SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[ralphinal]

rossum
What is nirvana?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Actually, it’s not, at least in my opinion…I would say those things which are Eternal have eternal qualities, and those things which are temporal, have temporal qualities…I can’t answer for you…as I understand Buddhism…you must find the answers for yourself…“If any one finds the Buddha, kill him.”

Excuse my ignorance, but if you can’t answer a yes/no question that basic, how can you even start on the journey? After all, I didn’t ask which things are eternal and which are not. I asked if *one must first know *which things are eternal and which are not.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Your question is wrongly put. You asked “if one desires”. That which you think of as your “one” is not what you think it is.

How do you know what I think? Are you a mind reader?

Since what you think of as “you” is not really you, it is not possible for “you” to desire anything.

Again, how do you know what I think?

As for the eternal, nothing is eternal and all things change. It is crucial for us that things do change. I have to change from unenlightened-rossum to enlightened-rossum and nirvana has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum. If you did find the eternal then it cannot react to you or acknowledge you in any way because it cannot change. An eternal unchanging heaven cannot change from heaven-without-Kay Cee to heaven-with-Kay Cee.

You cannot find enlightenment “out there”, you can only ever find it here and now. You cannot be elsewhere that “here”; you cannot be elsewhen that “now”. Nirvana is here and now:There is not the slightest difference between samsara and nirvana.There is not the slightest difference between nirvana and samsara.Whatever is the limit of nirvana, that is the limit of samsara.There is not the even slightest difference between them, or even the subtlest thing.Nagarjuna Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20rossum

What amazes me is that my question is so misunderstood. I did not ask which things are eternal. That was not my question at all.

And now I’m even more confused. Publisher said we must “seek at-one-ment with the things which are Eternal.” But now you say “nothing is eternal.”

I will wait for the two of you to straighten that out before we proceed.

 

[Publisher]

Excuse my ignorance, but if you can’t answer a yes/no question that basic, how can you even start on the journey? After all, I didn’t ask which things are eternal and which are not. I asked if one must first know which things are eternal and which are not.

Ahh Kay Cee, I am not Buddhist…I am a Friend. I have a limited understanding of Buddhism, what I know is from personal research and discussions with Buddhist Friends…we do have some Buddhists in my Friends Meeting. Their views may be different than Friend Rossum.

Buddhism, as is Quakerism, is a search for Truth…you will need to find the answers on what is Eternal and what is transitory for yourself…any answer I give you would be meaningless in the light of your experience which is different than mine.

We live in the “Eternal Now” and seek to live a mindful life…without being encombered by the pulls of this world which is “illusion”…not because it doesn’t “exist” but because of it’s “impermanence”…we believe wrongly that this “stuff” of mortality is “Real”, but it is not…it will disappear and be replaced by a different “illusion” of “permanence”. IF we live out of the Divine Center and in the Eternal Now, the things of this world lose it’s 'pull" on us, I as a Christian use different words in my expression of spiritual things than do Buddhists.

For me, the Light Within is my “link” with the Eternal. How I follow the Light Within…“that of God in each of us”…the Light of Christ…this Light Within is a refining Fire, in Christian terms the Holy Spirit of God Himself.

There is no “yes” or “no” answer to your questions…any answer given would be meaningless because the answer must come from your own experience with the Eternal. I understand what you asked…I just cannot answer it for you…nor can anyone else…at least according to my tradition anyway…and I’d say the same for most Buddhist traditions.

I’m sure though, you will find those traditions which will offer you better answers than I can.

Peace to you

 

[Sarpedon]

God changes, He does different things at different times. Anything that changes must be compound.

According to Catholic belief, God does not change. He is immutable. He is not in time, so all of His actions are timelessly made in the eternal present. Check out “The nature and attributes of God” at newadvent.org

 

[rossum]

A few years ago at some Washington DC function, the Dalai Lama encountered a Catholic Cardinal–in the course of their conversation, the Dalai Lama cheerfully admitted the prime difference between the two men was “you believe in a personal God and I do not”

THAT is a position I can respect and understand–not agree with mind you–but the DL was being consistent the the traditional tenants of Theraveda Buddhism.

<mode=nitpick>The Dalai Lama is a Mahayana Buddhist, not a Theravada Buddhist.

In fact, its been said as the dividing line between Christianity and the other world’s religions or philosophies, one could see it by asking the founders one question: “Are you God?” (In the personal, exclusive, monotheistic sense)

Confucious would look at you confused and shake his head and dismiss you as mad.

Buddha would say "You are obviously still in the bonds of illusion (maya).

Socrates would laugh.

Mohammed would tear his beard and order you killed.

Jesus, “Before Abraham was, I AM”

Soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha’s extraordinary and peaceful presence. The man stopped and asked,

“My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?”

“No,” said the Buddha.

“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”

Again the Buddha answered, “No.”

“Are you a man?”

“No.”

“Well, my friend, then what are you?”

The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”

rossum

 

[rossum]

What is nirvana?

[The Buddha said:]"There is, monks, the not-born, the not-become, the not-made, the not-determined.

If there were not that not-born, not-become, not-made, not-determined, there would be manifest no escape here from the born, the become, the made, the compounded.

But, monks, since there is the not-born, the not-become, the not-made, the not-determined, therefore an escape from the born, the being, the made, the determined is manifest."

Udana 8:3
Nirvana is different to the way most people seem to think of iteople long for big thrills. Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring.
As Nagarjuna said, nirvana is here and now.

rossum

 

[rossum]

How do you know what I think?

I do not know what you think, all I know is what you wrote in your question. Some of the words you used in your question have no real referent so your question was wrongly put.

And now I’m even more confused. Publisher said we must “seek at-one-ment with the things which are Eternal.” But now you say “nothing is eternal.”

Publisher is a Christian, a Friend. I am a Buddhist. We have different paths up the same mountain. You will be confused if you try to follow two different paths at the same time; select the path that suits you best and follow that path. Almost any path is better than no path at all.

Although it may not look like it, Publisher and me are actually saying roughly the same things. The problem arises because we are using words to point at the moon, and the words are not the moon. The words get in the way of seeing the moon.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

You should see results within weeks or months. I know that I did.

How do you know that your results are caused by Buddhism? Many actions that Buddhists practice, such as meditation and deep thinking, could have a positive effect regardless of religion. How do you know that your “results” are caused by the truth of Buddhism instead of simply the techniques?

You appear to have a mistaken idea of Buddhism. There is joy, happiness, peace and love but we are not attached to them. The problem is not the thing itself, the problem is in our attitude to it - the attachment.

If we lose all desire, even for concious existence, how can interpersonal things like love and friendship still exist? If two individuals no longer wish to recieve love from the other, how can it exist in any meaningful sense?

Catholicism seeks to perfect desire rather than eliminate it. We seek to focus all of our desire away from ourselves, onto God and each other. We still desire, but desire Someone else rather than our own interests.

The origin of the universe does not impact the rationality of Buddhism, hence it is relatively unimportant. I picked the example of Seth’s wife precisely because it was unimportant.

True, not answering the question of the origin of the universe does not impact the logical consistency of Buddhism. It simply removes a lot of support for it. In regards to Seth’s wife, not knowing her name does not cause any significant reduction in the evidence for Catholicism

The path exists because it works. We do not need to know its origins to be able to use it. It is reasonable because it works, it would be unreasonable to follow a path that did not work.

It’s not that easy to know that it works. If it was as easy as you make it sound, we would not be here discussing it.

Why can it be considered so. If I have no desire to go to New York am I somehow closer to non-existence? I do not follow your logic here.

If you have no desire to go to New York, whether you are there or not is irrelevant. If you do go there, you would still feel as if you were not there. You would feel the same either way, which makes the fact that you are in New York fairly meaningless. If we have no desire, even for concious existence, then whether we exist or not is irrelevant. We would “feel” (or, I suppose, not feel) the same. Thus, nirvana can be considered de facto nonexistence.

Because we made mistakes in the past, using incorrect methods which increased our desire rather than reduced it.

Why do mistakes create desire? Is this some form of punishment? Why not the other way around? Why is this system the way it is?

If we are selfless then we can have no desire, it is the self which “owns” the desire. With no self then we can have no desire, there is nothing for the desire to attach to.

“Selflessness” does not mean that there is no self or the self is bad. Rather, it means that the self is directed outward, toward other selves. We still desire, but desire the good of others rather than ourselves.

In the Buddhist system, those other selves do not need or want the love of any other self. In effect, this cuts the ties of love (in the sense of selflessness, rather than emotions). If nobody wants or needs love, then there is no reason to give it. Since nobody desires to help others, no one is inclined to give love in the first place.

 

[rossum]

How do you know that your results are caused by Buddhism? Many actions that Buddhists practice, such as meditation and deep thinking, could have a positive effect regardless of religion. How do you know that your “results” are caused by the truth of Buddhism instead of simply the techniques?

The results are not “caused by the truth of Buddhism”. Buddhism is a description of the world. The fact that its methods get results goes to show that Buddhism is indeed a correct description. An incorrect description would not give methods that worked. Other religions do indeed use the same methods and will get the same results. “You shall not kill” and “avoid false and malicious speech” are good for pretty much any religion. The results are an outcome of the correctness of the description.

If we lose all desire, even for concious existence, how can interpersonal things like love and friendship still exist? If two individuals no longer wish to recieve love from the other, how can it exist in any meaningful sense?

The perfect gift is given with no idea of a giver, no idea of a recipient and no idea of a gift."Moreover, Subhuti, when a bodhisattva practices generosity, he does not rely on any object–that is to say he does not rely on any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object, or dharma–to practice generosity. That, Subhuti, is the spirit in which a bodhisattva should practice generosity, not relying on signs. Why? If a bodhisattva practices generosity without relying on signs, the happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured. …

“Subhuti, if a bodhisattva does not rely on any concept when practicing generosity, then the happiness that results from that virtuous act is as great as space. It cannot be measured.”

Vajrachhedika prajnaparamita (Diamond) sutra 4

It’s not that easy to know that it works. If it was as easy as you make it sound, we would not be here discussing it.

The Christian religion contains a large part of the Buddhist path. Christianity does not have the meditation part of the path as well developed as does Buddhism, but the initial stages of meditation are present in Christianity. Given where most of us are starting from, the initial stages are sufficient for the moment.

If you have no desire to go to New York, whether you are there or not is irrelevant. If you do go there, you would still feel as if you were not there. You would feel the same either way

Precisely. If I want to go to New York and I am not in New York then I feel dissatisfied because I am not where I want to be. Even when I get to new York I may be disappointed because the real New York is not like the “New York” I had imagined before arriving. If I have no desire to goto New York then I cannot be dissatisfied because I am not there. If I have built up no idea of “New York” then I cannot be disappointed because there is no difference between my expectations and the reality.

which makes the fact that you are in New York fairly meaningless.

No, it removes the sources of dissatisfaction and disappointment. This is one of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism; if we remove the causes of unhappiness then we will be happy.

If we have no desire, even for concious existence, then whether we exist or not is irrelevant. We would “feel” (or, I suppose, not feel) the same. Thus, nirvana can be considered de facto nonexistence.

I still do not follow you. You seem to require the existence of desire as a condition for de facto existence. In the absence of desire we exist in a way that removes obstacles to happiness. As with the New York example, desires bring unhappiness with them. Only by removing desires can we cease to be unhappy. By clinging to desires you are actually clinging to unhappiness. It is a fundamental mistake to look for happiness in that which is unhappy.

Why do mistakes create desire? Is this some form of punishment? Why not the other way around? Why is this system the way it is?

Mistakes do not creates unhappiness, they result in unhappiness. If I make the mistake of thinking that I can obtain lasting happiness by drinking lots of alcohol then that mistake will result in long term unhappiness. It is not a punishment but just the operation of cause and effect from our (mistaken) actions. If I throw a rock straight up then it will come down on my head. Not “punishment”, just the result of my previous actions.

“Selflessness” does not mean that there is no self or the self is bad. Rather, it means that the self is directed outward, toward other selves. We still desire, but desire the good of others rather than ourselves.

In this context Christian selflessness is different from Buddhist selflessness. In Buddhism what we think of as our “selves” is actually no such thing, we are mistaking it for something that it is not.

In the Buddhist system, those other selves do not need or want the love of any other self. In effect, this cuts the ties of love (in the sense of selflessness, rather than emotions). If nobody wants or needs love, then there is no reason to give it. Since nobody desires to help others, no one is inclined to give love in the first place.

Most people are not enlightened so the Bodhisattva gives them love, kindness etc. The Bodhisattva knows that these things are not what they seem, but she does it anyway.“Subhuti, a bodhisattva who still depends on notions to practice generosity is like someone walking in the dark. He will not see anything. But when a bodhisattva does not depend on notions to practice generosity, he is like someone with good eyesight walking under the bright light of the sun. He can see all shapes and colors.”

Vajrachhedika prajnaparamita (Diamond) sutra 14

rossum

 

[ralphinal]

rossum,
So Nirvanna is a heightened understanding of the world around you, being in a state of unity with everything?

It is not a oneness with the force that propels the changes in the universe that can only be acheived when an awake person dies. Is that correct?

 

[rossum]

So Nirvanna is a heightened understanding of the world around you, being in a state of unity with everything?

All descriptions of nirvana fall short of the reality. You are in a state of unity with everything because you understand that underneath it all there is no “everything” and there is no “you” and there is no “unity”. That is why you are in a state of unity with everything. All differences are falsely imagined.

It is not a oneness with the force that propels the changes in the universe that can only be acheived when an awake person dies. Is that correct?

Pretty much. You do not have to die to attain nirvana. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35, he died at age 80. Standard Buddhism has heavens and hells for after you die, but these are all temporary.

rossum

 

[Kay_Cee]

Ahh Kay Cee, I am not Buddhist…I am a Friend. I have a limited understanding of Buddhism, what I know is from personal research and discussions with Buddhist Friends…we do have some Buddhists in my Friends Meeting. Their views may be different than Friend Rossum.

Buddhism, as is Quakerism, is a search for Truth…you will need to find the answers on what is Eternal and what is transitory for yourself…any answer I give you would be meaningless in the light of your experience which is different than mine.

We live in the “Eternal Now” and seek to live a mindful life…without being encombered by the pulls of this world which is “illusion”…not because it doesn’t “exist” but because of it’s “impermanence”…we believe wrongly that this “stuff” of mortality is “Real”, but it is not…it will disappear and be replaced by a different “illusion” of “permanence”. IF we live out of the Divine Center and in the Eternal Now, the things of this world lose it’s 'pull" on us, I as a Christian use different words in my expression of spiritual things than do Buddhists.

For me, the Light Within is my “link” with the Eternal. How I follow the Light Within…“that of God in each of us”…the Light of Christ…this Light Within is a refining Fire, in Christian terms the Holy Spirit of God Himself.

There is no “yes” or “no” answer to your questions…any answer given would be meaningless because the answer must come from your own experience with the Eternal. I understand what you asked…I just cannot answer it for you…nor can anyone else…at least according to my tradition anyway…and I’d say the same for most Buddhist traditions.

I’m sure though, you will find those traditions which will offer you better answers than I can.

Peace to you

If that’s what Buddhism is, I want nothing to do with it. It sounds like it denies permanent truths. If truth is but transitory, searching for it would be like grabbing at soap bubbles that pop the moment they are touched. What good is it to search for something that cannot be attained?

 

[rossum]

What good is it to search for something that cannot be attained?

Precisely. Once you have learned to stop searching for something you cannot find then you will be more peaceful and content.

You cannot find permanence in that which is impermanent. Trying to find it will only make you discontented and frustrated. Better to stop searching and not to create unhappiness for yourself.

rossum

 

[Kay_Cee]

I do not know what you think, all I know is what you wrote in your question. Some of the words you used in your question have no real referent so your question was wrongly put.

Then please don’t start a sentence with "You think . . . "

Publisher is a Christian, a Friend. I am a Buddhist. We have different paths up the same mountain. You will be confused if you try to follow two different paths at the same time; select the path that suits you best and follow that path. Almost any path is better than no path at all.

You claim “We have different paths up the same mountain.” Let’s examine that metaphor.

The analogy would seem to be that the paths begin at the base of the mountain and climb up the sides to the summit. But how do you know both paths reach the top? How can you claim to know they do, unless you yourself are at the summit and can therefore see both paths? How can you even claim both paths are on the same mountain unless you can clearly see both paths? If someone is on a path you can’t see, how do you know that path is climbing up the opposite side of the same mountain you’re on or climbing up a completely different mountain unless you’re already at the summit?

Although it may not look like it, Publisher and me are actually saying roughly the same things. The problem arises because we are using words to point at the moon, and the words are not the moon. The words get in the way of seeing the moon.

rossum

If Publisher says some things are eternal, and you say nothing is eternal, then you are saying opposite things, not roughly the same thing. Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction?

And let me ask another question: Are there absolute truths?

 

[Publisher]

Then please don’t start a sentence with "You think . . . "

You claim “We have different paths up the same mountain.” Let’s examine that metaphor.

The analogy would seem to be that the paths begin at the base of the mountain and climb up the sides to the summit. But how do you know both paths reach the top? How can you claim to know they do, unless you yourself are at the summit and can therefore see both paths? How can you even claim both paths are on the same mountain unless you can clearly see both paths? If someone is on a path you can’t see, how do you know that path is climbing up the opposite side of the same mountain you’re on or climbing up a completely different mountain unless you’re already at the summit?

If Publisher says some things are eternal, and you say nothing is eternal, then you are saying opposite things, not roughly the same thing. Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction?

And let me ask another question: Are there absolute truths?

Yes there are, but while many many finite individuals with finite intellegence may feel they are qualified to answer with absolute clarity on these absolute truths…I do not. Truth is something we live…not something we articulate like a math problem…I never got past 1st year college algebra.

I will trust Life and Light…I’m not overly concerned about the “hereafter”…it will take care of itself…I am interested in the Eternal Now…the Eternal Here and Now.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Publisher:
Yes there are, but while many many finite individuals with finite intellegence may feel they are qualified to answer with absolute clarity on these absolute truths…I do not. Truth is something we live…not something we articulate like a math problem…I never got past 1st year college algebra.

I will trust Life and Light…I’m not overly concerned about the “hereafter”…it will take care of itself…I am interested in the Eternal Now…the Eternal Here and Now.

Actually, you aren’t the one I asked, but thanks anyway.

 

[ralphinal]

All descriptions of nirvana fall short of the reality. You are in a state of unity with everything because you understand that underneath it all there is no “everything” and there is no “you” and there is no “unity”. That is why you are in a state of unity with everything. All differences are falsely imagined.

If there is no “you” or “everything” or even “unity,” then can it be said that you no longer have your unique consciousness?

Pretty much. You do not have to die to attain nirvana. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35, he died at age 80. Standard Buddhism has heavens and hells for after you die, but these are all temporary.

rossum

Ok.

 

[rossum]

Then please don’t start a sentence with "You think . . . "

My apologies. What I type is not always what I mean

You claim “We have different paths up the same mountain.” Let’s examine that metaphor.

The analogy would seem to be that the paths begin at the base of the mountain and climb up the sides to the summit. But how do you know both paths reach the top? How can you claim to know they do, unless you yourself are at the summit and can therefore see both paths? How can you even claim both paths are on the same mountain unless you can clearly see both paths? If someone is on a path you can’t see, how do you know that path is climbing up the opposite side of the same mountain you’re on or climbing up a completely different mountain unless you’re already at the summit?

Firstly, the Buddhist path. The Buddha got to the top and told us about it. Others since the Buddha have also got to the top and have told us about it. There are some people who have got very close to the top and have then come back down to help those of us who are still toiling upwards (these are Bodhisattvas). I have been told the landmarks that I will pass on the path, and I have duly passed some of the earlier landmarks in the order specified. I have reasonable confidence that this path is correct.

Secondly the Christian path. We can see that there is a great deal of overlap between the two paths. Morality and love for our neighbours is common to both. Meditation can be found in both (though it is more difficult to find in the Christian tradition). Much that is written of the Christian path also applies to what I have seen of the Buddhist path: “nada, nada, nada, y en el monte, nada.” Dionysius the Areopagite, Meister Eckhardt and Thomas Merton are also very Buddhist in their approach.

Thirdly, how can there be more than one mountain?

If Publisher says some things are eternal, and you say nothing is eternal, then you are saying opposite things, not roughly the same thing. Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction?

No, I believe in the insufficiency of non-eternal human language and finite human minds to understand the eternal and non-finite. The parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is relevant here:“Once, in this same Savatthi, there was a certain king who said to a certain man, ‘Gather together all the people in Savatthi who have been blind from birth.’”

"‘As you say, your majesty,’ the man replied and, rounding up all the people in Savatthi who had been blind from birth, he went to the king and on arrival said, ‘Your majesty, the people in Savatthi who have been blind from birth have been gathered together.’

"‘Very well then, show the blind people an elephant.’

"‘As you say, your majesty,’ the man replied and he showed the blind people an elephant. To some of the blind people he showed the head of the elephant, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’ To some of them he showed an ear of the elephant, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’ To some of them he showed a tusk… the trunk… the body… a foot… the hindquarters… the tail… the tuft at the end of the tail, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’

"Then, having shown the blind people the elephant, the man went to the king and on arrival said, ‘Your majesty, the blind people have seen the elephant. May your majesty do what you think it is now time to do.’

"Then the king went to the blind people and on arrival asked them, ‘Blind people, have you seen the elephant?’

"‘Yes, your majesty. We have seen the elephant.’

"‘Now tell me, blind people, what the elephant is like.’

"The blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a water jar.’

"Those who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.’

"Those who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like an iron rod.’

"Those who had been shown the trunk of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like the pole of a plow.’

"Those who had been shown the body of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a granary.’

"Those who had been shown the foot of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a post.’

"Those who had been shown the hindquarters of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.’

"Those who had been shown the tail of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.’

"Those who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.’

"Saying, ‘The elephant is like this, it’s not like that. The elephant’s not like that, it’s like this,’ they struck one another with their fists. That gratified the king.

Udana 6:4
We are blind men trying to describe an elephant.

And let me ask another question: Are there absolute truths?

Possibly, but we can never know for sure if there are or not because we have no absolutely reliable way of telling whether a truth is absolute or not. What absolutely verified way is there to determine whether or not a statement is an absolute truth? Even the fact that a statement is made in a human language probably disqualifies it because all human languages are contingent, not absolute.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If there is no “you” or “everything” or even “unity,” then can it be said that you no longer have your unique consciousness?

You cannot “no longer have” something that you never had in the first place. You may think that you have it but in fact you don’t. Just as a hypochondriac may be convinced that they have some disease when in fact they do not have it at all. The world we live in is not the way it seems to be. It looks like one thing, but it is not what it looks like. Enlightenment is understanding that the world is what it is, not what we think it is.

rossum