I agree with your view that all form is illusion rather than Bill's
view that such things as sensory input are real and not illusion.
Form doesn't apply just to visual or tactile forms, it includes
everything other than pure formless ontological energy.
Then go one step further and realize that the forms are what appear
in the reality of the conscious present moment, so we must accept
that the forms, seen as illusion are what is real, as well as the
formless energy of which they are forms.
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote:
Well, may I interrupt. This is fun.
The word/concept of "illusion" is an illusion. Likewise, "levels of
illusion" is an illusion.
The word/concept of "karma, believe and not believe in karma" a is an
Illusion in this case means our mental exercise. All forms, I mean
which does include language, logic, concept, terms, anything for our
conscious mind is empty, relative and impermanent.
After stripping away all the forms, nakedly there is the spirit of the
universe. Some called this vast emptiness. Yet in this vast emptiness,
there is this exquisite existence -- life force.
I throw in the word "nakedly" for Al. :-)
> Hi Edgar! I haven't seen posts from you in a while. I thought
> transcended this plane into a higher one. Thanks for your post
> I think your reading of my post as stating that perceptions (such
> of touch) are not illusory, and deducing from that statement that
> "...aspects of the objective world are not illusory" is invalid,
> although I
> could see where you could make that interpretation. It all
depends on how
> and to what you apply the term 'aspect'.
> Your dualistic mind creates the objective world. It is an illusion.
> Perceptions are not aspects of an objective world. The objective
> an aspect of your dualistic mind. Your immediate perceptions (like
> sense of
> touch), prior to any intellectualizations, are real. They are
> your Buddha Nature. As soon as you exercise your dualistic mind and
> intellectualize your perceptions, like classifying them as good or
> bad, you
> are creating illusions.
> I used the word 'pain' in my original because Anthony used it. I
> always try
> to directly address a post if I'm responding to it. I've the term
> 'sense of
> touch' in this post to be more precise. 'Pain' could be
interpreted as an
> unpleasant or undesirable sense of touch. As soon as you classify
> of touch as unpleasant or undesirable then you're intellectualizing.
> Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this.
> From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf
> Of Edgar Owen
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:21 PM
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: The Reason For God
> You are actually saying that aspects of the objective world are not
> illusory! I'm amazed. That is not Buddhism, Buddhism states that
> that is all forms, are illusory. I think you just shot your own
> nature in the foot!
> Care to clarify?
> That being said I certainly agree that there are different
> illusion since the veils of illusion are multiple and overlapping.