27 Years of Zen destroyed my life

[+joc]

zen seems to introduce a cognitive dissonance to subjective reality. Its like a backwards vacume of truth. its like diving back into the darkness. gonna go where the light goes persist with life and follow the relevant illusions in their context because i may can mentally reduce myself to nothing but i cannot actualize this idea of self- neither can any of us- why?

Let's go the the Museum. We are standing in front of a painting by Picasso. Will we both see the same painting? No.

We will both perceive it differently. Is it the same painting?

Let's go outside and look at the moon. Will we both see the same moon? No. We will both perceive it differently. Is it the same moon?

Whose perception is correct? Both? Neither?

Let's go into the living room and look at fear. Where is it? Can we point to it? We both perceive fear differently. Does fear exist? Is it real? It must be right? Because people are afraid. So...where is fear? If one perceives fear as real...it is quite easy for one to become panicked. If one realizes that fear isn't real, that it is illusion...then the fear loses power over that individual. Fear therefore has been mentally reduced to nothing. I am not afraid...I have actualized this idea of no fear. For me...fear doesn't exist. It is an illusion. For me...the painting and the moon are also illusions....that they appear to have mass and density does not change my perception...because I realize that mass and density are also illusion. But it really doesn't matter whether they are or not. If they are then my life doesn't really change...and if they aren't then my life really doesn't change. What has changed is my perception of them. Is perception real? How can perception be anything but illusion?

[metacast]

Let's go the the Museum. We are standing in front of a painting by Picasso. Will we both see the same painting? No.

We will both perceive it differently. Is it the same painting?

Let's go outside and look at the moon. Will we both see the same moon? No. We will both perceive it differently. Is it the same moon?

Whose perception is correct? Both? Neither?

Let's go into the living room and look at fear. Where is it? Can we point to it? We both perceive fear differently. Does fear exist? Is it real? It must be right? Because people are afraid. So...where is fear? If one perceives fear as real...it is quite easy for one to become panicked. If one realizes that fear isn't real, that it is illusion...then the fear loses power over that individual. Fear therefore has been mentally reduced to nothing. I am not afraid...I have actualized this idea of no fear. For me...fear doesn't exist. It is an illusion. For me...the painting and the moon are also illusions....that they appear to have mass and density does not change my perception...because I realize that mass and density are also illusion. But it really doesn't matter whether they are or not. If they are then my life doesn't really change...and if they aren't then my life really doesn't change. What has changed is my perception of them. Is perception real? How can perception be anything but illusion?

I'm not sure this addresses the issue presented. Its becoming more common that individuals understand the subjectivity of perception. I believe that there is a God and it is a living spirit, a movement that persists through all moments-- and if this spirit considers all data within itself in that moment then it is shares all individuals' perceptive truths (+ so much more) and from this collective light illuminates all things-- so in this every perception having its place within living holy unified experience.

Still how can the mind reduce something but the reduction not be actualized. Since this is the apparent case that it cannot be actualized then as a participant i must accept that i am something in the roll of the everything intertwined with the great nothing-- and to reduce myself is to think out of context.

Edited January 2, 2008 by ADbox

[+joc]

Still how can the mind reduce something but the reduction not be actualized.

Things are seldom as they seem.

[Mbyte]

You have made yourself angry because of your expectations that the girl will be faithful. You expect her to be faithful. When she doesn't meet your expectations you become angry. Is it her fault that you have high expectations of her? Is it her fault if she doesn't live up to your expectations? You could just have easily expected her to cheat on you. If you expected her to cheat and she did...would you still be angry? Your expectations are fantasy...they only exist as electrical impulses in your brain...all of your experiences involving your five senses are only electrical impulses in your brain. What is pain? It is an electrical impulse in your brain. If you break down the electrical impulse far enough you will discover that it isn't even electrical impulse. Pain hurts. I am experiencing pain in my back even as I am writing this....it doesn't change anything because I know the pain is an illusion. I just look at the pain a different way.

