Vincent Cheok, Zen Buddhist and Jesuit Catholic. Retired lawyer and accountant.

Updated Jan 14, 2018

You asked - "Is everything in our life just an illusion?"

I must advise you that I am a Zen Buddhist and that my answer will obviously be given from a Buddhist epistemological
and soteriological point of view. So, please read it and enjoy for what it is, and accept or reject it for what it is worth to
you.

I make this reservation because I was once 'hammered and chastised and ridiculed' by something that I posted which
offended some people of the Abrahamic faiths.

I also make this reservation because there is no proselytising in Buddhism.

Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhism is a personal rather than a congregational calling. Buddhism is an ancient
contemplative or meditative yoga practice of philosophical enquiry into the nature of all things and circumstances.
Buddhism is in essence a practical cultivation of the Four Noble Truths.

The Four Noble Truths are - (1) the premise that life (in the verb sense of 'living') is in broad terms 'suffering' or
unsatisfactory in the overall experience of it (2) the probable main causes being 'craving' and 'delusion' [as in
delusionary 'thinking'] (3) that there is a possible way to end this life of 'suffering' and that (4) this, as advocated by the
Buddha, is by way of the Eightfold Noble Path.

The Eightfold Noble Path can be divided into its 3 separate components :-

(1) Moral or Civil Conduct :-

Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood.

(2) Mental Conduct or Development :-

Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration

(3) Wisdom

Right Understanding, Right Thought

[All in the transitive 'verb' sense]

Introduction

It looks like a very simple question but trust me, it is in fact very complicated. Why?

This is because we have not defined as to whose (the subject) perspective and what (the object) is in the 'everything'
that is being looked at.

And then there is a further complication i.e. within which realm or dimension are we examining this hypothesis?

There are infinite realms out there whether we view them as (i) the layers of an infinite 'onion' or (ii) as infinite parallel
worlds (as in the movie MATRIX); all concurrent or consubstantial, endless beyond conceivability.

[Refer to the inconceivable endless extant and extent of dimensions of Buddha-lands, where simultaneously one
Buddha-land is in all Buddha-lands and all Buddha-lands are in one Buddha-land (the Buddhist expression is the 'Brahma
Net') in the Avatamsaka Sutra and also the Brahmajala Sutra].

For the purpose of this discussion we will however restrict ourselves to :-

(1) the worldly or conventional or human or experiential realm, this world of ours, this world that is 'suffering' or
unsatisfactory, that is termed 'samsara' - the world of the web of deceit that subjects all in it to the immutable law of
'karma', of 'cause and effect', resulting in endless cycles of 'rebirth', due to un-expiated karmic consequences; and
behind the curtain backdrop to this worldly of conventional realm is -

(2) the transcendental or metaphysical or ultimate reality realm of 'sunyata' - a Sanskrit word that is usually translated
into English as 'emptiness' or 'void', but that is not what it really means exactly. My own personal preference is for
'illusion' or 'phantasm'. I note that you have used the term 'illusion' in your question.
The 'reality' perceived by a 'subject' of an 'object' is, we would quite naturally say, as worldly or human or experiential
beings, through our mind and senses. Since 'mind and senses' fall under a broader concept or umbrella called 'acumen'
or 'insight', let us use a generic term for this broader concept or umbrella i.e. - 'mind-consciousness'

So whether we refer to the first - worldly or conventional or human or experiential insight or to the second -
metaphysical or transcendental or ultimate insight, we will equally apply the same generic term of 'mind-consciousness'
to both, to facilitate, and for ease of, our discussion.

Accordingly:-

(1) in the worldly or conventional or or experiential or human realm - the mind-consciousness sees and experiences the
'worldly reality' of the world of 'suffering', the world of 'samsara', the world of the immutable law of karma and endless
cycles of 'rebirth', if any karmic residue remains.

(2) in the transcendental or metaphysical realm - the mind-consciousness with 'equanimity' (please pause to detect the
subtle difference - hint - 'like the water of a duck's back') sees the 'transcendental reality' of the 'emptiness' or 'void' or
'illusion' or 'phantasm' that is 'sunyata'.

So, the quick answer to your question is as follows :-

(1) as a worldly or conventional or experiential or human being, worldly thinking that you are in fact substantive in your
'ego' personae i.e. a permanent distinct and independent entity, what you worldly experience, is very real, and neither
you or any other worldly being in the world can deny this, for you are what your worldly mind-consciousness imagines
and sees you and everything in your life is. [Just a reminder that your worldly mind-consciousness is basically your
worldly mind and its companion five senses.].

(2) as a metaphysical or transcendental being however, and seeing 'ultimate reality' through transcendental eyes or
transcendental wisdom or transcendental insight - the worldly or conventional or human or experiential realm and
'everything' in it, including you, as a worldly being, is 'emptiness' or 'void' or 'illusion' or 'phantasm' that is of 'sunyata'.

Explanation of Sunyata and Mind-Consciousness.

Our focal point is on these twin concepts of (a) 'sunyata' and (b) 'mind-consciousness'. We will leave the discussion on
'samsara' and the immutable law of karma to some other day, even though they are integral parts of the big picture.

Later on we will make reference to the word 'Self'. In Buddhism there is no 'Self' as a noun, as what is referred to as
'Soul' in Western parlance, as a substantive permanent being, whether eternal, ephemeral or ethereal. Buddhism strictly
treats 'Self' as a verb, the 'thinking' of or the 'consciousness of an ego of a Self'. For the rest of the discussion I will adopt
the Buddhist methodology of 'Self' as a verb.

It is important and very critical that you understand and make a connection with seeing words as a 'verb' and not a
'noun' as a mind-set. Why?

This is because the Buddhist explanation of the 'illusion' or 'phantasm' that is of 'sunyata' is predicated on the 'thinking'
or imaging or imagination of the mind-consciousness. This premise presumes or assumes that the mental 'images' in the
mind-consciousness, when it is 'thinking' (as distinct from when it is reposed like a pendulum at rest, when 'not
thinking') are - (i) not ''frozen' like snapshots, but fluid and in continuous motion like a movie or virtual reality and (ii) are
of a kaleidoscopic nature (** it is not necessary and therefore irrelevant to find the first cause or effect or to establish or
have to prove a beginning or an end).

I reiterate, focus on the verb and not the noun of a word. Buddhism is about 'thinking' (verb). Buddhism is 'thinking'
(verb) about 'thinking' (verb). I know, I am beginning to sound like a broken record. But I am doing something that the
Buddhist books you buy in the bookshop are failing to tell you, in terms of first principles of Buddhism, (and you will
definitely thank me for being so pedantic on this point), and that is why most cultivators end up on the garden path to
nowhere rather than the Middle Path of the Buddha.

Here I am currently leading you to when you are 'thinking' (verb) of what the 'illusion' or 'phantasm' of 'sunyata' means,
i.e. you must and should be 'thinking' (verb) of what the mind-consciousness is doing when the mind-consciousness is
'thinking' (verb) and when it is 'not thinking' (verb). Please ponder in depth on what I have kept reiterating. Your spiritual
awakening depends on it!

For this is what the Buddha meant when he said that unless a person had spiritual eyes and spiritual knowledge, the
concept of 'sunyata' is inconceivable, incomprehensible and ungraspable.

Now a quick test as to your mental acuity.

Once you start talking about a Self and a God, as nouns, you are talking the opposite to the mind-consciousness
'thinking'; for now we have humans in their 'thinking' (noun) conjunctively 'grasping' at the ego of a Self and the ego of a
God-Self (or as the Hindus put Godhead).

And because the mind-consciousness has been used to freeze images like a picture frame, the 'thinking' is now a noun,
and therefore a falsehood for you cannot (but when you do) freeze the verb that is the 'thinking', you end up with the
product (noun) of false thinking, of a Self and of a God, and voila!, the Self and the God are now suddenly conceivable,
comprehensible and graspable!!!

That is why in Buddhism when we say that if everything is 'sunyata' or 'illusion' or 'phantasm', then there is 'nothing' of
any entity, substrate, form, concept, word or label. All these 'nouns' are 'man-made' when we presume audaciously to
'freeze' the 'thinking' (verb) and thus stop 'thinking' (verb).

And this human audacity is very obvious in the ego of Self that is man. But it is a false ego if man can create and define a
new noun, a new word, each to mean whatever he wants it to mean. Simply put, there is only a Self or a God because of
this 'delusion' or ignorance in the false 'thinking' (verb) that the mind-consciousness can stop 'thinking' (verb) when it is
'thinking' (verb)

Summing up, as we go along, so that we do not lose our flow of logic in thought - Buddhism is not about concepts or
words or labels and what they mean and what their definitions are. Buddhism is basically, in a very short sentence,
about 'thinking' e.g. what is the cause of suffering and what is the way to the ending of suffering?.

Buddhism is therefore a meditative or contemplative (i.e. 'thinking') spiritual practice. It is about whether our 'thinking'
is 'mindful' or 'not mindful', whether our 'thinking' is thoughtful or 'not thoughtful', whether it is wholesome or
unwholesome, and most importantly, as I have meticulously ground it into your inner perspicacity, whether it is a
delusionary 'thinking' or not.

When you know that all is 'sunyata' of an 'illusion' or 'phantasm' out there, you should therefore not be clinging,
grasping, longing or attaching to any noun of a 'form' or 'no form', whatever that noun of an entity, whether eternal or
otherwise.

Remember what I said about the 'kaleidoscopic' nature of the mind-consciousness? Even 'time' itself is considered to be
an 'illusion', since there is no perceivable beginning or a foreseeable end (as we shall see later).

We Buddhists take the point that there is no Self or God very seriously. That is why it hard and yet also simple to be a
Buddhist! In fact, we have a saying in Zen, that if Buddha stays in your mind, kill him! It would be blasphemous or a
sacrilege for us Buddhists to say that if we thought that the Buddha were a God or if we did not have the wisdom to
understand the inconceivable, the incomprehensible and the ungraspable that is the 'illusion', the 'phantasm' that is
'sunyata'.

And, because of 'sunyata', and here is the shocking truth or revelation, in the ultimate truth that is the 'illusion', the
'phantasm' of 'sunyata' there is no Four Noble Truths, no suffering, no end to suffering, no Eightfold Noble Path, no
'samsara', no immutable law of karma, no rebirths, no 'enlightenment' and definitely no 'nirvana' [refer to the Heart
Sutra].

However those who believe in a Self behind our mortal worldly being, think otherwise, based on blind faith, religious or
otherwise, as there is no scientific or philosophical logical proof. They therefore aspire that upon their death, that they
can unite with their 'other side of the coin' - their omnipresent, omniscient and omnipresent God.

We will now try to decipher this mysterious metaphysical concept of 'sunyata' that the Buddha described as
inconceivable, incomprehensible and ungraspable by the ordinary man. (I think what he meant was by 'delusionary
thinking' (verb) rather than the noun in 'ordinary man'. See even the Buddha can have a 'slip of the tongue'! Ha! ha!
[Even Buddhists have a sense of humour!].

Before I begin, allow me to lead you in or warm you up as to the dialectic logic and reasoning to be used :-

Illustration 1 - we have to put ourselves into a metaphysical frame of mind, where the blind can see, where the deaf can
hear and where the comatose can think. Like when we see, hear and think in our dream state. Or, like when we see
what we saw, hear what we heard, think what we thought at a particular time in our past, whether when young, at
school, at university or more recently, other than right now. We have to think, see, hear, smell, taste and feel
'kaleidoscopically' within our mind. The mental images roll on relentlessly or we can have flashbacks but the movie show
goes on! We will discuss this further as to this kaleidoscopic 'creativity' to make something out of nothing for 'dreams'
are like that! We humans 'create' and 'invent' because we can 'dream'! Think about this. Even 'delusion' can have an
upside! Surprise! Surprise! There is no act of God making one rich and one poor or one clever and one stupid or one
pretty and one ugly. Like the moon, 'delusion' has a bright side and a dark side! It is all a dream!

Illustration 2 - take the examples of the 'house and its individual windows' and the 'oxcart wheel'. There is no 'form' or
substance to a 'house and its individual windows' and the 'oxcart wheel', if it were not for the 'emptiness' or 'void' that
they enfold. Refer to the didactic tenet in the Heart Sutra of "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form".

According to the Mind-Consciousness School of Thought the Buddha says that the 'mind-consciousness', in its quality of
equanimity of 'totally absolute' unmoving, unwavering and unchanging state of pure luminous acumen, when 'not
thinking' (verb) is the creator of 'all things' when it is 'thinking'. What does the Buddha mean exactly?
Not to downgrade the Buddha in anyway at all, but it is a matter of fact that the French philosopher Descartes arrived at
the same conclusion, when he said - "I think, therefore I am. [If I do not, I am not.]". [Words within square brackets
added by me for clarity of elucidation]. This is to allay any fear or pretence that the Buddha has a monopoly on wisdom.
The Buddha is just another 'illusion' after all. He is only a worldly, conventional, experiential and human truth or worldly
reality in the conventional world that is 'samsara'.

The expression 'all things' above refer to the ever-changing never substantialising 'kaleidoscopic' phantasmagoria of all
the phenomena that we each, having a mind-consciousness of an ego of Self, individually, and collectively as humanity
by cross-gregarious association, perceive and live and feel the 'reality' of the worldly experience of.

But the 'reality' of our worldly experience is not real because we can never find anything substantial or permanent or
totally absolute that we can pinpoint and identify and grasp from one point in any moment of time to the next point in
any moment of time. That includes our 'mind-consciousness of an ego of Self' or of the Buddha. And that is why this is a
false 'thinking' of an 'illusory or false ego of Self' or of the Buddha!

What we, in our worldly illusory or false ego of Self, see, hear, taste, smell and touch in the 'now' and 'present' of our
worldly experience of 'reality' in our mind-consciousness of an illusory or false ego of Self, is always actually already in
the 'past', when you think how long it takes for our worldly 'senses' to be 'deciphered' and 'processed' and 'computed'
before it is delivered as a 'present' (get the pun?) to us, in our worldly illusory or false ego of Self, in a sort of a 3D
projection hologram (remember Star Wars plagiarising this concept through the beam-out of R2D2?) in the space or
emptiness of the blank screen in or of our mind.

The stars and galaxies we, in our worldly illusory or false ego of Self, worldly see in the night sky might not be existent?
Get it?

This 'illusion' or 'phantasm' of what is described by the Buddha as in the 'sunyata', as in being empty or void of
substance or substrate or total absoluteness in the phantasmagoria of all the phenomena that we, in our worldly illusory
or false ego of Self, worldly sense is also confirmed by applying the dialectic elliptical logic of the Greek philosophers.

Everything we, in our worldly illusory or false ego of Self, worldly know is changing and moving in 'value' as in the
'measurement' or 'determination' of it, because they are relative or subject to each other in the juxtapositioning.

Take time and date, it is human knowledge based or computed. We say it is BC or AD and yet we actually do not know
when Jesus was born or died. The time we set is based on the relative revolving or rotation of the sun, earth and moon,
and is of use only to humans. But what about the aliens out there? So, by deduction, the past, present and future only
exist in relativity with or to each other. Otherwise none of them exist.
Time is relative or subjective like all things when it is dependent on this subject-object axis or matrix. If this were not
true then Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is groundless. Let me give you a real life example. When you are waiting
for your lover to arrive at the rendezvous, 5 minutes is like 5 hours. But when you are entwined in each other's company
later, 5 hours is like 5 minutes! Accordingly, time is therefore an 'illusion'.

This relativity or subjectivity or duality that all measurements or values are predicated on, means that there is nothing
actually 'totally absolute' about them, which is saying that they are not of a permanent entity or substantial substrate
that we can carry over from one point of moment in time to another.

Accordingly, in our worldly illusory or false ego of Self worldly 'thinking' (verb) - things are 'created'.

At this point, I like to return to the analogy of dreams or should I say 'dreaming' (verb). Coincidentally, but it is true, the
Aborigines in Australia in their folklore explains 'Creation' as 'The Dreaming'.

This is an exercise in logic in abstruse logic. I am asleep and 'dreaming'. Let us say in the dreaming of the dream, I am the
idealistic handsome and well endowed Casanova (unlike plain and mundane me!) performing his sexual exploits. The
passion of the chase and the capture and the rapture of the conquest are all very real in the experience of it and I ended
in my actual worldly being with a 'wet dream' of a dreaming. Get the picture.

Let us extrapolate that it is possible that my existence is someone else's dreaming, and his 'dreaming' is also someone
else's dreaming and so forth, and imagine all these 'dreaming' of dreams can be concurrent in infinite parallel worlds as
indicated in the movie MATRIX!

Not only that, besides the concurrence, how about the progression and the digression, that is looking at the two
opposite directions of movement of the 'dreaming'? How far back? Or, how far ahead? That is why in this relativity and
subjectivity there cannot be found a first cause or the beginning or at the other end, a definite terminus or termination.

Now, I ask you again. What is real and what is illusory? It is all relative in perspective is it not?

It comes back to the preamble - from whose (the subject) perspective and what (the object) is in the everything that is
being looked at and within which realm or dimension are we examining this hypothesis?
If the mind-consciousness of our worldly illusory or false ego of Self (as a collective) were to stay still like the stopping of
this pendulum of thought, i.e. the pendulum at rest - the universe and all things that we, in our worldly illusory or false
ego of Self, worldly imagines or dreams - will just simply disappear.

So, I think we now understand or appreciate the characteristics of this 'illusion' or 'phantasm' of 'sunyata' that is
'emptiness'. But how do we define or visualise this 'sunyata' and transpose it to the pervasive mind-consciousness that
the Buddha was referring to?

First, in the 'illusion' or 'phantasm' of 'sunyata' that is 'emptiness', the mind-consciousness that it represents cannot also
be anything other than a 'sunyata'. It cannot have an ego of Self, that screams out -"I am mind-consciousness!". For that
would be like a God! But for an illusory God in 'sunyata' to have an ego of Self is to be delusional! Who wants a
delusional God? To avoid this problem in Buddhism we just say - "mind-consciousness just is" or "mind-consciousness is
just thus".

Second, we say that mind-consciousness is 'intangible' and 'formless' like the 'quality' of the 'reflectivity' that is the
'backing' of a mirror. This inherent 'quality' of 'reflectivity' in the matter that is the 'backing' of the mirror, unlike the
physical character of form of the backing itself, is however unborn, undying, unmoving, immutable and 'absolute' in its
'quality'.

This 'quality' of 'reflectivity' is also inherently pervasive in its total equanimity - it is totally ambivalent, indifferent,
nonchalant and does not get involve with anything, just like a fly on the wall, for it cannot be bias in any shape manner
or form.

We now know that this is mind-consciousness in repose, like a pendulum at rest, is when mind-consciousness is 'not
thinking' (verb).

