Edgar, Sorry. I have misspoke and confused you by using a term 'objective world' which I borrowed from your recent posting: "What nonsense! That experience suggests there is an objective world (the eggplant) and that the cognitive representation of that world is illusion." I shouldn't have used the adjective 'objective' since that implies there are subjects and objects. I think you know I've said repeatedly that is not the case, and as soon as there is the duality split between subjects and objects there are illusions. I should have just used the word 'reality'.
But, my semantic faux pas notwithstanding, what I actually wrote in my post was: " I never said the object world (the eggplant) was an illusion. I do say that all cognitive processes, whether they be representations of the world or not, are illusions." If you'll allow me I'll replace the phrase 'object world' with 'reality'. I stand by the rest of that statement which would now be: I never said reality (an example of which in the story was the eggplant) was an illusion. I do say that all cognitive processes (rationality, intellection), whether they be representations of the world or not, are illusions. And to further explain, the eggplant itself is not an illusion. The monk's physical interaction with the eggplant was not an illusion. The monk's THOUGHTS and FEELINGS about his interaction with the eggplant are illusions. Edgar, what I think we are doing is fighting a proxy war on things such as causality and now reality/illusions, when I believe our real disagreement is much, much more fundamental: I believe reality (the universe or whatever you want to call it, Just THIS!) is a single whole - one thing. And whenever you try to divide reality into multiple things, such as events, or dualistically-based concepts such as subject/object, you are no longer talking about reality, you are engaging in illusions of reality. I think you believe reality (the universe) is made up of quanta - multiple distinct things. And so you don't have any problem in talking about such multiple things as events and various relationships between them. You also don't have any problem describing reality from a subject/object viewpoint such as evidenced in your statement, "Reality itself has no reality independent of any observer." My version of that would be that reality is whole, complete and total. If there appears to be an observer that is outside of reality and observing, then that observer and the observation is an illusion. But, what's really important is what Joe the Plummer thinks...Bill! From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality, perception, reality, consciousness, etc, etc Bill, Strange, I thought you believed everything was illusion? Now I hear you say there is a whole object world out there which is not illusion which includes eggplants, yet in your second paragraph you say there is no observer to observe the eggplant. How then do you know it exists objectively and is real and can report that to me? BTW to answer your question I have no concept of self. If I had one it would be an illusion, though a consistent one for sure! :-) Edgar ------------------------------------ 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
