Who here is enlightened?

[Penumbra]

are you saying you have never come across discriminating wisdom ?

No, I'm asking specifically what you meant by discriminating wisdom.

and if the rest you have "read" else where ,...... then you must meditate on it , make it your own , your own experience , cut it , test it , see if it stands up alone , not just because someone says it is so , you have to find that it is so , cut out everything else , little by little , test it , refine it , test it , refine it , ......

this is something you have to sit down with and ask your self what is discriminating wisdom , then you have to put it to the test , I can tell you but it will make no sence you have to examine it , descover it for your self ,

sorry , I am being mean but when you find it you will know why :namaste

You're not being mean. Just not very specific.

See the thing about internet forums or talking with people in general is, most of them believe of course that if a person only thinks long enough about an issue, they'll eventually agree with them.

So a buddhist or atheist or hindu or muslim could argue that, with discriminating wisdom, one will eventually see that they should take refuge in the four noble truths, or that religions are without evidence and gods probably don't exist, or that Brahman is the ultimate reality, or that submission to Allah is the best thing a human can do in life and that the Qur'an is his perfect word-for-word book, etc.

So if someone states that discriminating wisdom led them to their worldview, it's worth asking if they have any specific observations that led them to their current conclusion. Without asking for specifics, we're generally stuck with the current state of most people believing that, with enough discriminating wisdom, people would generally begin to more closely agree with them.

 

[YmirGF]

So if someone states that discriminating wisdom led them to their worldview, it's worth asking if they have any specific observations that led them to their current conclusion. Without asking for specifics, we're generally stuck with the current state of most people believing that, with enough discriminating wisdom, people would generally begin to more closely agree with them.

You must be reading my mind. I was thinking about this earlier today and how intellectually lame it is for human animals to use this kind of smarmy appeal. The point is, after spending many hours/days/months/years/decades you find that you are still no further ahead. Then it gets to be your fault for not doing something properly. Heaven forbid that the guidelines themselves are flawed.

Without dumping too hard on ratikala, it is comments like "discriminating wisdom" that lead me to the question, "Could you possibly be more vague?" I ask this of people, in real life, quite often.

 

[apophenia]

You must be reading my mind. I was thinking about this earlier today and how intellectually lame it is for human animals to use this kind of smarmy appeal. The point is, after spending many hours/days/months/years/decades you find that you are still no further ahead. Then it gets to be your fault for not doing something properly. Heaven forbid that the guidelines themselves are flawed.

People forget that the 'guidelines' were invented by various 'someones' whose credibility and authenticity cannot be verified , if indeed there is any such thing as 'authenticity' in this regard - the very notion of a gold standard for enlightenment or holiness is dubious. They also forget that the only 'verification' they may have is necessarily dependent on their own bias and predilections anyway.

They also forget (or never knew) that the mind will produce 'states' and 'evidence' if such are desired and invoked often enough.

They often assume that any and every 'altered state' is a spiritual event confirming their beliefs and interpretations.

And finally, many fail to notice that lots of people claim enlightenment, or being a 'prophet of god', or both, ( and often really believe it ), but these people don't agree with one another about the nature of reality (or god), and are often quite aggressive and insulting when their claim is doubted.

If a person is at peace with their understanding, or even with their total absence of 'understanding', then that is probably as good as it gets.

 

[Prophet]

Is there any way to test the legitimacy of your insight into others?

In a forum thread, I watched a member being accused of bigotry against Muslims. But I haven't seen that bigotry. Instead, I see extreme political-correctness and a need-for-moral-superiority in his accusers.

So if you say that the member is motivated by bigotry and I say that he is not, is there a way to determine which of us is enlightened, with true insight, and which of us is unenlightened and confused about the member's motivation?

Most are welcome to test the legitimacy of my insight into others. The easiest way I can think of is to tell me about yourself, and from that we can see if I can extrapolate anything else about you that you didn't know, with permission of course as I'm not the kind of person who gives unsolicited advice outside of warning others of imminent danger.

I paraphrase the second question you pose as the following: When two beings who claim to be enlightened have differing views, can it be determined which being is truly enlightened and which is not by determining which view is correct?

My answer is no. This experiment you've devised has a flaw: It assumes one of the beings must be enlightened. It doesn't necessarily take enlightenment to be right in a single instance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

For a claim of enlightenment to hold water, the claimant must be right ALL of the time. Thus, if it is correct to assume that one of the two beings must necessarily be enlightened, my answer to your experiment becomes uh, maybe? But I'll close saying this is a HIGHLY dubious assumption.

I appreciate your new approach of attempting to reason with me.

 

[atanu]

No, I'm asking specifically what you meant by

----- we're generally stuck with the current state of most people believing that, with enough discriminating wisdom, people would generally begin to more closely agree with them.

I sense that you know much much better.

Mostly we are instinctive animals, practically unconscious. When we come out of that state and breathe, eat, think, and lead our life consciously, it can be said that wisdom has reared it's head.

No one's opinion on this may match because most will be at different levels. But, usually, it is agreed that the full wisdom is the state when singularity of consciousness is never forgotten and the separate individual, equal to the body-brain, is never taken as a separate truth.

The above is not very well written, however.

 

[crossfire]

No, I'm asking specifically what you meant by discriminating wisdom.

You're not being mean. Just not very specific.

See the thing about internet forums or talking with people in general is, most of them believe of course that if a person only thinks long enough about an issue, they'll eventually agree with them.

So a buddhist or atheist or hindu or muslim could argue that, with discriminating wisdom, one will eventually see that they should take refuge in the four noble truths, or that religions are without evidence and gods probably don't exist, or that Brahman is the ultimate reality, or that submission to Allah is the best thing a human can do in life and that the Qur'an is his perfect word-for-word book, etc.

So if someone states that discriminating wisdom led them to their worldview, it's worth asking if they have any specific observations that led them to their current conclusion. Without asking for specifics, we're generally stuck with the current state of most people believing that, with enough discriminating wisdom, people would generally begin to more closely agree with them.

Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna.
Purification of desire and development of discerning wisdom. Appreciation of the uniqueness of specifics, rather than generalities. Seeing things as they are, rather than how you desire them to be. (Lacking bias.)
This process is associated with Buddha Amitabha.

Each being has their own unique set of hang-ups, so the path to overcome these hang-ups is unique to each individual.

I'm hoping this isn't too general.

 

[YmirGF]

People forget that the 'guidelines' were invented by various 'someones' whose credibility and authenticity cannot be verified , if indeed there is any such thing as 'authenticity' in this regard - the very notion of a gold standard for enlightenment or holiness is dubious. They also forget that the only 'verification' they may have is necessarily dependent on their own bias and predilections anyway.

They also forget (or never knew) that the mind will produce 'states' and 'evidence' if such are desired and invoked often enough.

They often assume that any and every 'altered state' is a spiritual event confirming their beliefs and interpretations.

And finally, many fail to notice that lots of people claim enlightenment, or being a 'prophet of god', or both, ( and often really believe it ), but these people don't agree with one another about the nature of reality (or god), and are often quite aggressive and insulting when their claim is doubted.

If a person is at peace with their understanding, or even with their total absence of 'understanding', then that is probably as good as it gets.

Thank you for this, apophenia. In my view, what you are saying is right on the money. One way I describe my early years of exploring inner reality is that, I was unaware of what was impossible. In my reality, virtually anything, at that time was possible - and so it was. Then I got into ideas and belief structures. I examined my own beliefs structures, tracing them out and understanding how they worked together. During that time I literally dissolved many beliefs that were conflicting.

Those who are interested can read about that wonderful experience here.

If you want a dead straight, honest answer, my experiences resulted from the fact that I was already on excellent terms with my inner reality PRIOR to incarnating for this life. As I have described elsewhere on RF, the "me" of today, sits smiling, egging on the "me" of my youth to go further and further and to trust himself(myself) with these deeply moving and profound experiences I barely understood at the time. In a very real sense, I didn't know what I could not do and the sky seemed to be the limit. Then I got to what some call the "spiritual sky" and all thoughts of limits vaporized. Slowly, I began to ask myself why this was happening to me. Why me? The answer I settled on in regards to "why" isn't something I'd share, but if one reads what I am attempting to say, that answer should become obvious.