You can explain pain physically but never the less we can feel it. That is much more that a rocks existance. Does the very fact that we can feel and experience give you some insight that we are something more? Science cannot explain how the sensations are created why and how a certain experience

is experienced. You could say that we should not try to cause others pain. Yo say that you can systematiclly dismiss it but yet you say your like everyone else. The only way i can make sense of morals and "meaning" to life is the fact that we experience. You can say it's an illusion but we can experience never the less.

In a moral point of view I expected the girl above to be faithful. Why did I expect her to be faithful? wear did such defenition derive from. why was such a concept thought of. It's seems to be a product of morals. It's everyones right to expect someone to be faithful. Someone being faithful is hoping that the person doesn't get reckless and cause me pain or anyone pain. Pain can be seen as an illusion but it's not just physicallity it's experienced. Morals is basically the cherishing of experience. Love in other words. Despite illusion there is experience. There is good reason why I wanted to be faithful. You can dismiss your anger or emotions but you are experiencing them. Are you not neglecting yourself.

[+joc]

It's everyones right to expect someone to be faithful.

It is also eveyone's right to not expect someone to be faithful. Experience is not had without the senses. Our 'senses' are nothing more than electrical impulses. So our experience is really just electrical impulse. Does that electrical impulse have meaning? Can an electrical impulse be moral or immoral? It is our perceptions of what is moral and immoral that create morality and immorality. Outside of our perception they do not exist...outside of our perception we do not exist. And our perception is nothing more than electrical impulses. Knowing that doesn't change anything and at the same time...it changes everything. But really nothing has changed.

[Mbyte]

It is also eveyone's right to not expect someone to be faithful. Experience is not had without the senses. Our 'senses' are nothing more than electrical impulses. So our experience is really just electrical impulse. Does that electrical impulse have meaning? Can an electrical impulse be moral or immoral? It is our perceptions of what is moral and immoral that create morality and immorality. Outside of our perception they do not exist...outside of our perception we do not exist. And our perception is nothing more than electrical impulses. Knowing that doesn't change anything and at the same time...it changes everything. But really nothing has changed.

If you saw me kick a stone you would think nothing of it. If I kicked a person in the face you shouldn't think anything of it. Yet you say that you would react like anyone else. Why would you react? I'm kicking a "rock" an illusion, you know it's an illusion so you shouldn't have any emotional reaction. there is nothing governing you to be "nice" to people and there is nothing governing you to be bad but yet you magically do good things. To rephrase myself, you magically restrict yourself. You can't say you'd react like anyone else becasue that wouldn't happen if you KNOW that everything is an illusion. Your contradicting yourself. Why would you bother to react if you know your reactions are provoked by illusions. It doesn't make sense. If i kick a rock you wouldn't break down crying!! If i kicked a person who is the very same as the rock by non definition then you shouldn't react at all!!

Edited January 2, 2008 by Mbyte

[+joc]

If you saw me kick a stone you would think nothing of it. If I kicked a person in the face you shouldn't think anything of it. Yet you say that you would react like anyone else. Why would you react? I'm kicking a "rock" an illusion, you know it's an illusion so you shouldn't have any emotional reaction. there is nothing governing you to be "nice" to people and there is nothing governing you to be bad but yet you magically do good things.

I think Ironghost did an excellent job of answering this for you a couple of pages back...so if you don't mind...I will just paste what he has already said about it:

EDIT: I forgot to answer your question about caring about your mother dying. You would still care about your mother even if you fully understood she was an illusion. We care about all kinds of stuff right now that are not real.

For example, why do people cry at a very sad movie? The characters in the movie are fictional, right? Yet, a movie can evoke very strong emotions in us.

A lot of people think it's silly for a person to cry at a sad movie, or if they are reading a fictional book. They say: "They're crying over something that is not real!"

Some people say they even cry when they saw the movie Bambi -- they cried when Bambi's mother got shot. Imagine! They were crying about a cartoon. How unreal is that!?

So, your mother is a much more real and persistent illusion then, say, Bambi -- so naturally we care about our mother's and grieve if she dies.

[metacast]

Things are seldom as they seem.

You can reduce everything around you mentally and even your self and all ideas as they flow and you will still be of witness.

You may can follow this philosophy of thought into complete spiritual abandon and find the enlightenment of coma and people will continue to witness the flesh of your body.

i did though practice it last night before I went to sleep and will vouch for it's effectiveness. It worked like the art of abandon. and moved me from addictive thoughts quickly and made the mind experience more smooth rather than sticky -- gonna study it for a little while but my spirits reveal that it can be an dangerous tool in the since that if not used properly it can infect mental autonomy-- which means this special understanding of reduction can by habbit interfere when it probably shouldn't. -- which joc and ironghost may have already hinted at throughout parts of this thread.

Edited January 2, 2008 by ADbox

[Mbyte]

I think Ironghost did an excellent job of answering this for you a couple of pages back...so if you don't mind...I will just paste what he has already said about it:

there isne't a smiley to express what i'm thinking

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c316/bea...d/stalloned.jpg

look at the expression on that guys face. He's unimpressed.

The people watching the movie don't realise that they are illusions and are merely matter they react because of the illusions they see. So you can't use that quote becasue it doesn't explain why you react because you know that you are an illusion and you are matter. to a person who see's illusion a person could appear more "real" but for you, you understand that a person is like a rock so whether or not a person seems more real it doesn't matter because you understand that they aren't. To you a more real and persistent illusion is merely an illusion. Nothing is governing the illusion to be more real or persistant for you. you didn't answer why you would restrict yourself or in other words be good and not be bad. Of course i don't know what you do i only assume you do "good".

You can't be, you see and you act. You see illusion or you see nothing and you act. But how do you act? You can't act like those who don't realise there is an illusion.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Mbyte

[+joc]

there isne't a smiley to express what i'm thinking

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c316/bea...d/stalloned.jpg

look at the expression on that guys face. He's unimpressed.

The people watching the movie don't realise that they are illusions and are merely matter they react because of the illusions they see. So you can't use that quote becasue it doesn't explain why you react because you know that you are an illusion and you are matter. to a person who see's illusion a person could appear more "real" but for you, you understand that a person is like a rock so whether or not a person seems more real it doesn't matter because you understand that they aren't. To you a more real and persistent illusion is merely an illusion. Nothing is governing the illusion to be more real or persistant for you. you didn't answer why you would restrict yourself or in other words be good and not be bad. Of course i don't know what you do i only assume you do "good".

You can't be, you see and you act. You see illusion or you see nothing and you act. But how do you act? You can't act like those who don't realise there is an illusion.

Then you are convinced you are real. And you are convinced that everything around you is real. A schizophrenic is convinced that his hallucinations are real. But you know that his hallucinations are just that....illusion. Does knowing that change anything for you?

[Mbyte]

Then you are convinced you are real. And you are convinced that everything around you is real. A schizophrenic is convinced that his hallucinations are real. But you know that his hallucinations are just that....illusion. Does knowing that change anything for you?

You failed to address the moral question again...

Well the fact that there is energy tells me it's real. You cannot say that the universe is an illusion. We create illusions however the fact still remains that we experience. We are always experiencing. You have said many times and claim that it can be defined purely by chemical reaction and neural impulses (and what ever other termnology there is with the brain functions) but you cannot explain why we experience the chemical reactions or how the chemical reactions create the experience. How can organic matter cause an experience on a physical plane? we experience the world around us. We see it feelingly. When you do zen meditation you are experiencing. Thats what we are. When one dismisses it as an illusion then morals don't exist or make sense. Therefore the person has no sense of morals if everything is an illusion then you shouldn't be able to know the diffrence between good and bad. Yet you would feel something if I hit a human. That is not possible.... You say you can dismis it afterwards but I have also read on this topic that nothing changes when you are enlightened which makes sense because anything you do means nothing ... then what is governing you to be good?

I'll tell you what governs me. The fact that we experience and a bad feeling just fels bad. Experience isen't an illusion becasue we experience. If we didn't experience then you wouldn't know that you weren't.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Mbyte

[Donmar]

I don't care if I exist or not, I beleive that I do and do everything I can to go to Heaven when I die, so if I don't exist, well, I just don't, and my conscience will still go on in non-existence doing exactly what it thought it would do.

If you don't exist, and I don't exist, why am I reading this post right now?

[Oen Anderson]

Each persons perception is reality for them. If there are seven billion individuals on the planet, which is in itself a perception because I have never really seen them all, then there are seven billion realities and they are all correct at the same time. Kind of like the infinite infinity.

[+joc]

You failed to address the moral question again...

I did address the moral question. I would be happy to go over it again. Morality is a perception. It doesn't exist as anything else. I think for instance that exploiting children in a sexual way is immoral. I perceive the immorality of that perversion. Yet, many pedophiles will tell you that it isn't immoral at all. Perceptions defining morality.

You are hung up on the idea that if I perceive that children are merely illusion then I shouldn't care whether they are exploited or not. As per Ironghosts example: If you see a Bambi cartoon and experience emotion...does that make the Bambi cartoon reality? No. And yet the fact that it is a cartoon didn't change your emotions did it? You knew before you began viewing it that it was a cartoon. But the emotions you experienced viewing it didn't change. Knowing that it was an illusion didn't change anything.

Well the fact that there is energy tells me it's real.

How do you know that energy is a fact? We perceive the root cause of things that happen around us as 'energy'. Does anyone really know what energy is? It is a perception.

You have said many times and claim that it can be defined purely by chemical reaction and neural impulses (and what ever other termnology there is with the brain functions) but you cannot explain why we experience the chemical reactions or how the chemical reactions create the experience. How can organic matter cause an experience on a physical plane?

Great question! What is the difference between organic matter and inorganic matter? The arrangement of atoms. The same atomic structures that define organic can be rearranged in such a way that the organic is no longer organic...yet they are the same elements. Which arrangement is real? Both? Neither? Matter can therefore be organic or inorganic depending on how the atomic basis is structured. Is carbon organic?

When you do zen meditation you are experiencing.

I wouldn't really know...I've never done that. I always thought that the purpose of meditation was to not experience.

But again...I wouldn't really know.

I'll tell you what governs me. The fact that we experience and a bad feeling just fels bad. Experience isen't an illusion becasue we experience. If we didn't experience then you wouldn't know that you weren't.

I don't know that I'm not. I know that I'm not. I also know that I am. Experience? If experience isn't illusion then one might conclude that the schizophrenic reality is as valid as your own. Is it? What makes the schizophrenic experience any less real than your own experience?

[Mbyte]

I did address the moral question. I would be happy to go over it again. Morality is a perception. It doesn't exist as anything else. I think for instance that exploiting children in a sexual way is immoral. I perceive the immorality of that perversion. Yet, many pedophiles will tell you that it isn't immoral at all. Perceptions defining morality.

You are hung up on the idea that if I perceive that children are merely illusion then I shouldn't care whether they are exploited or not. As per Ironghosts example: If you see a Bambi cartoon and experience emotion...does that make the Bambi cartoon reality? No. And yet the fact that it is a cartoon didn't change your emotions did it?You knew before you began viewing it that it was a cartoon. But the emotions you experienced viewing it didn't change. Knowing that it was an illusion didn't change anything.

I don't know that I'm not. I know that I'm not. I also know that I am. Experience? If experience isn't illusion then one might conclude that the schizophrenic reality is as valid as your own. Is it? What makes the schizophrenic experience any less real than your own experience?

What is immoral about perverting children?

Couldn'r make sense of the bold text.

The schizophrenic's reality is as valid as my own. His belief in hillucinations doesn't mean anything becasue what matters is experience he can still coincide with people. Nothing makes his experience any less real then mine.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Mbyte

[AlienDan]

Wow. 90 Comment. Is the article really that good? (havn't read it. Thinking I should lol)

[metacast]

ah nm

Edited January 3, 2008 by ADbox

[+joc]

The schizophrenic's reality is as valid as my own. His belief in hillucinations doesn't mean anything becasue what matters is experience he can still coincide with people. Nothing makes his experience any less real then mine.

Yes! Exactly! His reality, which is based on believing that illusions are real, is no different than yours or mine. However; the schizophrenic is coinciding with people that YOU believe to be illusions. Does it change anything for the schizophrenic? No. Does it change anything for you? No.

How then is my belief that you are an illusion change anything for either one of us?

[IronGhost]

Wow. 90 Comment. Is the article really that good? (havn't read it. Thinking I should lol)

It's either that good or that ridiculous. But it's probably better not to label it "good" or "bad" but just notice that it illicites a lot of comments.

But on to some other issues: One of the point brought up here is this idea of what's "governing" us -- or, why, for example, wouldn't somebody just kick another person in the face because that's no different than kicking a rock, and so on.

But what do you really see happening to people who have studied Zen or who have otherwise come to realize the illusary nature of the world? None of them are running around kicking each other in the face. When you realize that everything is illusary, you automaticaly stop having a desire to kick another person in the face, or do them any other harm.

But look at all the other people who belong to most mainstream religions -- they're all running around "kicking each other in the face" all the time. In the Mideast, Muslims are killing Jews, Jews are killing Muslims, and America, which is largely a Christian nation, is waging a war in Iraq and Afghansitan. In Africa, all kinds of religious factions are killing each other constantly. Look at pre-Columbian America -- the Native Americans had their own religion, based largely on the worship of Nature -- and the Aztecs, for example, had a complex panthion of gods -- but all of these people were running around killing each other constantly.

Some would say that America has a very good reason to be waging a war in Iraq -- but whatever. The fact is, we're killing people over there, and they're trying to kill Americans -- no matter how you look at it -- none of these people have had the revelation their entire existence is an illusion, yet they're embroiled in a perpetual cycle of violence, and it's a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that could even one day destroy the entire planet. It could all end in a nuclear war.

So -- to somehow worry that a revelation of the illusary nature of the world could result in violence is totally ridiculous. We already have that. What's governing all these people? They have rules and regulations, like "Do Not Kill" but that never seems to stop all kinds of killing, which is going on all the time.

But here's the even bigger reason why "Zen person" does not want to kick another person in the face -- a person who has become enlightened immediately realizes that there is no separation between himself, or herself -- and another person, or a tree, or a rock, or a cat, or dog.

An enlightened person would never kick another person in the face because they realize that that would be the same as kicking oneself.

The feeling of enlightenment is an overwhelming feeling of being "at One with Everything" -- such as it exists, or not -- so the very last thing you would do is cause harm to someone else -- because kicking someone else in the face would feel like kicking yourself in the face. It's really just that simple.

[Mbyte]

But what do you really see happening to people who have studied Zen or who have otherwise come to realize the illusary nature of the world? None of them are running around kicking each other in the face. When you realize that everything is illusary, you automaticaly stop having a desire to kick another person in the face, or do them any other harm.

The feeling of enlightenment is an overwhelming feeling of being "at One with Everything" -- such as it exists, or not -- so the very last thing you would do is cause harm to someone else -- because kicking someone else in the face would feel like kicking yourself in the face. It's really just that simple.

That makes some bit of sense. However if you do not desire to kick someone in the face then you should not desire to help people. To say that kicking some one in the face is to do to yourself is practically saying that your not an illusion because if you were doing something to another you wouldn't do anything to yourself if your matter just like a rock.

Yes! Exactly! His reality, which is based on believing that illusions are real, is no different than yours or mine. However; the schizophrenic is coinciding with people that YOU believe to be illusions. Does it change anything for the schizophrenic? No. Does it change anything for you? No.

How then is my belief that you are an illusion change anything for either one of us?

The schizophrenic may believe that his illusions are real but he is conscious and experiencing while believing that, so his reality isen't based on what he believes. The very same as me, i am "alive" while i have my beliefs. The schizophrenic's experiencee is as valid as my own but not his beliefs. but his experience is real. So it is natural to assume that experience is real. It would be natural to assume that everything must be relative to experience. So having a belief that life should be cherished is unhindered by illusion.

Your belief that I am an illusion changes nothing but your experiencing to make the conclusion is real as my experience is real and everyone elses experience is real and any other experience is real.

Your belief that I am an illusion should be expressed but you seemingly express moral conviction which his an illusion. You should express no moral restriction becasue you have no reason too. You might say that you don not express immoral conviction because nothing tells you to but there is nothing to define moral so all there is only immoral.

You know child abuse is immoral but you shouldn't be able to see what is moral. Thus there is no morals at all so there is no reason to act "morally" You believe that we are the same as rocks. Such belief is expressed through the body. You watch bambi you my react but you emotions mean nothing so why react?

Edited January 3, 2008 by Mbyte

[IronGhost]

That makes some bit of sense. However if you do not desire to kick someone in the face then you should not desire to help people. To say that kicking some one in the face is to do to yourself is practically saying that your not an illusion because if you were doing something to another you wouldn't do anything to yourself if your matter just like a rock.

There is a Zen saying: "Everything you do, you do for yourself."

But you are right -- you would not have a DESIRE to help other people. But the fact that you no longer have a DESIRE to do harm -- paradoxically --turns out to be the same as doing good things for other people.

Just the fact that you no longer have a DESIRE to do bad things makes the world a good place.

Imagine if all people simply lost their DESIRE to do bad things. Think about it -- no one doing anything bad!

That would be a wonderful world, wouldn't it?

So -- again -- the situation takes care of itself. If no one is doing any harm, there would be no need for anyone to do good, because without people doing bad, the world would automatically be a wonderful place.

Edited January 3, 2008 by IronGhost

[Mbyte]

There is a Zen saying: "Everything you do, you do for yourself."

But you are right -- you would not have a DESIRE to help other people. But the fact that you no longer have a DESIRE to do harm -- paradoxically --turns out to be the same as doing good things for other people.

Just the fact that you no longer have a DESIRE to do bad things makes the world a good place.

Imagine if all people simply lost their DESIRE to do bad things. Think about it -- no one doing anything bad!

That would be a wonderful world, wouldn't it?

So -- again -- the situation takes care of itself. If no one is doing any harm, there would be no need for anyone to do good, because without people doing bad, the world would automatically be a wonderful place.

Define a bad thing? what makes an action bad?

Of course if everyone didn't do bad things there would be good. but whats a bad thing? why would someone want to do good?

[IronGhost]

Define a bad thing? what makes an action bad?

Of course if everyone didn't do bad things there would be good. but whats a bad thing? why would someone want to do good?

There is no good definition of a "bad thing."

The reason people think they need to do "good things" or "bad things" is because they are delusional.

When I was in about year 17 of my Zen practice, I quit my job as a writer and college instructor and devoted two years of my life to work as a VISTA Volunteer -- that's like the domestic version of the Peace Corps. You try to do good works while living on a "subsistence stipend" of about $5,000 per year. I was living in a City Mission with the poor people and trying to help them get to a better life.

After my two years were done, I felt I hadn't done anything good, even though I tried, but I also know I didn't cause any harm. But my motivations were largely delusional, even though I knew they were. But I did it anyway.

It's strange to be a human being, and to have thoughts and ideas.

[+joc]

It's strange to be a human being, and to have thoughts and ideas.

The following is from the other thread you first commented on...you don't exist so don't worry about it...this is what I had to say then:

The obvious problem with the theory of 'all is illusion' is our own consciousness and ability to create thought process. If it is our 'thought process' that has introduced the theory that our 'thought process' doesn't exist then perhaps it does exist after all.

The fact is, things are seldom as they seem. Much of what we think, if not most is indeed illusion. He overlooks one point though....if the building blocks of the universe don't exist...then nothing exists...one cannot get beyond the fact that the essentials do exist, quarks, etc. do exist...while they may not be completely stable...they themselves are not illusion....if they are, then where does that illusion originate?

This post has been edited by joc: Mar 8 2006, 02:01 PM

In retrospect, I realize you haven't overlooked anything...I have gotten beyond the 'fact' that the atomic structures exist....any thoughts though on the last sentence? Where does the illusion originate? Or did it?

[IronGhost]

The following is from the other thread you first commented on...you don't exist so don't worry about it...this is what I had to say then:

In retrospect, I realize you haven't overlooked anything...I have gotten beyond the 'fact' that the atomic structures exist....any thoughts though on the last sentence? Where does the illusion originate? Or did it?

Ah, what a great question. I'm always hesitant to answer that question because no matter how well I try to explain things, I'm afraid it will lead people astray -- but one always has to remember that all written and verbal language is inherently contradictory, so keep in mind that this is not something that can be explained in language for a full understanding, but one can try to get close.

Consider this:

Astronomers tell us the Universe is expanding -- it common terms, this is a measurable fact. (You don't even have to believe in the Big Bang theory to see that the universe is expanding, by the way).

Everything that is "inside" the universe is "something" -- so to speak. Even way out in the universe away from all stars and other stuff, there is "something." We might call it "empty space" but there is no "empty space." There's always something -- call it "the fabric" of space.

But what is our common universe of "something" expanding "into"? Even astronomers admit that the universe is expanding into "Nothing."

But "Nothing" -- THEE NOTHING -- cannot even have a border with "something" such as our universe. If something has a border, then it is something.

So the THEE NOTHING is not like the "Nothing" we think of in common terms. We might say it's an extremely radical kind of Nothing.

THEE NOTHING cannot have a beginning or an end. It is what it isn't. The origin of illusion is often described as the "original duality." The instant you get a duality, you get "something." That's where the illusion originated, but it's still "contained" within THEE NOTHING.

So to ask, where did the illusion originate -- you would have to provide a place in time, which there is none of in THEE NOTHING, and a place in space, which there is none of in THEE NOTHING.

Anyway, the illusion never originated -- but that's not something we can understand in common terms. It can only be experienced -- if you can imagine what the experience of nonexperience is like -- (it's not the same as that "blank" feeling you get when you try to think about the time before you were born) -- then you can understand how the illusion had no origin.

The fact the the illusion itself seems to exist it not the same as saying it DOES exist.

It's frustrating I know -- but we're limited to describe this by use of language -- you can experience nonexperience, which is not like experiencing ordinary "blank" nothingness, such as that time before you were born. It's the experience of non-experiencing.

Some will jump on this and say "Aha -- the radical THEE NOTHING you are talking about is a dynamic kind of NOTHING -- it's pure potential -- which is the ground of illusion -- which is SOMETHING -- so your whole argument collapses, but that's not the case.

It's like trying to descibe color to a blind man. How would your describe the concept of "red" or "blue" to someone who has never seen anything before? You can't. It's impossible. Or how would you describe the third dimension to a two dimensional creature? -- you can't within the framework of two dimensions. In the same way, you can't describe the experience of non-experience in any way that makes satisfactory sense.