Cosmogony

[VincentRJ]

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?

Good question. I see the problems faced by humanity in general as a problem in distinguishing between reality and fiction. We tend to like fiction so much that we often get confused and act as though it's fact.

In my opinion, the Buddha addressed these issues in his teachings, arriving at a conclusion that the 'self' and the 'ego' is an illusion or a fiction.

When I first encountered Buddhist precepts many years ago during my travels, I was particularly struck by the descriptions of Nirvana and Enlightenment as a state of complete cessation of all thought. Such an idea seemed 'out of this world'. I'd been through a process at school where there was a great emphasis on developing thought processes to the maximum degree, and here was a religion promoting the cessation of all thought as an ultimate goal. It was difficult to reconcile such concepts with my conditioning.

It is only years later that I'm beginning to be impressed by some of the Buddhist concepts at a philosophical level, and am able to relate them to my understanding of Western science and philosophy, and life in general. Perhaps this is just a wisdom which comes with age.

[Brucenkhamen]

In my opinion, the Buddha addressed these issues in his teachings, arriving at a conclusion that the 'self' and the 'ego' is an illusion or a fiction.

The self/ego and the mind are two very different concepts.

So I ask again what is the Buddhist source of the view you are presenting? or can I assume it's your own interprestation reached as a result of your own musings?

[VincentRJ]

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?

Hi Rocky,

Glad you've joined the discussion. All good questions, so I'll answer them in order.

(1) We can only be certain of anything to the degree that the facts are certain. When we are certain of something which is not supported by facts, disaster will often result.

Science specialises in facts. However, because our scientific processes haven't yet discovered the existence of certain 'claimed' phenomena, such as 'extrasensory perception', or the existence of a 'soul', doesn't mean that such phenomena don't exist. We should always keep an open mind.

I just think it's foolish for anyone to develop an unwavering conviction that such phenomena do exist and stake their life upon it, often destroying the lives of others in the process, as in religious wars, or at least causing confusion and misdirected activity.

(2) The data base exists in the brain which I don't dispute is real. The mind as I see it is like the fiction produced by a writer, except there's no need to crouch over a keyboard. Every perception received, whether sound, taste, smell or sight becomes the equivalent of a unique, short story, however brief.

(3) I chose the sex scene because the sex drive is so fundamental. Without it we wouldn't exist.

　

　

[camerata]

I think the following extract presents the Theravada view of mind and illusion, i.e. that the thoughts created by the mind don't reflect reality. In some Mahayana texts, the mind is assumed to be just thoughts, and since thoughts are impermanent, they are illusory - therefore the mind is an illusion. To me, the mind is a function of the brain, not in itself an illusion.

It is always when we fail to see the true nature of things that our views become clouded; because of our preconceived notions, our greed and aversion, our likes and dislikes, we fail to see the sense organs and sense objects in their respective and objective natures, (aayatanaana.m aayatana.t.ta.m) and go after mirages and deceptions. The sense organs delude and mislead us and then we fail to see things in their true light, so that our way of seeing things becomes perverted (vipariita dassana).

The Buddha speaks of three kinds of illusion or perversions (vipallaasa, Skt. viparyaasa) that grip man's mind, namely: the illusions of perception, thought, and view (sa~n~naa vipallaasa; citta vipallaasa; di.t.thi vipallaasa).[2] Now when a man is caught up in these illusions he perceives, thinks, and views incorrectly.

He perceives permanence in the impermanent; satisfactoriness in the unsatisfactory (ease and happiness in suffering); self in what is not self (a soul in the soulless); beauty in the repulsive.

He thinks and views in the same erroneous manner. Thus each illusion works in four ways (AN 4.49), and leads man astray, clouds his vision, and confuses him. This is due to unwise reflections, to unsystematic attention (ayoniso manasikaara). Right understanding (or insight meditation — vipassanaa) alone removes these illusions and helps man to cognize the real nature that underlies all appearance. It is only when man comes out of this cloud of illusions and perversions that he shines with true wisdom like the full moon that emerges brilliant from behind a black cloud.