If the person I was then, came to RF, you would see an entirely different YmirGF. That YmirGF was entranced by Vaisnava and Buddhist thought and had more than a bit of a messiah complex. It took considerable effort to let go of those influences and get over the complex. Though I will indeed take the odd shot at Hindu and Buddhist dogma, to this day I have a great amount of respect for both strains of understanding. In my current now, however, I see both as, well, incomplete. Bold and brilliant, perhaps, but ultimately flawed and well short of the mark.

Since I tossed out ideas like divinity and spirituality, my thinking flows much better. One of the first things you notice after ridding yourself of these amusing notions is that others are simply projecting their own expectations onto reality. Many fail to grasp that they are beholding a product of their own creation. What is endlessly amusing is that the profound love for god is the gift you give yourself.

I didn't mean for this reply to be so long, but - there you have it. I still don't know if I am enlightened or not, but I am reasonableysure that no one else is either. Fortunately, in Creaturehood, it doesn't really matter.

 

[ratikala]

dear penumbra

No, I'm asking specifically what you meant by discriminating wisdom.

discriminating wisdom is an aspect of the buddhas mind, the primordial mind , that which sees clearly and naturaly discriminates between conventional and ultimate reality .

we all posess the propencity to develop discriminating mind , but we have to work at it , we need to un cover it , develop it , nurture it , purify it , sepperate it from conventional understanding .

You're not being mean. Just not very specific.

you are wanting a specific answer , when a specific answer canot be given ,
you asked...

What method was used to determine that what you saw, was indeed the true nature?

I answered , ....'discriminating wisdom' ,

but to use it you have first to develop it , ....that takes years , how can I give a specific answer that encapsulates everything I have learnt , an understanding that is so much vaster than words have the capability to convey in one specific answer .

even if I could encapsulate it , my being specific wont help you find it , wont help you understand it !

buddha taught his deciples for fourty years and still at his death his closest deciple beged him not to leave saying he would be lost without him .
the buddha said I have given you every teaching now you have to work with that which you have been taught .

The rest is cool too but it's similar to what I've read elsewhere so this statement is what appears worth looking into.

yes , it is worth looking into but it requires quite some amount of dedication .

See the thing about internet forums or talking with people in general is, most of them believe of course that if a person only thinks long enough about an issue, they'll eventually agree with them.

I dont need you to agree with me , nor do I need to prove anything or convert anyone , you asked a question , I gave an answer .
it is not about agreeing it is simply there for anyone to think about should they wish

So a buddhist or atheist or hindu or muslim could argue that, with discriminating wisdom, one will eventually see that they should take refuge in the four noble truths, or that religions are without evidence and gods probably don't exist, or that Brahman is the ultimate reality, or that submission to Allah is the best thing a human can do in life and that the Qur'an is his perfect word-for-word book, etc.

no , no this buddhist is not arguing anything , ....as a buddhist I can recomend that you accept the four knoble truths , follow the eight fold path and take refuge in buddha , as a hindu might suggest following another path of purification , by doing so one begins the process of awakening that discriminating wisdom , purifying the mind and ataining an understanding of ultimate reality .there are many faiths and many systems but to purify the mind one needs to addopt a practice , this comes first , this is why I say it takes years of dedication .

So if someone states that discriminating wisdom led them to their worldview, it's worth asking if they have any specific observations that led them to their current conclusion. Without asking for specifics, we're generally stuck with the current state of most people believing that, with enough discriminating wisdom, people would generally begin to more closely agree with them.

I have specific observations but a building is not built with one brick, and each brick with which it is built is the product of hard work and canot be interlectualy obtained ....

please excuse me , ...Im out of time .....back this evening
I will continue sepperately ....

 

[crossfire]

Since I tossed out ideas like divinity and spirituality, my thinking flows much better. One of the first things you notice after ridding yourself of these amusing notions is that others are simply projecting their own expectations onto reality. Many fail to grasp that they are beholding a product of their own creation.

You don't need to toss these things out if you can recognize them and know them for what they are. (Tossing them out would projecting your own (negative) expectations onto reality, no?) That said, healthy skepticism is a good thing, imo.

 

[YmirGF]

You don't need to toss these things out if you can recognize them and know them for what they are. (Tossing them out would projecting your own (negative) expectations onto reality, no?) That said, healthy skepticism is a good thing, imo.

But, my friendly crossfire, how do you know what "divinity" is. How do you know what "spirituality" is? And no, removing them from ones view, does not necessitate a negative.

Personally, I think divinity is an overused expression to describe reality in what is an incredibly unrealistic, negative way. The idea creates a separation where in fact none exists. Likewise, if everything is divine, then why bother mentioning it. Oh dear, the fly I just killed was divine. Now I feel guilty. *sigh* In essence, it is a silly, unrealistic and unhelpful lens, through which, to view reality.

Spirituality is a word that describes ... what... exactly... anything particularly meaningful?

 

[crossfire]

But, my friendly crossfire, how do you know what "divinity" is. How do you know what "spirituality" is? And no, removing them from ones view, does not necessitate a negative.

Personally, I think divinity is an overused expression to describe reality in what is an incredibly unrealistic, negative way. The idea creates a separation where in fact none exists.

If you are action personified, you can certainly classify your actions if you choose to do so, to make them easier to examine, or you can just call them "actions" without further examination.

Likewise, if everything is divine, then why bother mentioning it. Oh dear, the fly I just killed was divine. Now I feel guilty. *sigh* In essence, it is a silly, unrealistic and unhelpful lens, through which, to view reality.

Was your action of killing the fly divine? As for an unhelpful lens, sometimes we prefer to work without our reading glasses for up-close work, so we don't have to see the messiness under our nose.

Spirituality is a word that describes ... what... exactly... anything particularly meaningful?

Does it require meaning? Perhaps it is something asking for examination and meaning?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I paraphrase the second question you pose as the following: When two beings who claim to be enlightened have differing views, can it be determined which being is truly enlightened and which is not by determining which view is correct?

Yes, that sounds like an accurate paraphrase.

My answer is no. This experiment you've devised has a flaw: It assumes one of the beings must be enlightened. It doesn't necessarily take enlightenment to be right in a single instance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

For a claim of enlightenment to hold water, the claimant must be right ALL of the time. Thus, if it is correct to assume that one of the two beings must necessarily be enlightened, my answer to your experiment becomes uh, maybe? But I'll close saying this is a HIGHLY dubious assumption.

Sure, but I'm asking to assume, for the sake of argument, that you and I both claim to be enlightened and that one of us actually is enlightened. And I'm wondering whether one of us can prove his claim somehow.

But I don't really know what it means to 'be right' about one's assessment of another mind and its motivations. We use human words to decribe those things. If I say that another member here is being hostile and you say he is not hostile, well... I really can't imagine any way to test that since I don't see 'hostility' as any kind of objective thing. It's just a word.

Most are welcome to test the legitimacy of my insight into others. The easiest way I can think of is to tell me about yourself, and from that we can see if I can extrapolate anything else about you that you didn't know, with permission of course as I'm not the kind of person who gives unsolicited advice outside of warning others of imminent danger.

You're welcome to ask any question you like about my belief system. And you are welcome to observe my behavior here and judge it.

Meanwhile, I will be (and have been) doing the same with you.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So you are using 'Calvinisms' to refer to the comic characters in your avatar rather than the religion?

That Calvin is one of my favorite philosophers. Sometimes I list my religion as a narrow-minded Biblist.

Can you clarify what you mean by occasional Nirvana?

There are times when I completely understand. More often than not when that happens, to reference Tofu Roshi, I don't see what the big deal is. Life goes on, I still have to eat and urinate and defecate and deal with the unenlightened aspects of life. Or, to quote Calvin, "Reality continues to ruin my life."

Concerning other areas of enlightenment, I'm almost always enlightened about pancakes.

 

[ratikala]

dear ymir ,

Originally Posted by Penumbra
So if someone states that discriminating wisdom led them to their worldview, it's worth asking if they have any specific observations that led them to their current conclusion. Without asking for specifics, we're generally stuck with the current state of most people believing that, with enough discriminating wisdom, people would generally begin to more closely agree with them.

You must be reading my mind. I was thinking about this earlier today and how intellectually lame it is for human animals to use this kind of smarmy appeal. The point is, after spending many hours/days/months/years/decades you find that you are still no further ahead. Then it gets to be your fault for not doing something properly. Heaven forbid that the guidelines themselves are flawed.

here you have identified the difference in our thinking ...... "how interlectualy lame" I am not approaching this from an interlectual perspective , I am not interested in interlectual knowledge , I am interested in experiencial knowledge , enlightenment is not gained by the aquisition of interlectual knowledge , enlightenment comes through putting what can be interlectualy aquired in to practice and gaining true personal experience.

I am not quite sure what you are finding "smarmy" ..?

and who is telling you that anything is your fault or failing ?

or could it just be that the understanding of the guidelines is flawed ? this has to be examined , it is all part of the process .

in fact I am not sure that I quite understand your american english , but I am not going to make a song and dance about it

I am not here to say what another is doing right or wrong , I am only here answering a question , if you wish to examine what I have to say please do ,
if not dont worry , but please do not take it personaly .

Without dumping too hard on ratikala, it is comments like "discriminating wisdom" that lead me to the question, "Could you possibly be more vague?" I ask this of people, in real life, quite often.

could I possibly be more vague ?

dear man , I am not being vague , nor intending to frustrate you , unfortunately I think we simply speak from different perspectives ,

you speak of having done many years of practice and I would not like you to think that I am suggesting that you are not doing something properly , I am simply commenting on my understanding , which has also been gained through my many years of practice ,
surely we should be objectively compairing the resultant understandings .

here we are answering a question about enlightenment ,
you refute the idea of an ultimate reality , my understanding of enlightenment rests on their being one ultimate reality and that there is a discriminating wisdom which perceives it .
from my side no discriminating wisdom ,...... no conseption of ultimate reality ! therefore I am not finding that answer vague .

 

[apophenia]

Most are welcome to test the legitimacy of my insight into others.

And by most you mean to exclude, for example, myself, because I have carefully questioned you, and found that your claims are false.

The easiest way I can think of is to tell me about yourself, and from that we can see if I can extrapolate anything else about you that you didn't know, with permission of course as I'm not the kind of person who gives unsolicited advice outside of warning others of imminent danger.

And yet you also posted this -

Originally Posted by Prophet
Both of my "disciples" in real life with whom I've shared my understanding unfiltered developed serious sanity issues because I didn't know I was playing with fire.

The significant point here is that it was my 'unsolicited advice' to study social work and counseling which you totally flamed, despite the quote above clearly showing that it was a very well-based warning about 'imminent danger' to others.

And how does the event of "my "disciples..developed serious sanity issues because I didn't know I was playing with fire" that stack up with this -

For a claim of enlightenment to hold water, the claimant must be right ALL of the time.

Still, you make statements like this (though not to me, because you can't answer my reasonable points)-

I appreciate your new approach of attempting to reason with me.

Yet, when I reasoned with you earlier in this thread about your outrageous claim that 'the religious establishments' of the 'adherents of eastern religions' 'murder prophets like Jesus' (see post #363), you simply refused to answer with anything which supported your assertion.

Not surprising since your claim was utter rubbish for which you would never be able to provide any justification. And, it is a claim which clearly indicates such a strong irrational aversion to 'eastern teachings' that you will make baseless claims of murder in an attempt to slander the object of your aversion.

So, according to the very standards you set for 'enlightenment', you are clearly not enlightened, and you refuse to discuss anything with me because I can demonstrate that so clearly, using your own terms of reference.

 

[Penumbra]

I sense that you know much much better.

Mostly we are instinctive animals, practically unconscious. When we come out of that state and breathe, eat, think, and lead our life consciously, it can be said that wisdom has reared it's head.

No one's opinion on this may match because most will be at different levels. But, usually, it is agreed that the full wisdom is the state when singularity of consciousness is never forgotten and the separate individual, equal to the body-brain, is never taken as a separate truth.

The above is not very well written, however.

I would say that a casual glance around the forum (and a larger sample size as well) shows that it is often not agreed that full wisdom is the state of singularity.

The majority of Christians and Muslims (the two largest religions on the planet, representing billions) do not propose that their souls become one with their deities or that their self/ego ever dissolves.

Same thing for most secular humanists or atheists/agnostics, which are one of the other largest diverse collections of individuals: generally a singularity of consciousness or the removal of self/ego (other than through death) is not a common component of their worldviews.

The idea of singular consciousness or removing the ego/self is mostly believed by people that follow Dharmic religions. In addition, some of the smaller mystical branches of the other religions adhere to similar views.

 

[atanu]

I would say that a casual glance around the forum (and a larger sample size as well) shows that it is often not agreed that full wisdom is the state of singularity.

The majority of Christians and Muslims (the two largest religions on the planet, representing billions) do not propose that their souls become one with their deities or that their self/ego ever dissolves.

Same thing for most secular humanists or atheists/agnostics, which are one of the other largest diverse collections of individuals: generally a singularity of consciousness or the removal of self/ego (other than through death) is not a common component of their worldviews.

The idea of singular consciousness or removing the ego/self is mostly believed by people that follow Dharmic religions. In addition, some of the smaller mystical branches of the other religions adhere to similar views.

True. The idea that the individuality will be erased is horrifying. Although, death does that to everyone.

Many Christian mystics believe in subsidence of ego fully. Sufis also. Most Bhakti adherents, though not directly, indirectly obtain the same result, since Bhakti means surrender of ego. Complete surrender means absence of even traces of ego.

That leaves only those who have no inkling of the truth of the indivisible substratum. All, however, through experience of pain, find the falsity of ego.

 

[ratikala]

dear penumbra ,

Quote:penumbra

So if someone states that discriminating wisdom led them to their worldview, it's worth asking if they have any specific observations that led them to their current conclusion. Without asking for specifics, we're generally stuck with the current state of most people believing that, with enough discriminating wisdom, people would generally begin to more closely agree with them.

this question I find difficult to answer , in the first instance you asked how , or what method I used.......

What method was used to determine that what you saw, was indeed the true nature?

then you revert to......." Without asking for specifics, we're generally stuck with the current state of most people believing that, with enough discriminating wisdom, people would generally begin to more closely agree with them. "

specifics ......

you need specifics ? ....... and it looks as if I am telling you that yes it is possible to be specific , but to be entirely specific I would have to give you a check list which covered the 84000 deluded states of mind identified by the lord buddha which as you can imagine would take a conciderably long duration of time , .....

or I could suggest that you follow the eight fold path if you are enclined towards buddhism , or to practice the yamas and niyamas if you feel more comfortable with hinduism , as repeated or continual practice is the method by which you will gain the understanding you seek .
and by practice I mean practice I do not mean study through the interlect .

to think that it is possible to answer this question by intelectual means is prehaps the stumbling block that you are hitting , and which is why ymir is finding my answer vague . it would appear that you are searching for a quick and easy answer , when there is no simpler answer than ..."surrender ",.......no more objections , ...simply a state of open mind .
by this I am no way advocating that you agree with me or with any one but that you develop no objections , no need for agreement , no need for dissagreement , ...only room for concideration .

forget the idea of agreement and start thinking in terms of realisation ,... personal realisation , then when one has reached the stage of personal realisation , one needs to go through the process of refining and completing those realisations . which is why I said if you want the result you have to do the work , that you have to put it to the test , you have to meditate upon it make the realisation yours , then you have to meditate on that and go beyond that feeling of me and mine untill the realisation becomes realisation it self , only when one has stripped away all sence of me and mine has one reached the stage of enlightened thought , which is thought that canot be reduced to words .

I dont know if I can be any more specific than that ?

 

[ratikala]

Mostly we are instinctive animals, practically unconscious. When we come out of that state and breathe, eat, think, and lead our life consciously, it can be said that wisdom has reared it's head.

No one's opinion on this may match because most will be at different levels. But, usually, it is agreed that the full wisdom is the state when singularity of consciousness is never forgotten and the separate individual, equal to the body-brain, is never taken as a separate truth.

.

:namaste

 

[ratikala]

Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna.
Purification of desire and development of discerning wisdom. Appreciation of the uniqueness of specifics, rather than generalities. Seeing things as they are, rather than how you desire them to be. (Lacking bias.)
This process is associated with Buddha Amitabha.

without "desire" , without personal attatchment

"how you desire them to be" , ....or even how we attatch to out of fear .

Each being has their own unique set of hang-ups, so the path to overcome these hang-ups is unique to each individual.

"hangups " ...obsticals on the path ,

yes , it is true that paths are in ways unique to each individual ,but by experience alone ,
however it is sometimes reasuring to realise that we all experience some obstcal or another along that path , and that there comes a time when we become fed up with them . in which case we find a way to kick them aside walk on and leave them behind .
discerning or discriminating wisdom then is that which looks back and sees their illusiory nature .