[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Case]

[Dan]
I think what Phaedrus possibly failed to grasp during his time in India is 
that though the nature of the world is illusory, that nature doesn't negate 
cause and condition. I think Phaedrus gave up on account of the fact he 
failed at the time to grasp that there is no separation between subject and 
object...he believed objects were things in themselves rather than 
intellectual patterns of value, a very difficult point to grasp. So perhaps 
it was just easier to give up and go home than it was to expand his 
consciousness to the point of that of his Indian professor.

Your thoughts?

[Case]
I have not followed the course of this thread well so if I have missed the
point entirely I apologize. But your statement above and the quote you
included caught my eye so I am presuming to jump in.

I am not sure whether the this reflects actually oriental philosophy or
merely the western translation of same but this statement strikes me as
either missing the point or flat out wrong. 

"I think Phaedrus gave up on account of the fact he failed at the time to
grasp that there is no separation between subject and object."

I agree that from the subject's point of view there is no difference between
objects and the subject's impressions of them. But to say that there are no
objects strikes me as a very different thing. Phaedrus might have done well
to stay and try to make some sense of what his teacher was saying but this
interpretation is rubbish. Just because we are in principle separated from
the objects of the world does not mean that they do not exist. 

In what sense does saying the world is illusory not negate cause and
condition?