Idealism and the Veil of Illusion

[Magical Realist]

Is an idealism that concludes everything is just an illusion still an idealism?
It seems to be a Buddhist concept. We are surrounded by the ten thousand things of separate existence (Maya or "deception") and must follow the path of ultimate oneness or Being (enlightenment). But if everything around us is just illusionary projections from our own minds, then the reality must simply be our own atman or higher Self that projects all this. Hence the core belief in a fundamental Being that we are part of and expressive of and not in a world that is falsely conjured by our minds. Hence Buddhism as an absolute realism?

[C C]

Yazata's the expert on Buddhism.

[Secular Sanity]

He's not very responsive. Might not even show up in this thread. I'll just toss in my two cents, if you don't mind. Well, that and little ChatGPT. 

No secret that I enjoyed Anil Seth's work. 

Anil Seth's understanding of consciousness and the brain aligns more with Deleuze's concept of subjectivity rather than Buddhism's concept of anatta (non-self).

As a neuroscientist, Anil Seth's work is grounded in empirical research and scientific investigations of the brain's mechanisms underlying consciousness. His theory of "Predictive Processing" or "Predictive Coding" proposes a neurobiological framework for how the brain generates subjective experiences and perceptions. This theory emphasizes the dynamic and ever-changing nature of consciousness, which resonates with Deleuze's idea of subjectivity as a process of becoming and constant transformation.

Deleuze's concept of subjectivity, which emphasizes the fluid and multiplicitous nature of the self, aligns well with the modern understanding of consciousness as a complex and dynamic phenomenon arising from the interactions of various brain processes and sensory inputs.

On the other hand, Buddhism's concept of anatta (non-self) posits that there is no fixed and independent self and that the sense of self is an illusion. This perspective is rooted in a metaphysical and philosophical understanding rather than empirical neuroscience.

While both Deleuze's philosophy and Buddhism offer valuable insights into the nature of subjectivity and consciousness, Anil Seth's work in neuroscience is more aligned with the scientific approach of understanding consciousness as a dynamic and ever-changing process, which aligns with Deleuze's concept of subjectivity.

[Magical Realist]

I stand corrected. Buddhism believes the self to be an illusion. So what does it believe to be real? Anything? Yazata?

[C C]

I stand corrected. Buddhism believes the self to be an illusion. So what does it believe to be real? Anything? Yazata?

There are so many different schools of thought in Buddhism... It's maybe similar to asking what Western philosophy thinks about _X_, as if it only had one perspective.

Reality in Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

The Not-Self Doctrine (Mind in Indian Buddhism)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-...dhism/#1.1

Pudgalavada Buddhist Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/pudgalavada-buddhist-philosophy/

Tiantai Buddhism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-tiantai/

Huayan Buddhism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-huayan/

Chan Buddhism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-chan/

The Problem of Perception
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/

Objects of Perception
https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/

[Magical Realist]

There are so many different schools of thought in Buddhism... It's maybe similar to asking what Western philosophy thinks about _X_, as if it only had one perspective.

Thanks CC! Such a beautifully complicated flowing together of different streams of thought. I hesitate, repressing my typically Western urge for one simple and quotable answer. At present I only know there is a great mystery to be entered into here, and one whose very solution perhaps lies infinitely beyond me. I return to what I experience and can vouch for-- of a mind and a reality that appear everywhere inseparable and yet opposite to each other. I am comfortable and "at home" again in my dualism, granted a temporary reprieve from the insatiable addiction to a single certain and livable truth. "The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao."