Hi Chris,

I'm essentially in agreement with your post and thanks for letting us know you do find the discussion on topic.

The world of phenomena is consistently causal - at least for sane people. But we do ultimately have to realize that that world is illusory in the sense that it is a product of our own mind. However there are consistencies which for example allow us to share insights between consciousnesses as we do on this group, so we can assume that their may in fact be a real world beyond our experience and we generally believe we operate in that 'real' world. However we can never experience any such world other than through our own veils of illusion determined by our biological and cognitive structure as by definition it is beyond experience. Therefore we call it illusory, but must understand that that illusion is the reality we inhabit.

But own concept of our self is also a product of consciousness. So ultimately we can't say whether its our illusion or not. Ultimately all we can say is that direct experience exists, and that direct experience is prior to the distinction between self and external world. Logically it gets very complex, but when we cut through it all and just go with direct experience ignoring whose experience that might be, when the self and world distinction dissolves, when the dichotomy between experiencer and experienced dissolves, and only experience itself remains and action emanates spontaneously without an actor, then that is Zen.

Best,
Edgar



On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:28 PM, cid830 wrote:

Edgar,
I have to admit, I was pulling for you on this one. Although I
may not have grasped the full meaning of all of the posts, It seems
to me the jist of it was full of zen. Especially zen buddhism where
we acknowledge that we are here as a result of causality. Don't we?
We may not try to rationalize or analyze those causes, but we do
acknowldege they have brought us to this point, don't we? Like the
theories of interdependence and interbeing, as have been mentioned
before. I know the great JM has also mentioned something about
events happening now are a result of causes, and those causes are a
result of causes of causes. Am I on the right track? Dumb it down a
bit for me if I'm not!

Anyway, I'm sure that a lot can be related to zen, when we want it
to. But when the discussion does not go our way, we can say it does
not. IMHO causality has a lot to do with zen. Even though I believe
that anlayzing the 'rules' that apply to causes of causes may lead
you away from True Zen, these rules most definitely exist and this
is most certainly a forum for that discussion.

You had him on the ropes and he tapped! I'm sure he'll come back
stronger like the true champion he is.

Later,

Chris

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I have no essential disagreement with your statements below as you
do
> seem to agree that you find it useful to follow the rules of
> causality when dealing with other people. Thus you do agree that
> those rules govern the realm of illusion, which of course is
proven
> by your many successful actions within that realm without your
having
> to say a word.
>
> I do find it amusing that you who denies the utility and even the
> reality of rational discussion should then go on to criticize me
for
> not engaging in a rational discussion!
>
> Zen reminds us that when we start getting our hackles up a little
> there is a lesson there waiting to be learned - something more we
> need to recognize and release.
>
> Best,
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 1:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Edgar,
> >
> > My responses are embedded below:
> >
> > >Maybe you say they are illusory, but you still follow and live
> > according
> > >to the rules of causality 24/7 and have been all your life,
except
> > perhaps
> > >when sitting in zazen. Why is that if they aren't valid rules?
> >
> > Events are illusory. Relationships between events are illusory
and the
> > rules applying to those relationships (causation) are illusory.
> > These are a
> > part of a collection of illusory concepts which is called time
and
> > analogous
> > to the collections of concepts called plane geometry. Points
have a
> > location but no length, width or depth. If you connect two
points
> > you form
> > a line, and can continue to connect multiple lines in various
ways
> > to form a
> > shape. Once you've formed a shape you can invent and apply rules
to
> > these
> > shapes (like the square of the hypotenuse of right triangle is
> > equal to the
> > sum of the squares of the other two sides). Nowhere in reality
will
> > you
> > find a point, a straight line (or any line for that matter),
and
> > certainly
> > not a right triangle to which you can apply the rule cited
above.
> > Events
> > are asynchronous and have no duration. You can connect events
with
> > various
> > relationships, and you can make up rules for these
relationships, like
> > causality. Likewise in reality there are no events, no
relationships
> > between events and certainly no relationships to which you can
> > apply the
> > rule of causality. These are all illusory - pretend. They are
like
> > seeing
> > a dog shape in the clouds, or seeing the face of Jesus on a
taco.
> > They are
> > desperate attempts of your rational, dualistic mind to find
order
> > in chaos.
> > They are wishful thinking.
> >
> > If what you're trying to get across is that in both cases
> > (collection of
> > illusions that make up plane geometry and time) the rules
derived
> > from these
> > illusions are useful when interacting with others who share
these
> > illusions,
> > then I won't disagree. It's also useful to follow the social
and
> > cultural
> > rules of the society you live in, but that doesn't make them
real or
> > absolute. They're just a mutually agreed upon social contract.
But if
> > you're still trying to assert that these rules (like causation)
are
> > real, or
> > are derived from something real, then I vehemently disagree.
> >
> > >You need to be careful in maintaining illusions aren't 'real'.
> > Illusion
> > >is part and parcel of reality but should be recognized as
> > illusion. Even
> > >when seen as illusion, it still doesn't disappear, only its
seeming
> > >realness disappears.
> >
> > Illusions are not real, therefore they are not part of reality.
> > They are at
> > best heavily filtered, diluted and polluted representations of
> > reality.
> > That's what illusions are. Illusions are insubstantial and
fleeting.
> > Illusions can disappear. Reality is substantial and eternal.
Reality
> > cannot disappear.
> >
> > >BTW, I'm a Goh player, not a chess man. Goh, to me, seems much
more
> > directly
> > >in tune with Tao, i.e., with the rules of fundamental causality.
> >
> > Go may indeed be in tune with causality. So of course is chess.
As
> > far as
> > I know all board games have a basis in logic, which is a
derivative of
> > causality.
> >
> > >But I do have to ask you, if there is no causality how do you
propose
> > >to checkmate my queen?
> >
> > I don't have to checkmate you now. By declining to engage in
rational
> > argument concerning causality you have apparently resigned.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> >
> >
>




Reply via email to