Search results

Path of one, just go with what works for you. We all have to find what suits each of us.

As long as I am still subjected to the delusion (ie. not enlightened), the illusion will still be seen as real by me. Knowing so, it means that I need to get on a path that will take me out of the illusion.

Btw, the syllogistic error made by NGP is called illicit minor. Illicit minor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, it is not definition but logic. I stated Existence = Illusion NGP then assumed Existence = Reality and then make the logical error in stating Reality = Illusion In summary, what NGP did was Existence = Illusion Existence = Reality Therefore Reality = Illusion

"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's...

This one makes my mind works overtime: The mind cannot see the mind just as a knife cannot cut itself.

Weird. A Buddhist does not take refuge in God/gods.

The Four Reliances: Rely on the teaching (dharma) not the teacher. Rely on the spirit/meaning not the letter/word. Rely on the final/definitive meaning (nitartha) rather than non-final/interpretive meaning (neyartha). Rely on gnosis (jñâna) rather than on discursive thinking (vijñâna).

I said "All of existence is an illusion". You equate existence with reality. I don't.

I think that is a good analogy. That's why in Buddhism, becoming completely enlightened is liken to waking up from a dream. While dreaming, everything is seen as real and solid. Feelings feel real etc.

Yes, a lot of Buddhists find this hard to swallow.

Thanks, I look forward to it. I am not qualified to comment on your experiences. According to my own understanding, it just means that all existences are but an illusion. The ontological reality in my opinion is something outside our range of our experience. I tried to explain my speculation...

An appearance of something that has various attributes and characteristics. Upon examination, the attributes and characteristics are found to be non-existent. So the something that appears is a non-existent. In short, an illusion is the appearance of a non-existent.

All of existence is an illusion.

Path-of-one, I think your experience is wonderful. Hopefully, one day, I will experience something similar. You may know by now that I follow Buddhism, more specificaly, Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism teaches non-duality, but I think it makes a subtle distinction between cognitive...

The idea of no free will is one that attracts very strong emotion from those who feel free will truly exist. This in all likelihood reflects a strong grasping at a self. If one considers dispassinately the doctrine of dependent arising/emptiness, the illusion of free will will be clear. We...

Is there a meaning or purpose to the process that you describe? I don't believe there is. Neither do I believe that existence in and of itself has any purpose. Each individual may attribute a purpose to their existence but existence per se has no purpose in my opinion.

I am not bothered. I don't subscribe to the monism of one consciousness.

If someone wants to postulate a "one" consciousness, then he should also postulate a mechanism by which a partial consciousness of the "one" consciousness is disconnected with the "one" consciousness. This will help to explain why each of us is an individual. However, when the partial...

My conclusion that free will is an illusion is based on Buddhist teaching on dependent arising and emptiness. Buddhism teaches that all sentient beings comprised at least four of the five aggregates. It also teaches that these aggegrates are empty of any substance, essence etc. These...