The aggregates of mind and body, being ever subject to cause and effect, as we saw above, pass through the inconceivably rapid moments of arising, presently existing, and ceasing (uppaada, .thiti, bha"nga), just as the unending waves of the sea or as a river in flood sweeps to a climax and subsides. Indeed, human life is compared to a mountain stream that flows and rushes on, changing incessantly (AN 7.70) "nadisoto viya," like a flowing stream.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html

[Brucenkhamen]

I think the following extract presents the Theravada view of mind and illusion, i.e. that the thoughts created by the mind don't reflect reality. In some Mahayana texts, the mind is assumed to be just thoughts, and since thoughts are impermanent, they are illusory - therefore the mind is an illusion. To me, the mind is a function of the brain, not in itself an illusion.

That quote is a good description. It talks in terms of illusions being mental events that arise and that cognizing the real nature of those mental events removes the black clouds that obscure the mind.

This is whole point of the mental development integral to the Buddhist path, one couldn't do that if the mind itself were inherently an illusion also.

[VincentRJ]

I think the following extract presents the Theravada view of mind and illusion, i.e. that the thoughts created by the mind don't reflect reality. In some Mahayana texts, the mind is assumed to be just thoughts, and since thoughts are impermanent, they are illusory - therefore the mind is an illusion. To me, the mind is a function of the brain, not in itself an illusion.

That quote is a good description. It talks in terms of illusions being mental events that arise and that cognizing the real nature of those mental events removes the black clouds that obscure the mind.

This is whole point of the mental development integral to the Buddhist path, one couldn't do that if the mind itself were inherently an illusion also.

You're being confusing again, Bruce.

Part of the above quote explicitly states that in some Mahayana texts "the mind is assumed to be just thoughts, and since thoughts are impermanent, they are illusory - therefore the mind is an illusion", a position which sort of concurs with my own stance on this issue.

However, in post #8 a while ago you wrote "My understanding is some Mahayana philosophies say only mind is real, everything else is illusion", which contradict the statement in the above quote, so I think once again we might have a problem with the definition and/or translation of words.

As far as I recall, I have never claimed that the mind doesn't exist. Perhaps part of the confusion here is due to an assumption on your part that illusions by definition do not exist, whereas as I consider that illusions do exist but are distortions of reality, or fictions.

[Brucenkhamen]

Part of the above quote explicitly states that in some Mahayana texts "the mind is assumed to be just thoughts, and since thoughts are impermanent, they are illusory - therefore the mind is an illusion", a position which sort of concurs with my own stance on this issue.

That text wasn't part of the quote, it was part of Camerata's introduction, and yes there is nothing in the quote he posted below that supports the last part of that sentence. I don't agree that the mind is just thoughts, nor that impermanent = illusory. Camerata posted it as a Mahayana view not his own nor the Buddha's so doesn't need to defend it.

However, in post #8 a while ago you wrote "My understanding is some Mahayana philosophies say only mind is real, everything else is illusion", which contradict the statement in the above quote, so I think once again we might have a problem with the definition and/or translation of words.[/font][/size]

Yes, the above refers to a Mahayana view and may or may not be an accurate account of a Mahayana view, the quote that Camerata posted is a Theravada view.

As far as I recall, I have never claimed that the mind doesn't exist. Perhaps part of the confusion here is due to an assumption on your part that illusions by definition do not exist, whereas as I consider that illusions do exist but are distortions of reality, or fictions.[/font][/size]

"The mind is an illusion" = "The mind does not exist" I've never heard of an illusion that actually really exists. Now if you said the mind produces illusions I wouldn't have a problem with that as illusions are tricks of or by the mind, however you said the mind is an illusion which means the mind is not really there but produced as a trick or by imagination, but by what or by whom?

I struggle to understand how you can't see the difference.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

Part of the above quote explicitly states that in some Mahayana texts "the mind is assumed to be just thoughts, and since thoughts are impermanent, they are illusory - therefore the mind is an illusion", a position which sort of concurs with my own stance on this issue.

