Gods, demons and arithmetic

[PuerAzaelis]

The deal, to repeat, is that "all is illusion" does a fine job when it comes to the aggregates, that is, to things, thoughts, ideas, concepts.

But when it comes to knowledge, "all is illusion" is a just category mistake. It can't distinguish my knowing that the car is red and not blue, from my knowing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

If this weren't the case, then HH's Aspiration that my new friend Justsit cited could have just said "All is illusion. Neat, huh?"

If that weren't the case, heck, we'd all be enlightened by now.

As usual, the one who really hits the nail on the head, is Saraha.

[Minobu]

Im not sure what all the fuss about illusion is.

Diamond Sutra: “So I say to you –
This is how to contemplate our conditioned existence in this fleeting world:

Like a tiny drop of dew, or a bubble floating in a stream;
Like a flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
Or a flickering lamp, an illusion, a phantom, or a dream.”

“So is all conditioned existence to be seen.”

---

'The eight similes of illusion (Wyl. sgyu ma'i dpe brgyad) are (in the order in which they appear in Longchenpa's Finding Comfort and Ease in the Illusoriness of Things):

1- Dream: like a dream, objects perceived with the five senses are not there, but they appear through delusion
2- Magical illusion: like a magic illusion, things are made to appear due to the temporary coming together of causes and conditions
3- Hallucination or trompe-l'oeil: like a hallucination, things appear, yet there is nothing there
Mirage: like a mirage, things appear, but they are not real
4- Echo: like an echo, things can be perceived, but there is nothing there, either inside or outside
5- City of gandharvas: like a city of gandharvas, there is neither a dwelling nor anyone to dwell
6- Reflection: like a reflection, things appear, but have no reality of their own
7- Apparition: like an apparition, there are different types of appearances, but they are not really there'

From:
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?titl ... f_illusion

And to round it off with Saraha:

'To cling to things as real is to be like cattle,
But to cling to things as unreal is even more foolish.'

i for one do not deny that when trying to understand the nature of existence one has to understand illusionary aspect to it. Once one decides that All is an illusion and not even give a mention to convention , or the fact there is an aspect of existence to this illusion we dwell in, you totally miss the point of the teachings. the Middle way is none other than seeing how reality is to be viewed.

the teachers always point to one extreme and the other and then explain it is somewhere in the middle.

due to the fact nothing can appear in and of itself and relies on co arising and interdependence to appear and change.

Hammering at one extreme as Greg does is the problem the teachers are trying to solve.

, which just goes to prove, once again, that all is illusion.

saying the above without explaining how the other extreme is actually relevant ..i mean like ....what are we arguing about...
It's no just all illusion.

do you you see it in this extreme way?
For me ,it tosses out any semblance to sunyata view.

[Grigoris]

How is this then (my last attempt to get you to understand what is being said here):

All conditioned phenomena are an illusion, as they have no independent/objective existence outside of their causes and conditions (which in turn have no independent...) ad nauseum.

Even reductionist-scientific-materialists now agree that this is the case. I remember when in school we were taught that all matter could be broken down to the base constituents of electrons, neutrons and positrons. Aaaaaaahhh... Those were the days! When everything was simple and finite. No more so!

[Grigoris]

As for the physics...your arguments are based on the ever changing study of the Laws of physics...mine are trying to get you to see that the actual laws do not change...

Go read the book by Hawkings if you actually want to understand how wrong you are.

[Minobu]

How is this then (my last attempt to get you to understand what is being said here):

All conditioned phenomena are an illusion as they have no independent/objective existence outside of their causes and conditions (which in turn have no independent...) ad nauseum.

Even reductionist scientific materialists now agree that this is the case. I remember when in school we were taught that all matter could be broken down to the base constituents of electrons, neutrons and positrons. Aaaaaaahhh... Those were the days! When everything was simple and finite. No more so!

Well i see you have had a little think about what you said

, which just goes to prove, once again, that all is illusion.

there is a huge difference to what you just said.

good for you gre, you just said something inline with what i was telling you.. for getting it now



As for this cavort

I see, I was possibly misunderstanding what the debate was in the first place. I think we're somewhat talking past each other, but I get what you're saying. I'm just curious, would you consider the laws of physics absolute?

Given that "laws" of physics change (ie new "laws" come into existence, old laws are discarded) then I guess they are not absolute, because absolute also implies immutable.

As for the physics...your arguments are based on the ever changing study of the Laws of physics...mine are trying to get you to see that the actual laws do not change...

Go read the book by Hawkings if you actually want to understand how wrong you are.

erm ahhhh...so like i am talking about how scientific study changes due to the ongoing research...and that the actual laws of physics don't change as you said they do..


read what you write...seriously you write stuff and then when called out because it doesn't make sense...you try to make it better...until you finally change it all...

i'm tired of you...toodles.

[PuerAzaelis]

... my last attempt to get you to understand ...

Meh, I'm a hopeless case I'm afraid you'll have to put me down.

[ClearblueSky]

I see, I was possibly misunderstanding what the debate was in the first place. I think we're somewhat talking past each other, but I get what you're saying. I'm just curious, would you consider the laws of physics absolute?

Given that "laws" of physics change (ie new "laws" come into existence, old laws are discarded) then I guess they are not absolute, because absolute also implies immutable.

As for the physics...your arguments are based on the ever changing study of the Laws of physics...mine are trying to get you to see that the actual laws do not change...

Go read the book by Hawkings if you actually want to understand how wrong you are.

erm ahhhh...so like i am talking about how scientific study changes due to the ongoing research...and that the actual laws of physics don't change as you said they do..

Minobu is definitely not wrong, since the overall consensus is that the laws of physics have played by the same rules since the big bang and won't ever change. Yes, there are some interesting theoretical physics ideas as to how things could sort of change, in theory, but even there, if they changed they're not really a universal "law" anymore (and thus never were in the first place). But since this is not a theoretical physics board, and I'm not a theoretical physicist, it's probably both too off topic and too beyond what I know.
Which book by Hawking are you referring to though?

[PuerAzaelis]

I would like to apologize to Justsit, that was a nasty response from me, obviously intended just to score points and be the big man on the anonymous internet. Very stupid. What I really want and need is to be shown where I am wrong but sometimes that comes from where you don't expect, which is what in fact you showed me. Therefore, I bow, my apologies and my gratitude.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

PS: I suspect His Holiness Rangjung Rigpei Dorje was pretty good at debate. And I also suspect that when he was debating, he wouldn't just cite texts and then just sit back as if the answer was now obvious. We're allowed to interpret texts, that's what they're for.

From what I've been led to believe that's not so. I'm told he didn't have all that much book learning. He didn't give many teachings. He was basically a huge reservoir of initiations and sidhis. Fortunately HHDL is making sure the current Karmapa (O.T.) is not limited in that way.

[Grigoris]

Minobu is definitely not wrong, since the overall consensus is that the laws of physics have played by the same rules since the big bang and won't ever change.

The CURRENT overall consensus... That's the beauty of science: (new) contrary facts can overturn (old) theories.

Yes, there are some interesting theoretical physics ideas as to how things could sort of change, in theory, but even there, if they changed they're not really a universal "law" anymore (and thus never were in the first place).

You'll just have to get used to the reality that laws change since they are based on (conditioned by) facts. I have already provided two examples of this FACT.

Which book by Hawking are you referring to though?

The Begininng of TIme

[justsit]

I would like to apologize to Justsit, ....

Thank you, PM sent.

[ClearblueSky]

Minobu is definitely not wrong, since the overall consensus is that the laws of physics have played by the same rules since the big bang and won't ever change.

The CURRENT overall consensus... That's the beauty of science: (new) contrary facts can overturn (old) theories.

Yes, there are some interesting theoretical physics ideas as to how things could sort of change, in theory, but even there, if they changed they're not really a universal "law" anymore (and thus never were in the first place).

You'll just have to get used to the reality that laws change since they are based on (conditioned by) facts. I have already provided two examples of this FACT.

Which book by Hawking are you referring to though?

The Begininng of TIme

There's no such thing as "new facts" in a literal sense. Gravity was real before Newton, it just wasn't a theory yet. If gravity suddenly reverses and we fly into space, it will be that we were missing something, nothing will have actually changed regarding the universal laws of physics, only our understanding of them. I don't have a stake in this because it's not my own opinion, it's the opinion of the entire field. I've had very similar arguments with climate change deniers (who also often use religious reasoning, but believe their reasoning is just logical, common sense).
But since those rarely go anywhere, I'm going to have to join Minobu in saying "toodles". I wish it could've been more productive, but thank you for your time regardless.

[Grigoris]

But since those rarely go anywhere, I'm going to have to join Minobu in saying "toodles". I wish it could've been more productive, but thank you for your time regardless.

It is difficult for a conversation to be productive when people continuously use straw man logical fallacies and pedantic hair splitting instead of answering to what is being said.