Third, we say that when the mind-consciousness, that is the 'illusion' or 'phantasm' of 'sunyata' that is 'emptiness', that
is the 'quality' of the 'reflectivity' that is the 'backing' of a mirror, emanates itself in the worldly false ego of self in the
'samsara' of suffering, where the immutable law of karma is in full steam, it does so in the 'illusion' that is the
kaleidoscopic phantasmagoria of worldly phenomena, and kindly note, ever-changing and therefore not absolute.

This 'illusion' is like, (in contrast to that is the 'quality' of the 'reflectivity' that is the 'backing' of a mirror, which is
absolute and never moves), the ever changing never absolute 'kaleidoscopic' 'reflections' 'in' the mirror.

We now know that this is mind-consciousness in animated action, in full flight, like a movie, is when it is 'thinking' (verb).
Fourth, the 'absolute' 'reflectivity' of and the 'non-absolute' 'reflections' in the mirror are neither 'form' (noun) nor ''not
form' (noun) and are pervasive 'thinking' (verb) or 'not thinking' (verb). And they both metaphorically relate to and
emanate from the same mind-consciousness. They are the two sides to the same coin, the same mind-consciousness.
The 'absolute' 'reflectivity' of the mirror is like the pendulum of a grandfather clock at 'rest' and the 'non-absolute'
'reflections' in the mirror are like the pendulum of a grandfather clock 'in motion'.

In Buddhism we describe the former as 'nirvana' [the mind-consciousness in peaceful blissful repose of 'not thinking']
and the latter as the 'agitated monkey in the mind' [the mind-consciousness animated and fantasising or should that be
phantasming!]

But as we can see, there is neither Self or God to be identified with or grasped of related to. And that is why it is as the
Buddha said of the 'illusion', the 'phantasm' that is of 'sunyata' - that it is inconceivable, incomprehensible and
ungraspable.

Postscript.

Please do not take Buddhism too seriously or should I say do not take it religiously.

You do not have to trouble yourself with the metaphysical or the transcendental, or anything publicly broadcasted and
vainly advertised as spiritual and pristine, when you are young and fancy free, and able to enjoy the full flight and the
full spectrum of the multi-coloured and multi-weaving intricacies of the magic tapestry that is life.

Be like an intrepid explorer - go and experience and enjoy life to the full - the sunshine and the rain, the different
seasons, the ups and downs, the good with the bad. But keep a copy of the Desiderata beside you. That is the only Bible
you ever need.

To everything there is a season, the Bible says. The Buddha was more plebeian and mundane when he said - "The mango
will fall when it is ripe.".

Go and fall in love, raise a family, look after your aged parents, that is the true Zen (excuse the pun) for life!

Wait until (a) you are absolutely unhappy and have lost faith of life - when you see it as 'suffering', as a burden, as a
chore, as a gross inequity or as a 'Groundhog's Day' or when (b) you have been infected with a fear of 'death' all of a
sudden or when (c) you have become 'Socrates' and is verve'd to know who exactly you are, the reason for your 'state'
or 'lot' in existence, basically the 'who, when, what, where and whom' of 'you'?.

Vincent Cheok

Refiérase a la inconcebible e interminable existencia y extensión de las dimensiones de las tierras de Buda, donde
simultáneamente una tierra de Buda está en todas las tierras de Buda y todas las tierras de Buda están en una tierra de
Buda (la expresión budista es la "Red de Brahma") en el Sutra de Avatamsaka y también en el Sutra de Brahmajala].

Para el propósito de esta discusión nos limitaremos a :-

(1) el reino mundano o convencional o humano o experiencial, este mundo nuestro, este mundo que es `sufrimiento' o
insatisfactorio, que se llama `samsara' - el mundo de la red de engaño que somete a todos en él a la ley inmutable de
`karma', de `causa y efecto', resultando en ciclos interminables de `renacimiento', debido a consecuencias kármicas no
expiadas;

y detrás del telón de fondo de este reino mundano de lo convencional está

(2) el reino trascendental o metafísico o realidad última de `sunyata' - una palabra sánscrita que se traduce usualmente
al castellano como `vacío' o `vacío', pero eso no es lo que realmente significa exactamente. Mi preferencia personal es
por la `ilusión' o el `fantasma'. Observo que usted ha utilizado el término "ilusión" en su pregunta.

La "realidad" percibida por un "sujeto" de un "objeto" es, diríamos con toda naturalidad, como seres mundanos o
humanos o experienciales, a través de nuestra mente y nuestros sentidos. Puesto que'mente y sentidos' caen bajo un
concepto más amplio o paraguas llamado'perspicacia' o'perspicacia', usemos un término genérico para este concepto
más amplio o paraguas, es decir,'conciencia mental'.

Así que ya sea que nos refiramos a la primera - visión mundana o convencional o humana o experiencial o a la segunda -
metafísica o trascendental o última visión, aplicaremos igualmente el mismo término genérico de `conciencia de la
mente' a ambos, para facilitar, y para facilitar, nuestra discusión.

En consecuencia:-
(1) en el reino mundano o convencional o experiencial o humano - la conciencia de la mente ve y experimenta la
"realidad mundana" del mundo del "sufrimiento", el mundo del "samsara", el mundo de la ley inmutable del karma y los
ciclos sin fin del "renacimiento", si queda algún residuo kármico.

(2) en el reino trascendental o metafísico - la conciencia de la mente con'ecuanimidad' (por favor, haz una pausa para
detectar la sutil diferencia - insinuación - 'como el agua de la espalda de un pato') ve la'realidad trascendental' del'vacío'
o'vacío' o'ilusión' o'fantasma' que es'sunyata'.

Entonces, la respuesta rápida a su pregunta es la siguiente :-

(1) como un ser mundano o convencional o experiencial o humano, pensando mundanamente que eres de hecho
sustantivo en tu "yo" personae, es decir, una entidad permanente distinta e independiente, lo que experimentas
mundanamente es muy real, y ni tú ni ningún otro ser mundano en el mundo puede negar esto, porque eres lo que tu
mundana conciencia mental imagina y ve, y todo lo que hay en tu vida es. [Sólo un recordatorio de que tu conciencia
mundana es básicamente tu mente mundana y los cinco sentidos que la acompañan.].

(2) como un ser metafísico o trascendental sin embargo, y viendo la "realidad última" a través de ojos trascendentales o
sabiduría trascendental o perspicacia trascendental - el reino mundano o convencional o humano o experiencial y "todo"
en él, incluyéndote a ti, como ser mundano, es "vacío" o "vacío" o "ilusión" o "fantasma" que es de "sunyata".

Explicación del Sunyata y la conciencia de la mente.

Nuestro punto focal está en estos conceptos gemelos de (a) 'sunyata' y (b) 'conciencia mental'. Dejaremos la discusión
sobre el'samsara' y la inmutable ley del karma para otro día, aunque sean parte integral del panorama general.

Más adelante haremos referencia a la palabra "yo". En el budismo no hay un "yo" como sustantivo, como lo que en el
lenguaje occidental se denomina "alma", como un ser permanente sustantivo, ya sea eterno, efímero o etéreo. El
budismo trata estrictamente al `self' como un verbo, el `pensamiento' de o la `conciencia de un ego de un Ser'. Para el
resto de la discusión adoptaré la metodología budista de 'Ser o self' como verbo.

Es importante y muy crítico que usted entienda y haga una conexión con ver las palabras como un "verbo" y no como un
"sustantivo" como una mentalidad como algo perteneciente a la mente.¿ Por qué?
Esto se debe a que la explicación budista de la `ilusión' o `fantasma' que es de `sunyata' se basa en el `pensamiento' o
imagen o imaginación de la conciencia de la mente. Esta premisa presupone o asume que las `imágenes' mentales en la
conciencia de la mente, cuando está `pensando' (a diferencia de cuando está reposando como un péndulo en reposo,
cuando `no está pensando') son - (i) no `congeladas' como instantáneas, sino fluidas y en continuo movimiento como
una película o una realidad virtual y (ii) son de naturaleza caleidoscópica (** no es necesario y por lo tanto es
irrelevante encontrar la primera causa o efecto, o establecer o tener que probar un comienzo o un final).

Reitero, concéntrese en el verbo y no en el sustantivo de una palabra. El budismo se trata de'pensar' (verbo). El budismo
es'pensar' (verbo) acerca de'pensar' (verbo). Lo sé, estoy empezando a sonar como un disco rayado. Pero estoy
haciendo algo que los libros budistas que usted compra en la librería no le dicen, en términos de los primeros principios
del budismo (y usted definitivamente me agradecerá por ser tan pedante en este punto), y es por eso que la mayoría de
los cultivadores terminan en el sendero del jardín hacia ninguna parte en vez de en el sendero del medio de la senda del
Buddha.

Aquí estoy realmente llevándote a cuando estás `pensando' (verbo) en lo que significa la `ilusión' o `fantasma' de
`sunyata', es decir, debes y deberías estar `pensando' (verbo) en lo que está haciendo la Conciencia de la mente cuando
la Conciencia de la mente está `pensando' (verbo) y cuando está `no pensando' (verbo). Por favor, reflexionen en
profundidad sobre lo que he seguido reiterando. Tu despertar espiritual depende de ello!

Porque esto es lo que el Buda quiso decir cuando dijo que a menos que una persona tenga ojos espirituales y
conocimiento espiritual, el concepto de'sunyata' es inconcebible, incomprensible e inaprensible.

Ahora una prueba rápida de tu agudeza mental.

Una vez que empiezas a hablar de un Ser y de un Dios, como sustantivos, estás hablando lo opuesto a la conciencia de la
mente 'pensar'; por ahora tenemos a los humanos en su 'pensar' (sustantivo) conjuntamente 'aferrarse' al ego de un Ser
y al ego de un Dios-Ser (o como los hindúes ponen Deidad).

Y debido a que la conciencia de la mente ha sido usada para congelar imágenes como un marco de fotos, el
`pensamiento' es ahora un sustantivo, y por lo tanto una falsedad para ti no puedes (pero cuando lo haces) congelas el
verbo que es el `pensar', terminas con el producto (sustantivo) del pensar falso, de un Ser (Self) del Yo), de un Dios
(God), y ¡voilà, ahora de repente, ¡¡¡¡¡¡el Yo (Self) y el Dios(God)/son ahora súbita y llanamente imaginables, concebibles
comprehensibles y asibles y capturables!

Es por eso que en el budismo cuando decimos que si todo es "sunyata" o "ilusión" o "fantasma", entonces no hay "nada"
de ninguna entidad, sustrato, forma, concepto, palabra o etiqueta. Todos estos'sustantivos' son'hechos por el hombre'
cuando presumimos audazmente de `congelar' el `pensar' (verbo) y así dejar de `pensar' (verbo).

Y esta audacia humana es muy obvia en el ego del Ser(Self) que es el hombre. Pero es un ego falso si el hombre puede
crear y definir un nuevo sustantivo, una nueva palabra, cada uno para significar lo que quiera que signifique. En pocas
palabras, sólo hay un Ser (Self)o un Dios debido a esta 'ilusión' o ignorancia en el falso 'pensar' (verbo) de que la
Conciencia de la mente puede detener el 'pensar' (verbo) cuando está 'pensando' (verbo)
Resumiendo, a medida que avanzamos, para no perder nuestro flujo de lógica en el pensamiento - el budismo no se
trata de conceptos o palabras o etiquetas y lo que significan y cuáles son sus definiciones. El budismo es básicamente, en
una frase muy corta, acerca de "pensar", por ejemplo, ¿cuál es la causa del sufrimiento y cuál es el camino hacia el final
del sufrimiento?

El budismo es por lo tanto una práctica espiritual meditativa o contemplativa (es decir, "pensar"). Se trata de si nuestro
"pensamiento" es "atento" o "no atento", si nuestro "pensamiento" es realmente un pensamiento o "no lo es ", si es
integro o parcial, y lo más importante, ya que lo he anclado meticulosamente en tu perspicacia interior, si es un
"pensamiento" engañoso (ilusorio) o no.

Cuando sabes que todo es'sunyata' de una'ilusión' o'fantasma' allí fuera, no deberías, por lo tanto, aferrarte, agarrarte,
anhelar o apegarte a ningún sustantivo de una'forma' o'ninguna forma', cualquiera que sea ese sustantivo de una
entidad, ya sea eterna o de otro tipo.

¿Recuerdas lo que dije sobre la naturaleza "caleidoscópica" de la conciencia de la mente? Incluso el "tiempo" mismo es
considerado como una "ilusión", ya que no hay un comienzo perceptible ni un final previsible (como veremos más
adelante).

Nosotros, los budistas, tomamos muy en serio el hecho de que no existe el Ser (Self) o Dios. Por eso es tan difícil y a la
vez tan sencillo ser budista! De hecho, tenemos un dicho en Zen, que si Buda permanece en tu mente, ¡mátalo! Sería
una blasfemia o un sacrilegio para nosotros los budistas decir que si pensáramos que el Buda es un Dios o si no
tuviéramos la sabiduría para entender lo inconcebible, lo incomprensible y lo inaprensible que es la "ilusión", el
"fantasma" que es el "sunyata".

Y, por causa de 'sunyata', y he aquí la verdad impactante o revelación, en la verdad última (maxima )que es la `ilusión',
el `fantasma' de `sunyata' no hay Cuatro Nobles Verdades, no hay sufrimiento, no hay fin al sufrimiento, no hay Ocho
Nobles Senderos, no hay `samsara', no hay ley inmutable del karma, no hay renacimiento, no hay `iluminación' y
definitivamente no hay `nirvana' (se refiere al Sutra del Corazón).

Sin embargo, aquellos que creen en un Ser (self)detrás de nuestro ser mortal mundano, piensan de otra manera,
basados en la fe ciega, religiosa o de otro tipo, ya que no hay pruebas lógicas científicas o filosóficas. Por lo tanto,
aspiran a que, tras su muerte, puedan unirse con su "otra cara de la moneda", su Dios omnipresente, omnisciente y
omnipresente.

