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

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: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Edgar Owen
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:00 PM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality, perception, reality, consciousness, etc, etc


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! :-)



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:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to