[Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Chris brings up a couple of good questions to start out his comment below: "So to encounter the monistic is not yet enlightenment? The monistic and the pluralistic fit together like a box and lid?" IMO monistic experience (Buddha Nature) is not what is usually referred to as 'enlightenment'. That is what I call 'Just THIS!' but is not enlightenment. Enlightenment to me refers to a human condition where Buddha Nature and Human Nature are working in harmony so Human Nature is not obscuring Buddha Nature as is the case prior to enlightenment. I'll return again to one of Edgar's favorite aphorisms: - First there is a mountain Human Nature obscures Buddha Nature. Perceptions, delusions, obscure experience. Consciousness obscures awareness. Pluralism obscures monism. Normal human condition. - Then there is no mountain Buddha Nature only. Experience only. Awareness only. Monism only. This is called 'kensho'. - Then there is [a mountain again] Human Nature balanced with Buddha Nature. Perceptions, delusions do not obscure experience. Consciousness does not obscure awareness. Pluralism is subsumed into monism. This is called enlightenment. Again, this is my perception of these...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > So to encounter the monistic is not yet enlightenment? The monistic and > the pluralistic fit together like a box and lid? > > Sometimes you write like you are trying to separate pieces of the brain > into stages of neural processing, and sometimes it sounds like one of your > stages is not really a stage but some uncreated, not starting, not ending, > slipping into a list of conditioned aggregates. It seems like by > experience you mean awareness, orthogonal to the whole business of sensing, > not step 1 in the chain of sensing. > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On Jul 7, 2013 12:57 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > From a pluralistic POV everything is relative. > > > > Form a monisitc POV there is just One and it is absolute - Just THIS! > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > > I missed this earlier. > > > > > > Isn't every thing relative? Even the absolute is relative, (I cheated > > > once and listened rather than just chanted.) > > > Still, among humans, beauty is a good word, useful. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > --Chris > > > 301-270-6524 > > > On Jul 5, 2013 6:26 PM, "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > > > You wrote: "You can't hope to come up with some general rule about > > beauty > > > > that applies to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, > > this > > > > gathering, that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other > > > > night?" > > > > > > > > What you've correctly stated above is why I say the judgement of > > beauty is > > > > relative and not absolute. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > --Chris > > > > > 301-270-6524 > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2013 3:24 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > All experiences are first-hand. They are sensual. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perceptions come from your intellect. The way they are > > constructed is > > > > > learned. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example some Western subcultures perceive the wearing of the > > skin > > > > and > > > > > head of a dead fox around your neck as beautiful. Some subcultures > > would > > > > > perceive that as grotesque. It's all learned behavior. > > > > > > > > > > You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty that > > > > applies > > > > > to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this > > gathering, > > > > > that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other night? > > > > > > > > > > Psssh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ bill..are you saying you are happy to accept second > > > > > > > hand > > > > > experiences?...merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was > > > > probably > > > > > something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe > > things as > > > > > beautiful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ bill..how do you know they > > > > > > > > were beautiful? > > clarification > > > > > please..merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar, The experience of what you'd later call 'mistaking a rope for a snake' is an act of perception. Your experience is not what alarms you, it's your perception. It's the very same at a magic show. It's not experience that fools you, it's your perception of experience that fools you; and that is a very good analogy for EVERYTHING you perceive and believe - like scientific 'facts'. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Mike, > > Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) "just this" at night would > have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! > > That's why "just this" JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the magic > show yelling "just this" as every illusion is performed believing they are > all real because they are his direct experience! > > By claiming the immediate experience of "just this" is reality you mistake > illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you > understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY TIME > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we > > experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, > > how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning > > realising it was just a piece of old rope. > > > > Mike > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > To: ; > > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how > > plain is that? > > Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > The point is that Bill's "just this" is something produced by complex > > sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as > > he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of > > processes. > > > > That's why Bill's just this is actually "just this ILLUSION mistaken for > > reality" > > > > True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT > > EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > >> > >> Edgar, > >> > >> But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the > >> endocrine system to take a pee? > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > >> > >> From: Edgar Owen ; > >> To: ; > >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how > >> plain is that? > >> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM > >> > >> > >> Bill, > >> > >> > >> That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory > >> experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is > >> considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are > >> preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd > >> the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of > >> one's internal model of reality. > >> > >> You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology > >> actually works... > >> > >> Edgar > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Edgar, > >>> > >>> What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from > >>> a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between > >>> sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no > >>> distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the > >>> different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then > >>> that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is > >>> just experience - Just THIS! > >>> > >>> It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like > >>> eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't > >>> produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry > >>> or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and > >>> touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do > >>> experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same > >>> perception as a person who sees and hears well. > >>> > >>> ...Bill! > >>> > >>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > >>> > > >>> > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs > >>> > glasses, or a blind person? > >>> > > >>> > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? > >>> > > >>> > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? > >>> > > >>> > Edgar > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Edgar, > >>> > > > >>> > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon > >>> > > eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is how
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar, The explanation you gave below is a good example of pluralistic thinking. You have explained the act perception using pluralistic logical concepts which includes dividing the world up into many separate and distinct parts. This is what human intellect does. Discrimination is it's job. I have no argument with these any more than I have an argument with the many rules of chess...as long as you don't form attachments to them by believing they are real - useful and effective, maybe; but not real. Experience on the other hand is real. It is monistic which means there is no discrimination, no divisions, no logical concepts; just pure awareness - not consciousness which is pluralistic, but awareness which is monistic. You ended your comment below with "You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works...". What's ironic about that statement is biology is not how things 'actually work'. Biology is an explanation (and usually a temporary one) of how scientist think things 'really work'. It's actually science and scientists who 'make up things' using discrimination and logic to describe what they perceive; and they call that 'how things really work' - that is until someone else comes along and develops a better logical model. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill, > > That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory > experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is > considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are > preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the > brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's > internal model of reality. > > You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually > works... > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a > > pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between > > sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no > > distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the > > different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then > > that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just > > experience - Just THIS! > > > > It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like > > eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce > > a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear > > is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If > > a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; > > BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a > > person who sees and hears well. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, > > > or a blind person? > > > > > > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? > > > > > > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon > > > > eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call > > > > senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and > > > > would have no awareness. > > > > > > > > There would be nothing. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Panda, > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? > > > > > With or without corneas? With or without eyes? > > > > > > > > > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of > > > > > 'things' > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Are you wearing glasses right now? > > > > > > Can you see the frames in your periphery? > > > > > > Did you see them before I asked? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.co
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar,Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How would I know if it's a snake and not a piece of rope - especially if my reaction was to avoid it believing it to be poisonous? What if i killed it believing it was a snake I believed to be poisonous, but it turned out to be someone's harmless pet snake? Again, my reactions are central - not what it actually is - if that is all I have to go on at that time. They're all I have 'control' over. It's really not a difficult point to grasp.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
you could try that, but it'd just be more of the same. 10,000 things and counting... Hong On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > ** > > > Mike, > > OK, I finally managed to pick myself up off the floor! > > What difference does it make?? > > OK, I hope I really have managed to stop laughing now. > > Try stepping on a piece of rope and then a rattlesnake and maybe, just > maybe, you might understand the difference! > > Jz > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:44 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > > > Edgar, > > Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a > snake or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely perceive at the time? > It's my reaction that is important. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > -- > * From: * Edgar Owen ; > * To: * ; > * Subject: * Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but > how plain is that? > * Sent: * Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:25:37 PM > > > > Mike, > > Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) "just this" at night would > have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! > > That's why "just this" JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the > magic show yelling "just this" as every illusion is performed believing > they are all real because they are his direct experience! > > By claiming the immediate experience of "just this" is reality you mistake > illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you > understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY > TIME > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > > > Edgar, > > There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we > experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, > how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning > realising it was just a piece of old rope. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > -- > * From: * Edgar Owen ; > * To: * ; > * Subject: * Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but > how plain is that? > * Sent: * Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM > > > > Bill, > > The point is that Bill's "just this" is something produced by complex > sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as > he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of > processes. > > That's why Bill's just this is actually "just this ILLUSION mistaken for > reality" > > True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT > EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > > > Edgar, > > But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the > endocrine system to take a pee? > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > -- > * From: * Edgar Owen ; > * To: * ; > * Subject: * Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but > how plain is that? > * Sent: * Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM > > > > Bill, > > That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory > experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is > considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are > preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd > the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of > one's internal model of reality. > > You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology > actually works... > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > Edgar, > > What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a > pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between > sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no > distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the > different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then > that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just > experience - Just THIS! > > It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like > eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce > a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear > is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If > a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; > BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a > person who sees and hears well. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs > glasses, or a blind person? > > > > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? > > > > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Mike, OK, I finally managed to pick myself up off the floor! What difference does it make?? OK, I hope I really have managed to stop laughing now. Try stepping on a piece of rope and then a rattlesnake and maybe, just maybe, you might understand the difference! Jz Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:44 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Edgar, > > Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a snake > or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely perceive at the time? It's my > reaction that is important. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Edgar Owen ; > To: ; > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain > is that? > Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:25:37 PM > > > Mike, > > > Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) "just this" at night would > have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! > > That's why "just this" JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the magic > show yelling "just this" as every illusion is performed believing they are > all real because they are his direct experience! > > By claiming the immediate experience of "just this" is reality you mistake > illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you > understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY TIME > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> >> Edgar, >> >> There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we experience >> as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, how I react at >> that time is far more important than in the morning realising it was just a >> piece of old rope. >> >> Mike >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >> >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >> >> From: Edgar Owen ; >> To: ; >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >> plain is that? >> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM >> >> >> Bill, >> >> >> The point is that Bill's "just this" is something produced by complex >> sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he >> would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of >> processes. >> >> That's why Bill's just this is actually "just this ILLUSION mistaken for >> reality" >> >> True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT >> EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >> >>> >>> Edgar, >>> >>> But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the >>> endocrine system to take a pee? >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>> >>> From: Edgar Owen ; >>> To: ; >>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >>> plain is that? >>> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM >>> >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>> >>> That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory >>> experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is >>> considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are >>> preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd >>> the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of >>> one's internal model of reality. >>> >>> You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually >>> works... >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: >>> Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs > glasses, or a blind person? > > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? > > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? > > Edgar >
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
So to encounter the monistic is not yet enlightenment? The monistic and the pluralistic fit together like a box and lid? Sometimes you write like you are trying to separate pieces of the brain into stages of neural processing, and sometimes it sounds like one of your stages is not really a stage but some uncreated, not starting, not ending, slipping into a list of conditioned aggregates. It seems like by experience you mean awareness, orthogonal to the whole business of sensing, not step 1 in the chain of sensing. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 7, 2013 12:57 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > Chris, > > From a pluralistic POV everything is relative. > > Form a monisitc POV there is just One and it is absolute - Just THIS! > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > I missed this earlier. > > > > Isn't every thing relative? Even the absolute is relative, (I cheated > > once and listened rather than just chanted.) > > Still, among humans, beauty is a good word, useful. > > > > Thanks, > > --Chris > > 301-270-6524 > > On Jul 5, 2013 6:26 PM, "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > You wrote: "You can't hope to come up with some general rule about > beauty > > > that applies to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, > this > > > gathering, that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other > > > night?" > > > > > > What you've correctly stated above is why I say the judgement of > beauty is > > > relative and not absolute. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Chris > > > > 301-270-6524 > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2013 3:24 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > All experiences are first-hand. They are sensual. > > > > > > > > > > Perceptions come from your intellect. The way they are > constructed is > > > > learned. > > > > > > > > > > For example some Western subcultures perceive the wearing of the > skin > > > and > > > > head of a dead fox around your neck as beautiful. Some subcultures > would > > > > perceive that as grotesque. It's all learned behavior. > > > > > > > > You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty that > > > applies > > > > to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this > gathering, > > > > that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other night? > > > > > > > > Psssh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  bill..are you saying you are happy to accept second hand > > > > experiences?...merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was > > > probably > > > > something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe > things as > > > > beautiful. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ bill..how do you know they were beautiful? > clarification > > > > please..merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But have also experienced Just THIS! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ bill..is that > so?...is that what you have > > > realised or have > > > > been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a > beautiful > > > > sunset ?...merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into > > > > thinking we understand the truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. > If you > > > > are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to > let go > > > > your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematics is beautiful because it is logical > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ> 'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > logic is beautiful > > > because it is
