem is, you have some illusory impression that the mind has a physical existence, like a bowl that contains things, and if the bowl is empty you think that the bowl (ie. the mind) still exists. Is that true?

[Brucenkhamen]

Everything that exists in the mind is a distortion of reality to some degree. Since the existence of the mind is dependent upon the existence of distorted perceptions of an illusory nature, it seems quite logical to me to decribe the mind as an illusion.

It's quite illogical.

It's like saying because the petrol is liquid the car is liquid

or because the show is comedy the television is comedy.

or because the magic trick is illusion the audience is illusion.

Perhaps the problem is, you have some illusory impression that the mind has a physical existence, like a bowl that contains things, and if the bowl is empty you think that the bowl (ie. the mind) still exists. Is that true?

Perhaps you have the illusory impression that everything that doesn't have a physical existence is illusion.

[VincentRJ]

Everything that exists in the mind is a distortion of reality to some degree. Since the existence of the mind is dependent upon the existence of distorted perceptions of an illusory nature, it seems quite logical to me to decribe the mind as an illusion.

It's quite illogical.

It's like saying because the petrol is liquid the car is liquid

or because the show is comedy the television is comedy.

or because the magic trick is illusion the audience is illusion.

Not at all. It would be like saying because the mind is an illusion the brain is an illusion. That's not what I'm saying.

Perhaps you have the illusory impression that everything that doesn't have a physical existence is illusion.

That's a good point. Maybe I do tend to think like that. Can you give me some examples of things that do not have a physical existence and that are also not illusions or distortions of reality. I can't think of any, but presumably you can. I'm always willing to learn.

[Brucenkhamen]

That's a good point. Maybe I do tend to think like that. Can you give me some examples of things that do not have a physical existence and that are also not illusions or distortions of reality. I can't think of any, but presumably you can. I'm always willing to learn.

A distortion of reality is not an illusion, it's something that is real but misperceived.

So here are some examples things that do not have physical existence but are not an illusion;

Love

Warmth

Family

The Netherlands

War

Name

Date of Birth

Immigration

Justice

Marriage

You'll notice they are all concepts. As concepts they cover a range of processes, causes, and conditions, some physical some not. Just as the mind is a concept and covers a range of processes, causes, and conditions, or Aggregates as the Buddha termed them.

To suggest that something is an illusion is to dismiss it as being no consequence. I'll tell my daughter her nightmare was an illusion because I want her to dismiss it and go back to sleep, I won't tell her that her mind is an illusion. The Buddhas teaching does not dismiss the mind, rather it's to help us to to use the mind wisely, to understand it, to train it, to learn to see through the distortions and experience life with clear understanding.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[partington]

Game set and match I think

[MilesofSmiles]

This picture is from Max Tegmark's book 'Our mathematical universe'

Edited March 19, 2015 by MilesofSmiles

[VincentRJ]

That's a good point. Maybe I do tend to think like that. Can you give me some examples of things that do not have a physical existence and that are also not illusions or distortions of reality. I can't think of any, but presumably you can. I'm always willing to learn.

A distortion of reality is not an illusion, it's something that is real but misperceived.

So here are some examples things that do not have physical existence but are not an illusion;

Love

Warmth

Family

The Netherlands

War

Name

Date of Birth

Immigration

Justice

Marriage

You'll notice they are all concepts. As concepts they cover a range of processes, causes, and conditions, some physical some not. Just as the mind is a concept and covers a range of processes, causes, and conditions, or Aggregates as the Buddha termed them.

To suggest that something is an illusion is to dismiss it as being no consequence. I'll tell my daughter her nightmare was an illusion because I want her to dismiss it and go back to sleep, I won't tell her that her mind is an illusion. The Buddhas teaching does not dismiss the mind, rather it's to help us to to use the mind wisely, to understand it, to train it, to learn to see through the distortions and experience life with clear understanding.

Okay! You've given some good examples which are worthy of discussion. First I'll point out that I do not dismiss something as being of no consequence because it's an illusion. This is an illusory assumption of yours, or a misinterpretation of what I've written.

Illusions can have enormously powerful effects. Most wars, if not all wars, begin as a result of certain individuals confusing illusion with fact. For example, "My Christian belief is correct (ie. real) whereas your Moslem belief is wrong (ie. illusory) so I'm going to fight you and kill you." I'm convinced the reality is, in this situation, both views are illusory.

Just take the simple example I've mentioned before of the rope and the illusion of a snake. Consider the case of someone who has both a heart condition and an extreme phobia of snakes. He sees a rope on the ground. He imagines it's a snake (the rope is brown, the same color as the deadly poisonous Australian Kim Brown), his blood pressure rises with his fear, he has a heart attack and he dies. The man was killed as a result of an illusion.

Now, if i were to address each of the items you've listed, this would be a very long post, so I'll address just a couple.

First the word 'Love'. I'll address it by asking you the following questions.

(1) If love is not an illusion, then why is the divorce rate so high?

(2) If love is not an illusion then why have so many enemies of Christianity lost their lives in numerous battles throughout history, instigated and fought by Christian who preach a fundamental principle of 'love thine enemy'?

What I would suggest, is that there is a fundamental biological process in humans and other animals which motivates them to take care of their offspring when they are young and helpless. It's necessary for their survival and for the propagation of the species.

A concern for others has a practical purpose which results in a material and physical reality, which is the propagation of living creatures and their continuing life, such as the continuing life of the elderly in nursing homes.

Love exists to the extent that it results in a living physical presence of some creature as a consequence of the application of that love. Love as purely a concept is total twaddle (sorry. I mean illusory).

Some of these words you've listed have a very obvious physical presence, such as 'family', 'war', 'The Netherlands'. I don't know why you've listed them.

However, 'Justice' is an excellent example of an illusory concept. It's often totally conditioned by tradition and culture. There is no way of determining a 'reality' of justice . What is justice in the opinion (mind) of one person is injustice in the opinion of another. It's simply an illusory concept in the human mind.

Not yet convinced?

[Stan42]

Thanks, I wasn't expecting such detailed explanations. I stumbled across this:

"One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Master and demanded that He explain the origin of the Universe to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings."

So I guess Buddhism really doesn't answer this question.

[Brucenkhamen]

Okay! You've given some good examples which are worthy of discussion. First I'll point out that I do not dismiss something as being of no consequence because it's an illusion. This is an illusory assumption of yours, or a misinterpretation of what I've written.

Clearly you and I have a different understanding of what it means to say something is an illusion.

If I have a nightmare involving a monster I will understand that the monster is a creation of the mind and is therefore an illusion, this is synonymous with saying that the monster does not exist.

I will not say that because the mind creates an illusory monster that the mind is an illusion, ie that the mind does not exist. It's just nonsense, and it's not Buddha Dhamma.

[Brucenkhamen]

So I guess Buddhism really doesn't answer this question.

That's a good example of how the Buddha see's this topic in relation to his teaching.

[VincentRJ]

Okay! You've given some good examples which are worthy of discussion. First I'll point out that I do not dismiss something as being of no consequence because it's an illusion. This is an illusory assumption of yours, or a misinterpretation of what I've written.

Clearly you and I have a different understanding of what it means to say something is an illusion.

If I have a nightmare involving a monster I will understand that the monster is a creation of the mind and is therefore an illusion, this is synonymous with saying that the monster does not exist.

I will not say that because the mind creates an illusory monster that the mind is an illusion, ie that the mind does not exist. It's just nonsense, and it's not Buddha Dhamma.

Fair enough! We're all entitled to our opinions. However, if you are going to describe someone's opinion as nonsense, it would help to demonstrate why you think it is nonsense and provide some evidence and hard facts which make it clear how and why the other person's opinion is nonsense.

For example, if someone were to claim that all external reality, and everything we perceive to be a physical object, is in fact an illusion or just a figment of the imagination, then I could demonstrate that such a view is seriously flawed by asking the person if he would casually walk across a busy highway, with a constant flow of fast-moving traffic, on the basis that the vehicles are illusions and that there would be no risk of injury.

Now you claim that my view, that the mind is an illusion and that it has no physical reality, is nonsense, yet so far you have not been able to tell me what the mind is, where it resides, how it can be measured, and whether or not it has a shape, size and weight, or a mass, as all real object do. So you'll have to forgive me if I come across as a bit skeptical of your claims that the mind is real.

On the other hand, I would not argue that the brain and body is an illusion. It has a physical presence and a constant activity which can be measured. Every thought, perception and feeling shows up as an activity in some part of the brain, with countless neurons buzzing around. That's reality.

The mind however, is like a work of fiction that is gradually created and edited by every individual as he grows up. It's partly a unique work of fiction, but often mostly a repetition of previous works of fiction in accordance with the customs, culture and conditioning the individual has been exposed to.