Ahora trataremos de descifrar este misterioso concepto metafísico de'sunyata' que el Buda describió como
inconcebible, incomprensible e inaprensible para el hombre común. (Creo que lo que quiso decir fue'pensamiento
ilusorio' (verbo) en lugar del sustantivo en 'hombre comun'. Vean, incluso el Buda puede tener un "lapsus de la lengua"!
¡Ja! ¡Ja! [¡Incluso los budistas tienen sentido del humor!]

. Antes de comenzar, permíteme guiarte o calentarte en cuanto a la lógica dialéctica y el razonamiento que se usará :-
Ilustración 1: tenemos que ponernos en un estado de ánimo metafísico, donde los ciegos pueden ver, donde los sordos
pueden oír y donde los comatosos pueden pensar. Como cuando vemos, oímos y pensamos cuando soñamos.

O, como cuando vemos lo que vimos, oímos lo que oímos, pensamos lo que pensamos en un momento particular de
nuestro pasado, ya sea cuando éramos jóvenes, en la escuela, en la universidad o más recientemente, aparte de ahora
mismo. Tenemos que pensar, ver, oír, oler, saborear y sentir "caleidoscópicamente" dentro de nuestra mente.

Las imágenes mentales ruedan implacablemente o podemos tener flashbacks, ¡pero la película continúa! Discutiremos
esto más a fondo en cuanto a esta'creatividad' caleidoscópica de hacer algo de la nada, ¡porque los'sueños' son así!

Nosotros los humanos'creamos' e'inventamos' porque podemos'soñar'! Piensa en esto. Incluso la'ilusión' puede tener
un lado positivo! Sorpresa! Sorpresa! No hay ningún acto de Dios haciendolo a uno rico y uno pobre o uno inteligente y
uno estúpido o a uno bonito y a uno feo. Al igual que la luna, ¡'delirio' (la ilusión) tiene un lado bueno y un lado oscuro!
Todo es un sueño!

Ilustración 2 - tome los ejemplos de la `casa y sus ventanas individuales' y la `rueda de carreta'. No hay forma ni
sustancia en una casa y sus ventanas individuales y en la rueda de carreta si no fuera por el vacío o vacuidad que
envuelven encierran . Refiérase al principio didáctico en el Sutra del Corazón de "La forma es vacío y el vacío es forma".

Según la Escuela de Pensamiento de la Conciencia de la Mente, el Buda dice que la `conciencia de la mente', en su
cualidad de ecuanimidad de `totalmente absoluta' inamobible, inquebrantable e inmutable de pura perspicacia
luminosa, cuando el `no pensar' (verbo) es el creador de `todas las cosas' cuando está `pensando'. ¿Qué quiso decir
exactamente el Buda?

No es por degradar al Buda en absoluto, pero es un hecho que el filósofo francés Descartes llegó a la misma conclusión,
cuando dijo: "Pienso, por lo tanto, existo". [Si no lo hago, no soy.]". [Palabras entre corchetes añadidas por mí para
mayor claridad]. Esto es para disipar cualquier temor o pretensión de que el Buda tiene el monopolio de la sabiduría. El
Buda es sólo otra'ilusión' después de todo. Él es sólo una verdad mundana, convencional, experiencial y humana o una
realidad mundana en el mundo convencional que es'samsara'.

La expresión `todas las cosas' arriba se refiere a la siempre cambiante y nunca substancializadora
fantasmagoría'caleidoscópica' de todos los fenómenos de los que cada uno de nosotros, teniendo una conciencia mental
de un ego del Ser (Self), individual y colectivamente como humanidad por medio de una asociación entrecruzada,
percibimos y vivimos y sentimos la `realidad' de la experiencia mundana.

Pero la "realidad" de nuestra experiencia mundana no es real porque nunca podemos encontrar nada sustancial o
permanente o totalmente absoluto que podamos identificar, señalar y comprender (agarrarnos) desde un punto en
cualquier momento del tiempo hasta el siguiente punto en cualquier momento del tiempo. Eso incluye
nuestra'conciencia mental de un ego del Ser'(Self) o del Buda. Y es por eso que es un falso 'pensar' en un 'ego ilusorio o
falso del Self' o del Buda!

Lo que nosotros, en nuestro ego mundano ilusorio o falso del Self, vemos, oímos, probamos, olfateamos y tocamos en el
`ahora' y `el `presente' de nuestra experiencia mundana de la `realidad' en nuestra conciencia mental de un ego ilusorio
o falso del Ser, siempre está ya en realidad en el `pasado', cuando piensas en cuánto tiempo le toma a nuestros
`sentidos' mundanos ser `descifrados' y `procesados' y `computados' antes de que nos sea entregado como `presente'
(¿notan el juego de palabras?) , en nuestro ego mundano ilusorio o falso del Ser, en una especie de holograma de
proyección en 3D (¿recuerdas la Guerra de las Galaxias plagiando este concepto mediante el haz de R2D2?) en el espacio
o vacío de la pantalla en blanco dentro y fuera de nuestra mente.