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar,Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a snake or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely perceive at the time? It's my reaction that is important. MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Mike, Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) "just this" at night would have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! That's why "just this" JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the magic show yelling "just this" as every illusion is performed believing they are all real because they are his direct experience! By claiming the immediate experience of "just this" is reality you mistake illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY TIME Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Edgar, > > There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we experience > as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, how I react at > that time is far more important than in the morning realising it was just a > piece of old rope. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Edgar Owen ; > To: ; > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain > is that? > Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM > > > Bill, > > > The point is that Bill's "just this" is something produced by complex sensory > and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would > have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. > > That's why Bill's just this is actually "just this ILLUSION mistaken for > reality" > > True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING > REALITY AT ALL! > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> >> Edgar, >> >> But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the >> endocrine system to take a pee? >> >> Mike >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >> >> From: Edgar Owen ; >> To: ; >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >> plain is that? >> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM >> >> >> Bill, >> >> >> That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory >> experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is >> considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are >> preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the >> brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's >> internal model of reality. >> >> You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually >> works... >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: >> >>> >>> Edgar, >>> >>> What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a >>> pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between >>> sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no >>> distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the >>> different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then >>> that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just >>> experience - Just THIS! >>> >>> It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like >>> eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce >>> a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear >>> is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If >>> a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; >>> BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a >>> person who sees and hears well. >>> >>> ...Bill! >>> >>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: >>> > >>> > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, >>> > or a blind person? >>> > >>> > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? >>> > >>> > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? >>> > >>> > Edgar >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: >>> > >>> > > Edgar, >>> > > >>> > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon >>> > > eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call >>> > > senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and >>> > > would have no awareness. >>> > > >>> > > There would be nothing. >>> > > >>> > > ...Bill! >>> > > >>> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > Panda, >>> > > > >>> > > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? >>> > > > With or without corneas? With or without eyes? >>> > > > >>> > > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of >>> > > > 'things' >>> > > > >>> > > > Edgar >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > Are you wearing glass
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar,There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning realising it was just a piece of old rope. MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPadSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Bill, The point is that Bill's "just this" is something produced by complex sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. That's why Bill's just this is actually "just this ILLUSION mistaken for reality" True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Edgar, > > But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the > endocrine system to take a pee? > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Edgar Owen ; > To: ; > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain > is that? > Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM > > > Bill, > > > That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory > experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is > considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are > preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the > brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's > internal model of reality. > > You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually > works... > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > >> >> Edgar, >> >> What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a >> pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between >> sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no >> distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the >> different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that >> you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just >> experience - Just THIS! >> >> It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like >> eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a >> different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is >> a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a >> person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a >> blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person >> who sees and hears well. >> >> ...Bill! >> >> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: >> > >> > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, >> > or a blind person? >> > >> > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? >> > >> > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? >> > >> > Edgar >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: >> > >> > > Edgar, >> > > >> > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon >> > > eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call >> > > senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would >> > > have no awareness. >> > > >> > > There would be nothing. >> > > >> > > ...Bill! >> > > >> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Panda, >> > > > >> > > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? >> > > > With or without corneas? With or without eyes? >> > > > >> > > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of >> > > > 'things' >> > > > >> > > > Edgar >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Are you wearing glasses right now? >> > > > > Can you see the frames in your periphery? >> > > > > Did you see them before I asked? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar,But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the endocrine system to take a pee?MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's internal model of reality. You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a > pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, > sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. > It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses > when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, > taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! > > It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like > eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a > different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a > perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a > person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a > blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who > sees and hears well. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, > > or a blind person? > > > > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? > > > > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon > > > eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call > > > senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would > > > have no awareness. > > > > > > There would be nothing. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > Panda, > > > > > > > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With > > > > or without corneas? With or without eyes? > > > > > > > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of > > > > 'things' > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are you wearing glasses right now? > > > > > Can you see the frames in your periphery? > > > > > Did you see them before I asked? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or > a blind person? > > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? > > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon > > eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call > > senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would > > have no awareness. > > > > There would be nothing. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > Panda, > > > > > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With > > > or without corneas? With or without eyes? > > > > > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: > > > > > > > Are you wearing glasses right now? > > > > Can you see the frames in your periphery? > > > > Did you see them before I asked? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, > corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you > were not sentient then you could not experience and would have no awareness. > > There would be nothing. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Panda, > > > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or > > without corneas? With or without eyes? > > > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: > > > > > Are you wearing glasses right now? > > > Can you see the frames in your periphery? > > > Did you see them before I asked? > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would have no awareness. There would be nothing. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Panda, > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or > without corneas? With or without eyes? > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: > > > Are you wearing glasses right now? > > Can you see the frames in your periphery? > > Did you see them before I asked? > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Panda, Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: > Are you wearing glasses right now? > Can you see the frames in your periphery? > Did you see them before I asked? > >
[Zen] Music
...Bill!
[Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Chris, >From a pluralistic POV everything is relative. Form a monisitc POV there is just One and it is absolute - Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > I missed this earlier. > > Isn't every thing relative? Even the absolute is relative, (I cheated > once and listened rather than just chanted.) > Still, among humans, beauty is a good word, useful. > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On Jul 5, 2013 6:26 PM, "Bill!" wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > You wrote: "You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty > > that applies to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this > > gathering, that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other > > night?" > > > > What you've correctly stated above is why I say the judgement of beauty is > > relative and not absolute. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, > > > --Chris > > > 301-270-6524 > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2013 3:24 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > All experiences are first-hand. They are sensual. > > > > > > > > Perceptions come from your intellect. The way they are constructed is > > > learned. > > > > > > > > For example some Western subcultures perceive the wearing of the skin > > and > > > head of a dead fox around your neck as beautiful. Some subcultures would > > > perceive that as grotesque. It's all learned behavior. > > > > > > You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty that > > applies > > > to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this gathering, > > > that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other night? > > > > > > Psssh. > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâ bill..are you saying you are happy to accept second hand > > > experiences?...merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâ > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was > > probably > > > something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe things as > > > beautiful. > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâ > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâ bill..how do you know they were beautiful? > > > > > > clarification > > > please..merle > > > > > > > > > > > > I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. > > > > > > > > > > > > But have also experienced Just THIS! > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâ > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâ bill..is that so?...is > > > > > > > that what you have > > realised or have > > > been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a beautiful > > > sunset ?...merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâ > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into > > > thinking we understand the truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you > > > are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go > > > your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematics is beautiful because it is logical > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ > > > > > > > > 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'ââ∠> > > > > > > > ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâ logic is beautiful > > because it is so pointing > > > to the truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for > > > realisation to take place .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ > > > > > > > > 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'ââ∠> > > > > > > > ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâ > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you > > > said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based > > > perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, no, no. Human
[Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Chris,
IMO 'jet-lagged', disappointment or feeling guilty of disappointing someone
else are all perceptions. These has nothing to do with sensory experience.
