here i am going to turn Bhuddism on its head: let us say that all existence things are illusions, sow to discover the one true reality is to empty reality of those illusions. We begin with a box, an infinite one ~ just so it has no limits to what can go in, then immediately note that there is nowhere left to put things. If existent things are illusions they can be broken down, such that it is discovered they have no fundamental reality, base or basis.
So in our box there is the complete set of all things, or of all illusions. We can begin with chemical compositions like a rock, air or you, then when we break that down we get atoms, so on and so forth we get to higgs bosons or otherwise the very fundamental [smallest/heaviest] particles of existence. We have done this without removing anything.
Eventually particles cannot exist beyond that they get broken down in the continuing process of division. The empty box must ultimately contain virtual existences ~ particles in meta or superposition, because it can never contain nothing. Ergo if things are illusions and reality is infinite [which it must be and observably is [background radiation etc]], then ‘illusions’ are reality? …there must always be something in the box, even when empty of anything in particular.
Reality ~ our physical reality, is real or at least virtually real in a real way. We can rely upon reasonably faithful reconstructions [our brain composes from derivative info] of a reality which is real! Emptiness is an illusion, and so is fullness [or there can be no duality, nor breaking down].
You have mixed concepts here I think. Maybe I’m misunderstanding because I am not familiar with the concept of Buddhism you are referencing. So, this concept of illusion, that things in reality are not what they seem, can be looked at through the sensory acumen of a human biological system, or it can be expanded to mean what humans have discovered through scientific and technological inquiry. This begs the question, what do you truly know? What can you discover with the aid of technology, and what truly exists in reality? I also want to state that I completely disagree with your absolutism. There is not “one true reality”. Not from a human perspective at least. Maybe that kind of absolutism could work if you are imagining a god with omnipresent faculty of understanding, but a human is completely incapable of that kind of knowledge. However, if you take the omniscient idea and let it stand then maybe something or everything can come into focus. You’re still dealing with cause and effect. Illusion or reality? I mean Donald Rumsfeld talked about this in his known unknowns, unknown unknowns speech about al queda terrorists. Reality becomes more real with the acquisition of knowledge, and I don’t think the Buddhists were deluding themselves about that fact. I think they formulated a mental exercise that would highlight the limits of Human knowledge.
You have mixed concepts here I think. Maybe I’m misunderstanding because I am not familiar with the concept of Buddhism you are referencing.
So, this concept of illusion, that things in reality are not what they seem, can be looked at through the sensory acumen of a human biological system, or it can be expanded to mean what humans have discovered through scientific and technological inquiry.
This begs the question, what do you truly know? What can you discover with the aid of technology, and what truly exists in reality?
I also want to state that I completely disagree with your absolutism. There is not “one true reality”. Not from a human perspective at least. Maybe that kind of absolutism could work if you are imagining a god with omnipresent faculty of understanding, but a human is completely incapable of that kind of knowledge.
However, if you take the omniscient idea and let it stand then maybe something or everything can come into focus. You’re still dealing with cause and effect. Illusion or reality?
I mean Donald Rumsfeld talked about this in his known unknowns, unknown unknowns speech about al queda terrorists. Reality becomes more real with the acquisition of knowledge, and I don’t think the Buddhists were deluding themselves about that fact. I think they formulated a mental exercise that would highlight the limits of Human knowledge.
I don’t think the point of Buddhism (or any legit philosophical vehicle) is to get people where they see the so called “real” truth as opposed to the “illusory world”. The point, rather, is for the mind to get so hopelessly caught up in these never ending contradictions so that at some point one stops thinking, and therefore begins to see clearly what is without mental chatter getting in the way. The goal is precisely to quiet the mind, but first ones mind needs to be stretched to its limits (with paradoxes like “form is emptiness, emptiness is form”) before the breakthrough happens.
Also, this depends on which brand of Buddhism we are talking about, and how wise/unwise the teachers are. There are always going to be religious literalists in every religion. That’s unfortunate, but there’s nothing we can do about that.
Human beings were thrown into this universe naked and right up to our future extinction level event we’ll leave the universe naked as well. Because we were thrown into this universe naked illusion is the cloth of choice that we wrap ourselves up in.
I was only using Buddhist philosophy as a vehicle to the explanation of our reality being virtual – or partial reals and not absolute reals!
If then existence is virtually real, then surely there is a reality which is undivided and not-virtual = whole [but not absolute - like god for example].
Anything you care to think of is a >part< of something else, and ultimately part of our reality which is not absolute nor full or complete, and does not cover all of reality itself.
Can you tell me of something which is absolute or complete and not virtual? Here in lies the challenge.
the lego brick is not full real, it is a composition of other virtual reals. all which are ultimately popping in and out of existence with every refresh of the universe. philosophically, for the lego brick to be a real it would have to be that [lego brick] and nothing else.
I haven’t said anything without reasoning behind it.
Take your lego brick, it is only that from your viewpoint. If your eyes could see at the sub-atomic level it would be no different to its surroundings. So in fact it is the idea of absolutes which is crazy.
