Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Delusions Are Relative
AllbuddhaBound
Veteran
To society, a person is delusional if they imagine themselves to be Napolean Bonaparte.
To a Buddhist, a person is delusional if they see the world as a solid, defined thing. If a person is attached to senses and experiences. If they believe there is a self.
But a Buddhist also thinks that until you come to the realization that the world is not a fixed thing, nothing is permanent, all is transitory, there is no self, you will never reach enlightenment. Isn't that delusional? Isn't that right/wrong thinking? Isn't the goal of enlightenment a construct concocted by man, but transitory and delusional in nature?
It all appears to be very relative to the thinker.
0
Comments
To me, this goes back to something I wrote in another thread -- the falsity of "either/or thinking".
There are a few posters here who imply they are not delusional. What a crock (and, what a delusion).
Delusion is a continuum, and everyone is somewhere on that continuum...and will continue to be so. The question is whether or not they are moving along the continuum...and in which direction.
It is not a goal but a opening to an already present being. It does not come, it does not go. It is merely present, whether realised or not . . .
Because enlightenment has no construction, being undying, unborn and free of attachments to conditional being it is not transitory or delusional. These are qualities and enlightenment does not have qualities, nor does it have causation or effect . . . and yet paradoxically it is effective in causing change . . .
I believe that is true. We are all deluded to some degree, even those who consider themselves "enlightened".
It comes down to cognitive disonnance. The stubborn adherence to beliefs that fit with our theory of the nature of the world.
But enlightenment has very definite constructions. The method to attain it is regularly prescribed and sought after. The entire pursuit is fraught with right/wrong approaches.
A building resides in the same space that existed before its being. The space does not come or go, whether you seek construction or demolition.
But did the space really exist before the idea of construction came, or was it emptiness?
A line is part of a circle of infinite size. Either side of it one is within.
Believe me, that reference is beyond me. LOL All I know is that Buddhist doctrine is filled with right and wrong, goals, beliefs about attainment but there appears to be no real proof when a person has "arrived" other than blind faith.
Buddhists love to get wrapped up in "obtusity".
Not wanting to be a religious heretic: come fly the teeth of the wind, share my wings:
If delusions are relative, everything else is as well!
So tell me how do you relate with the eternal internal conversation you are having with yourself, that does not exist? Now at some point you have to see things for what they are really. In my view that's what buddhism is really about, and thats how cessation becomes reality!
Well, I know my relatives are deluded....
One person's spiritual practice is another person's superstitious mumbo-jumbo. One person's hard-fought wisdom is another person's nonsense. Yes, it's all relative.
Enlightenment, like sainthood, is a title your admirers bestow upon you. It's nice and all, but that and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee, maybe. Like sainthood, enlightenment is easier to live up to once you're dead. I recommend being a Buddha, instead.
So are the delusions of the world also relative? Sort of. Should I ask my fellow inmates in this nut house we call life? I believe people can be better than they've proven themselves to be throughout history. I choose to be deluded because otherwise I'd curl up in despair. In other words, to many people, I'm one tin foil hat away from a straight jacket.
I'm sorry, did you want a straight answer to such a loaded question? My kitchen has been smelling like a dead mouse for the past few days and I think it's coming from behind the refrigerator. Right now I have to deal with that. I'll think about the question and get back to you when I have time.
I think you're incorrrect in your definition.
Such people are not deluded.
Such people are Ignorant.
A BUDDHIST is deluded " if they see the world as a solid, defined thing." If they are "attached to senses and experiences. If they believe there is a self."
Delusion in such a case, applies to one who has seen a specific thing they know to be true, yet insist it is not true for them.
>
No, I thought it was fact. Isn't this what the Buddha taught? That in order to be awakened, we need to transcend Suffering and attachment to previously skewed notions?
>
No, I'm not of that opinion.
>
You're the thinker, you tell me....
That is maths theory.
ponderabout.com/archives/706/the-paradox-of-the-infinite-circle.aspx
There are less ignorant and more skilful goals, enlightenment for example . . . There is proof in the 'experience' or alignment, however that is internal and for personal verification, dismissal or moving on from . . .
Many people do as you say take it on faith that their teacher or preferred wisdom resource is enlightened. Such a teacher may be fulfilling a symbolic or transmission role. Many do this prematurely, presumptuously, ego fuelled - from ignorance, or at the behest of their teacher or the requirements of a community.
Yes you are right. Wearing the t-shirt is no guarantee of veracity. Oh well.
Some of us are reflective. Some of us are deflective. Some like me, are defective. The important thing . . . but not too important is dealing with each appropriate to their needs . . . however that takes a bodhisattva mentality and some of us just laugh at that . . .
http://yinyana.tumblr.com/post/54500407089/now-that-the-official-t-shirt-has-arrived
While I kind of agree with your general take OP, I think there is somewhat of a difference between the delusion that thinks trees can talk to you and the delusion that things are inherently existent.
In Indian and Tibetan philosophy they talk about what is called a pramana or 'valid cognition'. Which basically just means a non-deceptive cognition or that you perceive a coiled rope as such and don't see it as a snake.
Like I said - come share my wings and fly the teeth of the wind!
Your point of view matters only to you. It is yours and yours alone, and the desires, joy and burdens that come with it are yours and you have to deal with them. How you deal with them may be very difficult and/or misunderstood by other people, but essentially, they are no different to other's experiences, in terms of the emotions and consequences.
Buddhism offers a way of dealing with them, yet allow you to relate them - but don't put those bloody monkeys on others shoulders, as I see occurring all the time. Learn to tame the monkey, and then ride the white elephant...
It is. I can't share your delusions, psychotic or samsaric. Thankfully