All is void.

[Quan Yin]

It's an illusion of perception, and illusions by their very nature don't exist.

Well then from where does illusion arise?

Void is void, what process leads us to the perception of form (illusion or otherwise)?

The illusion arises from spikes of broken-symmetry, in an endless sea of quantum potentiality, in a void. All is void.

[Quan Yin]

All are one -- all dualities are mental fictions, all is void.

[penfold]

The illusion arises from spikes of broken-symmetry, in an endless sea of quantum potentiality, in a void. All is void.

All due respect but a 'sea of quantum potentiality' is not the same thing as void. Void by definition does not have potential, potential is a function of form.

[penfold]

^ also 'quantum' means division into smallest possible parts, void cannot be divided.

[PoopShoot]

Cogito ergo sum doesn't presume that the universe is a manifestation of one's mind, as implied in the OP.  If the Buddha doesn't think, he'd be unable to think up the thins attributed to him.  Everything else in the OP hinges on these.

[i_am_i]

Okay, so the path to enlightenment exists, reality exists, objective truth exists, and the Buddha, of course, exists. That's four things that definitely exist. No, wait, the duality between subjectivity and objectivity exists. That's five things that exist.

No, no. All are mental fictions, only the void exists. Nirvana is the objective experience of the void awakening, and realizing its true nature -- and the truth about its nature is an objective truth -- but all of these are also mental fictions, and don't themselves exist -- only the void exists, and the Buddha exists because he is the void.

Well, but hold on a minute and have a look at this:

Does the path to enlightenment exist?

Most definitely.

But now you're saying that the path to enlightment does not exist, it's only a mental function. In fact, only two things exist, those things being the void and Buddha. Have I got that right? Only those two things exist and nothing else, correct?

[Quan Yin]

^ also 'quantum' means division into smallest possible parts, void cannot be divided.

That is why all is void. The spikes of broken-symmetry create the illusion of division, and the illusion is the object of perception. It's all made of nothing at all. Why is there something, rather than nothing? Because their isn't. Something, in its entirety is illusory. The void is dreaming. We are the dream.

[Quan Yin]

Cogito ergo sum doesn't presume that the universe is a manifestation of one's mind, as implied in the OP.  If the Buddha doesn't think, he'd be unable to think up the thins attributed to him.  Everything else in the OP hinges on these.

That isn't implied by the OP. I objected to Descartes' presumption that cognition demonstrates ontological status. The Buddha demonstrates that it does not.

[Dretlin]

If you believe reality or our perception of it is an illusion, which I am not suggesting you do, or if you question its nature, we still have no choice but to accept it the way it is.

Only the Buddha knows the truth about reality, and himself.

The Buddha - is dead.

[i_am_i]

I objected to Descartes' presumption that cognition demonstrates ontological status. The Buddha demonstrates that it does not.

What is the Buddha?

[penfold]

The spikes of broken-symmetry create the illusion of division, and the illusion is the object of perception. It's all made of nothing at all. Why is there something, rather than nothing? Because their isn't. Something, in its entirety is illusory. The void is dreaming. We are the dream.

You have not actually answered my question. What gives rise to the illusion of division? Illusion itself presupposes a division. For that matter 'broken-symmetry' implies division.

[Quan Yin]

But now you're saying that the path to enlightment does not exist, it's only a mental function.

I thought you were asking me whether or not I thought enlightenment was achievable. Forgive the misunderstanding. No, the path to enlightenment holds on objective, non-contingent ontology, it is a mental fiction, like everything else -- but it is a mental fiction, that alludes to the truth.

In fact, only two things exist, those things being the void and Buddha. Have I got that right? Only those two things exist and nothing else, correct?

The Buddha is the void, he has crossed over from the illusion, and awakened the void. They are one, and they are void.

[i_am_i]

The Buddha is the void, he has crossed over from the illusion, and awakened the void. They are one, and they are void.

Okay, but what exactly is this Buddha you keep talking about?

[Quan Yin]

If you believe reality or our perception of it is an illusion, which I am not suggesting you do, or if you question its nature, we still have no choice but to accept it the way it is.

Only the Buddha knows the truth about reality, and himself.

The Buddha - is dead.

All thinks are impermanent, because all things necessary for the mind to sustain permanence from one moment to the next is a mental fiction, one no more dies upon the ceasing of the function of the brain than they do from moment to moment. There is no death, because there is no life. This is all mental fiction. There is only void.

[PoopShoot]

That isn't implied by the OP. I objected to Descartes' presumption that cognition demonstrates ontological status.

If I am not, then how do I think?

The Buddha demonstrates that it does not.

I have yet to see this demonstration.