('Jet-lagged' may be in a different category here if you are talking about the
physical effects, but the mental and emotional effects are perceptions.) They
are perceptions and each of them can certainly influence other perceptions you
have. For example:
If you've just had a success at something all the sights you see might seem to
be sharper or brighter or more alive. This is perception.
If you just failed at something all the sights you see might seem to be fuzzy
or duller or dead-looking. This is perception.
You're 'seeing' (sensual experience) the very same in each case but you're not
perceiving the same. When these signals get to your consciousness (which is
pluralistic as opposed to 'awareness' which is monistic) they have been put
into a pluralistic setting which includes the sharper/fuzzy, brighter/duller,
alive/dead perceptions.
What you call your 'inner equilibrium' is I guess just your delusive self and
how you feel about your 'self' at any given time.
The only way I know to help people 'uncrinkle' their minds is to experience
Buddha Nature which helps them realize all this other stuff going on in their
mind is delusive - and certainly not something which warrants getting attached
to. And the only way I know to first experience Buddha Nature is through one
or a combination of zen teaching techniques which include zazen, chanting,
bowing and koans. There are probably other ways, and many of them not
zen-related, but those are the only ways I know.
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>
> I appreciate your going out on a limb here.
>
> I like your explanation and find it quite clear.
>
> My question tho was more like, if your body/mind is calm and balanced, how
> can that mental state not enter the sensual experience of
> sight/sound/tasting/etc.? If you have sensory experience on a day that you
> are jet lagged and a loved one has been disappointed by you, or whatever it
> is that might nudge you from calm and balanced ("death of a favorite
> student"), that sensory experience will reflect the sensory experience of
> your 'inner' equilibrium as clearly as it reflects the sensory experience
> of heat or cold or a still wall and solid cushion.
>
> How can a line be drawn between "sensed experiencing via introspective
> sense" and "sensed experiencing via 'external' sense"? Still wondering
> how, I can certainly appreciate the utility of such a fundamental dualism
> to thought, especially in helping people allow their minds to uncrinkle.
>
> Please forgive my pedantic and persistent questoning.
>
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
> On Jul 5, 2013 10:45 PM, "Bill!" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I really think getting down to this level of discussion of such things on
> > a zen forum is uncalled for and probably leads to more confusion than
> > clarification, but I will answer your question - only because you're one of
> > my favorites... [image: :x]
> >
> > First of all your phrase 'states of the brain' is problematic. It's taken
> > our discourse out of the realm of functions (software) into physicality
> > (hardware). I'll try to explain my understanding of all this using the
> > terms you've used which will require me to use subject/object language, so
> > don't hold be too tightly to what I say here. I don't claim to be an
> > expert in this area (physiology) so I'm just explaining this the way I
> > think of it.
> >
> > The brain has many functions. The brain's functions don't have to be
> > either all on or all off. Thought is one function; registering sensual
> > experience is one function and awareness is one function. Some functions
> > are autonomous and continue whether you are aware of them or not.
> >
> > Using this skeleton outline I would say:
> >
> >- Buddha Nature = sensual experience
> >- Intellection = Human Nature
> >- Realizing Buddha Nature = sensual experience + awareness - thought
> >- Human Nature = thought + awareness - sensual experience
> >- Enlightenment = sensual awareness + thought + awareness
> >
> > Is that mathematical enough for you?
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > So you are claiming that states of the brain and non thought are mutually
> > > exclusive?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --Chris
> > > 301-270-6524
> > > On Jul 5, 2013 6:44 PM, "Bill!" BillSmart@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris,
> > > >
> > > > "Non-thought" is no intellectual activity - no creating pluralism
> > which is
> > > > the foundation of delusion and attachment. Later you can reincorporate
> > > > thought without attachment by realizing it as delusive.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't mean all your bodily functions shut down.
> > > >
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum
