this is an illusion, because of conditioned perception.
this is wrong again. you should try to stick to the basics.
you may leave your house each morning, to go to work, & return to your house each evening. unless a major disaster happens, your house will be there when you return home each evening. your house, as a physical object, is not an illusion.
when your parent's pass away, you may inherit their house. although they have passed away, their house is not an illusion, since it remains solid, long after they have passed away
you need to be very careful with this term "illusion" since it generally refers to misperception rather than to perception per se. even when referring to perception, per se, it is referring value judgments rather than to things, such as the planet earth or a house. "illusion" also can refer to the fleetingness of perception itself, i.e., labels,(rather than the objects of perception)
you are mixing up objects with perception
male & female are not illusions. they are forces & elements of nature
'male' (or female) is not an indivisibe thing. but rather a construct of attributes that one selects, or accepts, to form an aggregation, that humans stick a label on, for convienience.
wrong. I have explained to you, many many times, you are invoking the mind as "God", as though labels create things, like the mental label "Mt Everest" creates the 9,000 metres of rock, ice & earth that is Mt Everest itself.
labels are descriptive words about things but labels are not the things themselves
again, you are mixing up labels with things
but the problem, or trouble, arises when we see this label as something solid or well-defined
no. the problem, or trouble, arises when we see the object, labelled, as something solid or well-defined.
an object can be labelled according to reality (such as impermanent form) or labelled against reality (such as permanent form)
also, problems arise when emotions are created by labels. for example, the label "beautiful" gives rise to the emotion of lust. or the label "my enemy", gives rise to the emotion of hate or fear
labels themselves are not generally problems, which is why The Enlightened identified the cause of problems as craving & clinging rather than labelling
to label a tree as a "tree" is not inherently problematic. but to label the tree as "my permanent never to die tree" is certainly inherently problematic
the attributes (such as emotions and various tendancies) 'exist' in a similar fashion as 'one' 'moves' into the more etherial (non-'physical'), the degree of freedom increases, and this is also why 'spirituality' goes underground, because, generally speaking, there is strong attachment to physicallity and when it is broken, the attachment is necessarily sacrificed, - this can be very dangerous, if unballanced.
this is very confusing to read
1st, please refer to the mind rather than to 'one' (lol)
emotions are mental 'pyscho-babble'. pretty much unrelated to this topic or perception itself
emotions arise from certain perceptions. certain perceptions are the cause that gives rise to emotion
for anyone else that is reading this, i do not believe in, or promote reincarnation, as ddzx projects that i do. but rather rebirth - the illusion-like manifestation of an illusion-like self perpetuation out of factors such as inertia and momentum - habit
you have posted many times on this forum about post-mortem continuity. whether labelled "rebirth" or "reincarnation", it is essentially the same mental manufactured fantasy
we live in a conventional world and in order to discuss things we must use a conventional language
yes...and so?
subsequently, such languages are subject to higher views, and all sentences can be rendered "irrelevant" in the light of gnosis.
not so. languages are required for communication. languages use words to descriptively describe things & relationships
again, you are stuck in invoking "God", as though labels are things
from the light of gnosis, food, such as bananas or meat pies, are still necessary for the maintenance of life
whether food is labelled or not, spoken about or not, a life engaged in higher gnosis still must consume food
as for gnosis, itself, it is knowledge. knowledge manifests itself as mental comprehension or intelligence
for example, before enlightenment, reality is constructed as permanent. after enlightenment, the reality of things is comprehended as impermanent
things continue to be perceived or comprehended.
enlightenment is not an absence of comprehension, i.e., realistic perception
to gain anything from a sentence we must have some skill in reading between the lines, or allowing what is between the lines to read itself to us.
more imaginative non-sense
try a thought experiment (and assume many words enclosed in inverted commas - ie, 'your')
please stop inverting words in commas. it is not necessary
I explained previously, use the word the mind, if necessary.
imagine that you can leave your body
wrong
to rephrase: imagine that the mind can leave the body it is connected to
on your kitchen bench is a banana and a doughnut
wrong
to rephrase: on a kitchen bench is a banana and a doughnut
due to certain mental habituation you choose to inhabit the banana
lol...rofmlao
then you form some ideas about the banana (that you believe that you have become) stong and dominant and the doughnut being soft and receptive.
lol...lmao....rofmlao
but this is just a fabfication of the mind
wrong. if ripe, the banana is soft
that you think your are that is indivisible from the object
what is this "you" that is being referred to?
also, which actual component of mind was able to live in the banana?
that is, does feeling live in the banana, perception live in the banana, thinking live in the banana, consciousness live in the banana??
Sarco. you are mixed up because you believe the mind lives in the body, i.e., minds chose to be reincarnated into physical bodies
in reality, mind & body are inseparable and mind is a product of the body (e.g. energy, neurons, etc)
untill you enetered the picture, there was no male or female - you created it out of ignorance.
wrong, as said many times
when scientists are examining cells & organisms in the laboratory, they perceive the differences between those cells & organisms
those different cells & organisms are labelled "male" & "female"
if those different cells & organisms are labelled "dogs" and "zaps" (instead of "male" and "female"), the difference between those cells & organisms remains, just as the difference between green lightwaves and red lightwaves or the difference between fire & ice remain
there was always male & there was always female
yes...as a said
"Split a piece of wood and i am there lift a stone and you will find me"
this verse is meaningless idiocy
split a piece a piece of wood or lift a stone what no "me" will be found there. instead, the atmosphere of the earth will be found there, unless the wood or stone are immersed in water, then water will (rather than "me") will be found there
after a while one can start too see through things such as buddzxism
Sarco. you will have to provide evidence what you posted is related to buddzxism, since what you posted is definitely subjective idiosyncratic Sarcoism