That text wasn't part of the quote, it was part of Camerata's introduction, and yes there is nothing in the quote he posted below that supports the last part of that sentence. I don't agree that the mind is just thoughts, nor that impermanent = illusory. Camerata posted it as a Mahayana view not his own nor the Buddha's so doesn't need to defend it.

However, in post #8 a while ago you wrote "My understanding is some Mahayana philosophies say only mind is real, everything else is illusion", which contradict the statement in the above quote, so I think once again we might have a problem with the definition and/or translation of words.[/font][/size]

Yes, the above refers to a Mahayana view and may or may not be an accurate account of a Mahayana view, the quote that Camerata posted is a Theravada view.

As far as I recall, I have never claimed that the mind doesn't exist. Perhaps part of the confusion here is due to an assumption on your part that illusions by definition do not exist, whereas as I consider that illusions do exist but are distortions of reality, or fictions.[/font][/size]

"The mind is an illusion" = "The mind does not exist" I've never heard of an illusion that actually really exists. Now if you said the mind produces illusions I wouldn't have a problem with that as illusions are tricks of or by the mind, however you said the mind is an illusion which means the mind is not really there but produced as a trick or by imagination, but by what or by whom?

I struggle to understand how you can't see the difference.

Ah! As I thought. I think we are now getting to the nub of the problem. We have different interpretations and understanding of the words illusion and illusory. You seem to be separating everything that the brain/mind perceives (hears, sees, feels, thinks, etc) into either real things that exist or illusory things that don't exist.

Whereas my understanding is that everything the brain/mind perceives is illusory to some degree. At one end of the 'illusion' spectrum we have the magician who is skilled in deliberately tricking our normal perceptions through the use of 'sleight of hand', for example, and at the other end of the spectrum we have scientifically rigorous observations using sophisticated tools which can translate all sorts of normally unobservable and undetectable phenomena into some form of recognizable reality, but still a distorted reality, such as X-ray images and brain scans.

In the middle of this spectrum of various degrees and types of illusion we have so-called normal perception of natural , everyday things by people with normal eyesight and hearing, yet such people will often disagree, sometimes violently, about the significance of the very same things or phenomena they are perceiving. Even two doctors observing the same X-ray image can have different interpretations.

The reasons for these differences of opinion is that everything we perceive is not only colored and distorted by our personal experiences and conditioning from the time we spent in the womb to the present day, but is also conditioned by the evolutionary processes that have resulted in our belonging to the Homo Sapiens species.

For example, we have not evolved to see in the dark, at least without the aid of scientific tools such as torches, whereas bats have. They can function quite well in (what to us is) total darkness. They can fly around at great speed in total darkness catching small insects and avoiding obstacles such as wires and man-made power lines. They do this through a process of 'echolocation'. They emit very high pitched sounds as they fly around and the echos of such sounds create a 'picture' of their surroundings in the mind/brain of the bats.

Not only can we not see in the dark, we can't even hear the high-pitched sounds that the bats emit, because such sounds are beyond our hearing limit, which has been determined by the evolutionary processes.

I use this example to illustrate the point, which I think is scientifically undeniable, that whatever we look at, and whatever any species of animal looks at, or perceives in any manner, is not the real world itself but an internal model of it. That internal model is not only different from species to species, sometimes in a very significant way, but also different to some degree among creatures of the same species.

Now what has this got to do with Buddhism, you might ask. To answer, I see in the Buddhist teachings, at the higher philosophical levels, a remarkable similarity to those ideas I've expressed above. The Buddha seems to have understood that we are deluded when we think that our sensory perceptions are accurate representations of reality. Furthermore, that such ideas were expressed 2400-2500 years ago is truly remarkable.

Have I convinced you of the truth of this matter yet?

[Brucenkhamen]

Whereas my understanding is that everything the brain/mind perceives is illusory to some degree. At one end of the 'illusion' spectrum we have the magician who is skilled in deliberately tricking our normal perceptions through the use of 'sleight of hand', for example, and at the other end of the spectrum we have scientifically rigorous observations using sophisticated tools which can translate all sorts of normally unobservable and undetectable phenomena into some form of recognizable reality, but still a distorted reality, such as X-ray images and brain scans.

To some degree? Something is either an illusion or it is not, you can't have half a nightmare or half a magic trick or half a hologram. When something is not perceived correctly by the mind I'd call that delusion, corruption, misperception, misinterpretaion etc there are many words situations for when the mind experiences reality incorrectly.

That does not make the mind itself an illusion.

The fact that the mind experiences reality incorrectly is beside the point and should be obvious to all. So are you saying that because the everything the mind perceives is illusory to some degree that means the mind itself must be an illusion, or are you not? I don't need all this waffle just a straight answer.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

Whereas my understanding is that everything the brain/mind perceives is illusory to some degree. At one end of the 'illusion' spectrum we have the magician who is skilled in deliberately tricking our normal perceptions through the use of 'sleight of hand', for example, and at the other end of the spectrum we have scientifically rigorous observations using sophisticated tools which can translate all sorts of normally unobservable and undetectable phenomena into some form of recognizable reality, but still a distorted reality, such as X-ray images and brain scans.

To some degree? Something is either an illusion or it is not, you can't have half a nightmare or half a magic trick or half a hologram. When something is not perceived correctly by the mind I'd call that delusion, corruption, misperception, misinterpretaion etc there are many words situations for when the mind experiences reality incorrectly.

That does not make the mind itself an illusion.

Looks like you've fallen into the trap of the 'either/or' duality. That is, something is either good are bad, hot or cold, illusory or real, and that there's no 'in between'. The number of common words available to describe temperature is limited, but a thermometer can describe temperature in fractions of a degree, from unbelievably cold to unbelievably hot.

Of course one could have half a nightmare. Half a nightmare would be called a very unpleasant dream, as opposed to a horrifying dream. I have very rarely experienced a nightmare, but I have no difficulty in understanding that dreams in general can range from the very pleasant to the totally horrifying, with dozens of different shades of pleasantness and unpleasantness in between.

The fact that the mind experiences reality incorrectly is beside the point and should be obvious to all. So are you saying that because the everything the mind perceives is illusory to some degree that means the mind itself must be an illusion, or are you not? I don't need all this waffle just a straight answer.

To understand the answer to that question one must first define what the mind is. Surely we can agree that the mind does not have a physical presence, a shape, form, dimension and weight, like a bowl or a skull that contains things. The brain does, but the mind is like an intangible awareness resulting from very complex activity of an electrical and neuronal nature in the brain.

I would describe the mind as a conglomeration of intangible thoughts and impressions about ourselves, others and the world we perceive around us. All such thoughts and impressions, sense of 'self' and 'ego', are illusory to some degree, which is why Buddhist texts on meditation teach stillness of the mind with the ultimate goal of achieving a complete cessation of all thought, not a cessation of just delusional thought, but all thought. When the mind is free of all thoughts, all illusion has been dispelled, and the experience is ineffable, beyond words. In such a state, one has gone beyond all concepts of 'the mind'.

I claim, if the mind consists entirely of illusory thoughts and impressions, then it logically follows that the mind is an illusion. If you can point to some part of the mind that is totally real, totally free of any distortion, colouring, conditioning, misinterpretation, bias or limitations in any sense, then let's hear it, and I might then agree that the mind could be an illusion only to the extent that it consists of illusory thoughts.

However, if you think this is all waffle, don't bother.

[lungmi]

Normally there are good questions and only bad answers: Papa, why the sky is blue? Stop to ask me stupid things.

But the most stupid questions are where you have to know that there cannot be an answer.

The Buddha explained it clearly: Metaphysical speculations make your mind dirty, your mind forgets to look for "what is what".

This is the basic Teaching of the Buddha.

[RandomSand]

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.

Actually; there are a great number of sutras where it's stated that the mind is an illusion and does not exist. I will find some and quote if you'd like ?

[RandomSand]

Also, I don't know if you're aware but, scientists now know that matter is created by electromagnetism, the nuclear forces, orbital rotation of celestial bodies... not really by "mind". I mean; did anyone say "let this box of weetabix turn into a block of pure gold by the power of mind" and it actually happen ?

