Mayka,
I am sorry about that. The contents and the intent of my questions are not clearly stated, and so I withdraw the questions. I am quite certain this issue will raise its head again in the near future. --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez <flordel...@...> wrote: > > ED: > > Wouldn't be more practical and much more of a shortcut looking into yourself and see what is there?. Why do you want to know what is in me and not what is in you?. > > I don't understand very well your question: "is that how you actually experience yourself or is it a conception or an act of faith"? It sounds a nonsense question. kind of entanglement of words and concepts. This is what one gets when depends upon the wikipedia dictionary and other definitions sources but not as much as within resources. Repeating what you hear won't do the trick either. > > Mayka > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez flordeloto@ wrote: > > > Thanks for clarification Chris. Definetely in that respect all in me too is a massive illusion. --M > M, is that how you actually experience yourself or is it a conception or an act of faith? --E > ---- > > > I meant my idea of myself, especially as having some spiritual significance, is not reality. --C > Conceptions are just conceptions, conjured up by the discursive mind. One would be deluded to *believe* them to be 'true' or 'not true'. --E > ---- > > I'm not an illusion. The only thing that is an illusion is the nonsense in me. --M > Do you *really* experience the nonsense in you as 'illusory'? What about the good in you? Is it illusory too? --E > > ---- > > Aren't we all! --C > We may or may not experience ourselves and/or others as illusory. > For the over 99.9999%, stating that they themselves or others are illusory are acts of faith. --E > ---- > > > Bill Smart himself is also an illusion. Don't atttach any spiritual significant. --A > Wouldn't it be illusory to *believe* you if we didn't experience Bill that way? --E > ----