Do you consider fiction to be real, Bruce?

[Brucenkhamen]

Fair enough! We're all entitled to our opinions. However, if you are going to describe someone's opinion as nonsense, it would help to demonstrate why you think it is nonsense and provide some evidence and hard facts which make it clear how and why the other person's opinion is nonsense.

Already done.

Do you consider fiction to be real, Bruce?

Fiction is real, go to any library and you'll see whole shelves devoted to it, it's not an illusion it's not my imagination it's real stories written by real people often on real paper or real bandwidth. However the storie(s) contained in the fiction did not happen, that's the definition of fiction, if the story did in fact happen it's called non-fiction.

Fiction is a real concept with a real definition...

Fiction is the classification for any creative informational workalmost always a narrativewhose creator does not claim responsibility for the work's faithfulness to reality; in other words, any informative account not guaranteed to present only actual people, factual descriptions, or historically accurate events.

How is your question relevant to the Buddhist path?

Edited March 20, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

Fair enough! We're all entitled to our opinions. However, if you are going to describe someone's opinion as nonsense, it would help to demonstrate why you think it is nonsense and provide some evidence and hard facts which make it clear how and why the other person's opinion is nonsense.

Already done.

Do you consider fiction to be real, Bruce?

Fiction is real, go to any library and you'll see whole shelves devoted to it, it's not an illusion it's not my imagination it's real stories written by real people often on real paper or real bandwidth. However the storie(s) contained in the fiction did not happen, that's the definition of fiction, if the story did in fact happen it's called non-fiction.

Fiction is a real concept with a real definition...

Fiction is the classification for any creative informational workalmost always a narrativewhose creator does not claim responsibility for the work's faithfulness to reality; in other words, any informative account not guaranteed to present only actual people, factual descriptions, or historically accurate events.

How is your question relevant to the Buddhist path?

Now I'm beginning to understand your confusion, Bruce. When I go to a library I see shelves containing books. The shelves are real and the books are real. The books consist of real paper and the paper is usually covered with squiggles of real black ink. To say the books contain a story, whether fiction or non-fiction, is an unfortunate convention of language which contributes to the confusion on this issue. All stories are products of the fictional mind of the reader, and originally the writer. Every reader produces a different story in his fictional mind as he reads and interprets the black squiggles on each page. If a book has 10 million readers, then 10 million different stories will be embedded in the brains of the 10 million readers.

One person reads a sex scene and feels a pleasurable sensation, which stimulates the pleasure centres of the brain resulting in a recording of that sensation in terms of neurons, synapses and chemical reactions.

Another person reads the same scene, interpreting the same black squiggles on the same page in the same book, and gets a feeling of disgust, which results in a different type of recording in the brain.

Are you now going to claim that those 10 million stories, each at least slightly different, and sometimes significantly different, are contained within the book. It would have to be a very large book. Do you think you could manage to carry it?

[Brucenkhamen]

Now I'm beginning to understand your confusion, ... Do you think you could manage to carry it?

How is your question relevant to the Buddhist path?

I have little interest a samsara of musings regarding your mind being an illusion, you'll recall my original point was that I didn't think the Buddha taught that the mind is an illusion and where you picked up such an idea?

Are you ready to answer the question yet?

[rockyysdt]

Now you claim that my view, that the mind is an illusion and that it has no physical reality, is nonsense, yet so far you have not been able to tell me what the mind is, where it resides, how it can be measured, and whether or not it has a shape, size and weight, or a mass, as all real object do. So you'll have to forgive me if I come across as a bit skeptical of your claims that the mind is real.

One person reads a sex scene and feels a pleasurable sensation, which stimulates the pleasure centres of the brain resulting in a recording of that sensation in terms of neurons, synapses and chemical reactions.

Another person reads the same scene, interpreting the same black squiggles on the same page in the same book, and gets a feeling of disgust, which results in a different type of recording in the brain.

Are you now going to claim that those 10 million stories, each at least slightly different, and sometimes significantly different, are contained within the book. It would have to be a very large book. Do you think you could manage to carry it?

Hi V.

Just to help me understand this discussion can I ask?

1. Is it premature to say that the mind is illusory? There are many things science has yet to prove.

2. Although everyones interpretation of the story differs, either slightly or significantly, doesn't this merely confirm an attribute of mind (a unique/personal data base of values/interpretations/memories)?

3. Why did you choose a 'sex scene" as your example?

Edited March 20, 2015 by rockyysdt