kayy wrote:I read and hear a lot of Buddhists talk about the world as "an illusion." What exactly does this mean? Am I right in thinking that it would be more accurate to say that our view of the world is an illusion (that is, unless you're a Buddha) ?
I fail to see how the world is an illusion. OK - nothing inherently exists in itself and independently of anything else, but I can tell you that my arms exist, this computer exists and the books on my desk exist, society exists, human beings exist. It's just the way we see them that is illusory, i.e. as permanent, inherent and so on.
Or have I totally missed something?
If my understanding is correct, why do people not amend their speech to be more accurate, i.e. "the way we see the world is an illusion"?
Some Mahayanists say things along the lines of the the world being an illusion, I'm not sure whether this is what their teachings really say or whether they've misinterpreted them.
I don't think there is any support for this view in Theravada teachings, after all if it's all an illusion then why bother doing anything to improve it.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dan,
I thought that Dhammapada quote might come up.
Hence the Loka Sutta link provided above, detailing what "world" means in the Buddha's parlance.
The Buddha is cool.
Dan74 wrote:As for the question of Mahayana view on this question, the relevant school is Yogacara, also called Cittamattra (Mind Only), ...
baratgab wrote:You may want to give a try to Ajahn Brahm's talk on "Emptiness"; in the first part he talks about the nature of the material world:
The following text also seems like a good reading:
Others already pointed out that there is no "world" for us apart from "the way we see the world", because everything is a matter of perception through the senses. What I would like to add is that maybe "existence" is not a good word either, because all we have is simply interdependence. I think it is hard to say that something really exists, while its existence can only be grasped in other things, whose existence can only be grasped in other things, whose existence can only be grasped in other things, whose existence can only be grasped in other things... So, there is no inherent existence in anything. It is tempting to contemplate on whether there is a ground at all for differentiating anything from anything (possibly starting at your own body and its surroundings).
Users browsing this forum: badscooter, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests