If you are so inclined to read admittedly Buddhist publications, it may do you well to learn straight from the source. That means contacting your local temple, or at least checking out a translation of a major work from the library.
The problem of non-existence is grappled with by the Bodhisattva Nagarjuna in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, especially chapter XVIII. I have been recommended Garfield’s translation published by the Oxford University Press, and pass this recommendation on to you.
~Max
For goodness’ sake man (machine?), pretty much all human activity beyond eating, shitting and shagging is a construct; something ‘imagined’, if you like. And while I enjoy those three things, I wouldn’t recommend sidelining everything else on a fruitless quest for authenticity.
So is “quality.” So is “price.” So is “flavor” and everything else that is subjective or arbitrary.
Machinaforce, have you thought about reading less and actually getting out more?
Doesn’t really help the thread that much or answer the question. Also it’s not about nonexistence (which isn’t an issue).
Read Robert Pirsig’s long philosophical essay on Quality - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
I’ve done all those things. I never knew they were notable feats.
How does that have anything to do with value? The article I got it from was a reference to Zen so it seems counterproductive.
Are you asking me what “quality” has to do with “value”?
Or are you expressing astonishment that two different sources, both of them using the word “Zen”, are expressing contrary opinions?
As has been said, value is entirely subjective. Have you ever heard the saying “One man’s junk is another man’s treasure”?
Or, to use a more concrete example, think of a used car. If you’ve owned it from the start and made an endless series of repairs on it, sooner or later you decide that it is no longer worth fixing and so you put it up for sale on Craigslist for $500, noting that it needs $2000 in repairs to make it roadworthy. Someone calls, hands you $500, and tows it away. While you sigh in relief that your old car is gone and will no longer cost you money, the person who bought it is ecstatic that they got a perfectly good car for such a small amount in repairs. It’s the same object, yet one person thinks it’s junk and of little value but the other person can’t believe their luck and considers it of great value.
Value certainly exists, but it cannot typically be quantified. Even in a supermarket where “value packs” give you more product at a lower per-unit price you can’t quantify it because sure, you’re getting more for less, but then you have to store it somewhere and use it before it goes bad or use more of it to make up for lesser quality. A single person will find more value in one bottle of ketchup or one box of cereal than in a lot of it that they can’t use.
Value is subjective, but not imaginary.
It’s only imaginary if you think that consciousness is imaginary. And if you are thinking that consciousness is imaginary, that proves it isn’t. 
Different followers of Zen may have different opinions… with different value.
There are a few who argue that consciousness is an illusion, though I don’t understand the argument. Though from what I gather arguing consciousness is imaginary doesn’t prove it isn’t so.
It seems to be more of a broad-ish, agreement. It was the same issue that said in response to “without desires we wouldn’t do anything” they said “why do you have to do anything”. Which kind of tripped me up since it didn’t really get at what was being said. Wants and desires do motivate us, even if we aren’t entirely aware. Humans aren’t spontaneous creatures despite what some might think.
Meow?
If you are reading this in a Buddhist magazine then you should be aware that Buddhist teachers happily admit that their teachings are full of seeming contradictions and nonsense because no teaching can properly communicate Buddha nature. i.e. the old koan “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” It’s not actually about sounds or clapping.
Keep in mind the other admonition “I am not the moon; I am the finger pointing at the moon.” Again: don’t get wrapped up in the literal meaning of the dharma. It is there to awaken truths in you, not to dictate them literally.
It doesn’t awaken “truths” so much as fabricate a state of being. Buddha “nature” is just rewiring of the brain, hence why they couldn’t explain it then. The area of the brain responsible for “boundaries” gets less bloodflow, resulting in what they call a “nondual” experience.
I would almost believe you if the following words by him weren’t “if nothing is “Worth it” then why do anything” to which his answer was “because of the marvel of your being (which isn’t an answer)”.
I spent two years in college cooking with a dual burner hot plate, a toaster oven, and a $3 knife from the supermarket, plus some of my parents’ cast off pots. I did fine.
When I was a kid almost no one had air conditioning. If you design a house with high ceilings, the need is decreased. I don’t have air conditioning now.
Plenty of people living in the city don’t have a car.
And sometimes you only think you need things when you don’t really need them. These days people often have a lot more than they need, not less.
Likewise with me.
But nowadays, my lawn has value, so get off it.
Regards,
Shodan
If you think you already have a mechanistic/physiologic theory of Buddhism, then you’re done and there’s no need to struggle with questions that don’t lie within that theory. The thesis “nothing is worth it” becomes nothing more than a temporary regionalized starvation of oxygen. Nothing more to see here. You’ve reached the end.
Nor do I. In order for anything to be an illusion, it has to be an illusion to something. To a consciousness. An illusion can’t be an illusion to a nonsentient piece of rock: the rock doesn’t perceive things. Anything the illusion can be an illusion to has to be cognizant, conscious, aware.
You could try to make the case that (for example) a computer’s hardware abstraction layer creates an illlusion to the operating system (so that it perceives any of a variety of different pieces of physical hardware as the same “ideal type”), but I would hold that in doing so you are either
a) anthropomorphizing the operating system, because it does not literally perceive things; or
b) arguing that the operating system does perceive things, in which case you’re also arguing that the computer is conscious.
Sooner or later we’ll reach b but for now I’d say a is the accurate descriptor.
Anyway, the point stands. For something to be an illusion it has to be an illusion to something and that something has to be conscious in order to perceive illlusions. Hence consciousness itself can’t be an illusion.