If you can believe that a global-uber-mind creates reality, although it obviously doesn't, then maybe you can also stretch your imagination to considering that the Buddhist concept of "mind" is actually the spirit-realm.

[Brucenkhamen]

Actually; there are a great number of sutras where it's stated that the mind is an illusion and does not exist. I will find some and quote if you'd like ?

Yes please.

It's good to see somebody else understands illusion = does not exist.

[VincentRJ]

Actually; there are a great number of sutras where it's stated that the mind is an illusion and does not exist. I will find some and quote if you'd like ?

Yes please.

It's good to see somebody else understands illusion = does not exist.

An illusion which does not exist is not an illusion.

[RandomSand]

Actually; there are a great number of sutras where it's stated that the mind is an illusion and does not exist. I will find some and quote if you'd like ?

Yes please.

It's good to see somebody else understands illusion = does not exist.

Having gone though many sutra PDFs (looking for quotes) it does seem that Buddhism proposes a doctrine of mind.

What I find interesting is how a human being (Siddhārtha Gautama) can relay doctrines of what lays beyond death whilst still alive on this Earth.

For example: Although we can can say that mortality is experienced; it does not necessarily follow that a non-mortality cannot be experienced.

From the binary perspective of mortality we can easily label non-mortality as "non-existent".

The reverse side of this binarism, and the doctrine of Buddhism, is to label mortality as "non-existent".

Obviously we can see that: There is material form.

And according to Buddhism; There is Mind.

So in reply to the OP who asked: "What does Buddhism have to say about the creation of the universe?"...

I think it's important to realize the bible talks about a spirit/matter dualism. (i.e "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters").

However; Buddhism talks about a mind/matter dualism. Of course, if some aspect of sentience (mind) creates reality then the old "chicken and the egg" problem is not fully addressed as long as that "mind" is dependent on matter to function.

Edited March 23, 2015 by RandomSand

[Brucenkhamen]

An illusion which does not exist is not an illusion.

Thanks for cthe concise response.

It exists as an illusion, it does not exist as a reality, that's the point.

If I see a monster it exists as an illusion, it does not exist as a monster, that's the point of the word illusion.

From vacabulary.com...

An illusion is something that isn't real. It may look real, but it's actually fake just a crafty construction or fantasy. Like the old rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick practiced by magicians around the globe.

An illusion is an act of deception. Some optical illusions are pretty cool to watch, but an illusion can also point to an erroneous belief or false perception of reality, which is where you start getting into hallucination territory seeing things that aren't there. You can give the illusion that youre fascinated by your professors lecture by chewing on your pencil, furrowing your brow, and making sure to nod enthusiastically every so often.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

Having gone though many sutra PDFs (looking for quotes) it does seem that Buddhism proposes a doctrine of mind.

Thanks for taking the time to dig around.

Obviously we can see that: There is material form.

And according to Buddhism; There is Mind.

Yes, and of course the Buddha would not have spent so much time defining, developing a psychology, and teaching how to train the mind if in fact it was/is an illusion.

[RandomSand]

Yes, and of course the Buddha would not have spent so much time defining, developing a psychology, and teaching how to train the mind if in fact it was/is an illusion.

That's not a very good argument.

There's billions of people all over the world toiling to earn money.

An invention (an illusion) which itself has no inherent value other than for whatever it can be exchanged for.

Likewise it may have been worthwhile for "the Buddha" to promote a doctrine of "the mind" even if mind was/is an illusion.

[Brucenkhamen]

Likewise it may have been worthwhile for "the Buddha" to promote a doctrine of "the mind" even if mind was/is an illusion.

Yes, that would be my other point, even if there were a degree of truth in it depending on how you looked at it wouldn't be skilful means to define the mind in this way.

[VincentRJ]

An illusion which does not exist is not an illusion.

Thanks for cthe concise response.

It exists as an illusion, it does not exist as a reality, that's the point.

If I see a monster it exists as an illusion, it does not exist as a monster, that's the point of the word illusion.

From vacabulary.com...

An illusion is something that isn't real. It may look real, but it's actually fake just a crafty construction or fantasy. Like the old rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick practiced by magicians around the globe.

An illusion is an act of deception. Some optical illusions are pretty cool to watch, but an illusion can also point to an erroneous belief or false perception of reality, which is where you start getting into hallucination territory seeing things that aren't there. You can give the illusion that youre fascinated by your professors lecture by chewing on your pencil, furrowing your brow, and making sure to nod enthusiastically every so often.

Bruce,

I'm trying here to get beyond common assumptions in order to get a clearer picture of what's really happening. I agree that an illusion by definition is some sort of misinterpretation, or misidentification of a 'real' sensory stimulus which relates to a 'real' external reality. The sensory stimulus in the brain is real, but the interpretation of that stimulus in the mind may not accurately reflect reality.

The problem at both a philosophical and practical level, which seems to me to have implications for all of humanity, is who or what decides what the correct, and/or the most accurate interpretation should be? If people were able to agree upon that, there wouldn't exist all the continuous disputes and arguments amongst scientists and academics in all fields, and in particular the violent fighting to death that has plagued humanity throughout history.

When discussing such matters I find it helpful to use specific examples which illustrate the point I'm trying to get across. Let's use your example of the term 'monster'. What is a monster? That which is a monster to one person may not be a monster to another person.

Two people see a snake as they walk through the woods. One person has a great affection for snakes and likes to hold them and stroke them. The other person has a great phobia of snakes and truly hates them. The person with the snake phobia, on seeing the snake, shouts, "Go away you bloody monster!" The other person declares quite calmly, "It's not a monster, it's a lovely snake. See how beautiful and smooth its movements are."

The person with the phobia responds, "It might be just a snake to you, but it's also a monster to me."

In this example, both people have correctly identified the external object as a snake, but their emotional reactions to the same stimulus are different as a result of their different conditioning.

A major principle of Buddhism, as I understand it, is that the mind is continually tricking us in all sorts of ways that we are often unaware of. I believe Science can confirm this is true.

[Brucenkhamen]

A major principle of Buddhism, as I understand it, is that the mind is continually tricking us in all sorts of ways that we are often unaware of. I believe Science can confirm this is true.

Here is the problem with your original hypotheses.

Above you've stated "mind is continually tricking us in all sorts of ways" which to me is fine as a description of delusion, you'll notice you have two things going on there "the mind" which produces the illusion and "the trick" which is the illusion produced. You can't have an illusion without something that produces it, other producers of illusion would be magicians, cgi, audio visual etc.

So if as you say the mind is an illusion, what produces it?

[RandomSand]

(double post)

Edited March 24, 2015 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

There doesn't even need to be a "mind" for illusion to happen. Quantum physics shows that the properties of matter change state upon observation**. The traditional Buddhist view, afaik, is that Maya (material reality) is the illusion par excellence.

**There's a extremely profound implication, regarding the nature of enlightened-beings, which follows-on from the second two sentences.

Edited March 24, 2015 by RandomSand

[Brucenkhamen]

There doesn't even need to be a "mind" for illusion to happen.

Quantum physics shows that the properties of matter change state upon observation.

Assuming you mean the change of state is the illusion you've got a contradiction there.

I'd expect in terms of the above it's the mind that does the observation.

[RandomSand]

Leave me out of it. This argument about illusion is with yourself.

[VincentRJ]

I expect that those who have a general scientific background or at least a general appreciation of scientific principles will view this problem in a different way to those whose understanding is based only on the definitions of common words. (No disparagement intended).

I tend to have a philosophical 'bent of mind' (to use a phrase which is itself suggestive of bias or illusion). I'm conditioned through my education to only accept things and concepts that make sense. Things that don't make sense, I have to put to one side and considered them as a 'yet to be explained' mystery.

I'm attracted towards Buddhism to the extent that the teachings make sense. The Kalama Sutta is my guiding light.

[rockyysdt]

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.

In the Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) the Buddha states: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

The discourses indicate that the mind's natural radiance can be made manifest by meditation.

Ajahn Chah's comment:

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds.

Don’t go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.

So in summary, the mind exists, but it's the counterfeit aspects of mind which bring about illusion.

Further,

Mental factors (Sanskrit: caitasika) are formations (Sanskrit: saṅkhāra) concurrent with mind (Sanskrit: Citta).

They can be described as aspects of the mind that apprehend the quality of an object, and that have the ability to color the mind.

The Buddha emphasized the need to purify dispositions rather than eliminate them completely.

Kalupahana states that "the elimination of dispositions is epistemological suicide," as dispositions determine our perspectives.

The development of one's personality in the direction of perfection or imperfection rests with one's dispositions.

So when we Awaken, we do not destroy Mind (Citta), but adopt purified dispositions.

Edited March 24, 2015 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

So in summary, the mind exists, but it's the counterfeit aspects of mind which bring about illusion.

Ajahn Chah's comment doesn't say anything about "aspects" of mind.

...Nor does it say these "aspects" (counterfeit things) are specifically "of mind".

There is a radically different viewpoint.

The text which you posted (quoted below) describes "counterfeit things" as not being able to reach the mind because a connection has been destroyed.

In other sutras it is said "Buddha cut the root of consciousness".

Buddha states: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

Ajahn Chah's comment:

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds.

Don’t go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.

Edited March 24, 2015 by RandomSand

[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.

In the Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) the Buddha states: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

The discourses indicate that the mind's natural radiance can be made manifest by meditation.

Ajahn Chah's comment:

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds.

Don’t go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.

So in summary, the mind exists, but it's the counterfeit aspects of mind which bring about illusion.

Further,

Mental factors (Sanskrit: caitasika) are formations (Sanskrit: saṅkhāra) concurrent with mind (Sanskrit: Citta).

They can be described as aspects of the mind that apprehend the quality of an object, and that have the ability to color the mind.

The Buddha emphasized the need to purify dispositions rather than eliminate them completely.

Kalupahana states that "the elimination of dispositions is epistemological suicide," as dispositions determine our perspectives.

The development of one's personality in the direction of perfection or imperfection rests with one's dispositions.

So when we Awaken, we do not destroy Mind (Citta), but adopt purified dispositions.

Rocky,

When I try to understand such concepts, I tend to take into consideration the fact that the Buddha, and those who later wrote the Buddhist scriptures, probably had no direct understanding of the brain and its functions.

I believe the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Greeks tended to think that the heart was the seat of all our thoughts and emotions. The brain was always scooped out during mummification.

However, the great Hippocrates, who lived very approximately around the same time as the Buddha, perhaps a bit later, appears to have realised the significance of the brain and wrote:

"Men ought to know that from the brain, and from the brain alone, arise our pleasures, joys, laughter and jests, as well as our sorrows, pains, griefs and tears. Through it, in particular, we think, see, hear and distinguish the ugly from the beautiful, the bad from the good, the pleasant from the unpleasant… I hold that the brain is the most powerful organ of the human body… wherefore I assert that the brain is the interpreter of consciousness…’ (Hippocrates: On the sacred disease.) "

I think it's understandable that an ancient culture that accepts a belief in reincarnation and karma, and has no knowledge of the functions of the material brain, might attribute a permanence and reality to the mind which is perhaps not justified in the light of modern science.

The following extract from a philosophical source, addresses the problem.

"Rejection of a permanent agent eventually led to the philosophical problems of the seeming continuity of mind and also of explaining how rebirth and karma continue to be relevant doctrines without an eternal mind. This challenge was met by the Theravāda school by introducing the concept of mind as a factor of existence. This "life-stream" (Bhavanga-sota) is an undercurrent forming the condition of being. The continuity of a karmic "person" is therefore assured in the form of a mindstream (citta-santana), a series of flowing mental moments arising from the subliminal life-continuum mind (Bhavanga-citta), mental content, and attention."

I admit I don't have a literal belief in reincarnation, and that will influence my opinions on this issue of the mind, although I also like to think I have an open mind, subject to change in the light of new evidence.