Mayka, I don't know how you got to where you are in this post from reading my last post.
I never said physical sensations were not real. They are. They are the ONLY thing that is real. However, the judging of those sensations to be pleasant/unpleasant, good/bad, dualistic/non-dualistic are created by your discriminating mind and are not in and of themselves 'real'. They are illusions. They come and go. Physical sensations (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste - the 5 categories (illusory concepts) which our discriminating mind has created to describe these sensation) are trying to describe something real that does not come and go - that is the ability to be aware of them does not come and go. That awareness is Buddha Mind. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > > > > > > Bill: > >  > By the time you'll be receiving this mail you're tea will be cold. >  >  If somebody beat a finger with a hammer. Will the pain felt be real?. And > the answer is yes. Although the pain will be an impermanent pain still will > be real. >  > The different physical and mental states in the body and the mind. That > switching waves coming and going as the waves of the ocean bringing all the > rainbow of duality with them. The arising of different sensations such as > pleasant , unpleasant or neutral, in all the game of distinctions, duality > are felt as real in the realm of the form. What is illusion to me here is > not as much the many arising sensations in themselves, but to exchange all > that occurring as permanent having as a result mental attachment to what is > happening and mental entanglement as one identifies with it as something > permanent happening to one. Forgetfulness about that everything is > impermanent can be a cause of great illusion arising in one.  The many > sensations are real but not their duration as they dissolve by themselves > through mindfulness or awareness. >  > To me here the real massive illusion is to exchange impermanence as > something permanent but not as much the coming and going occurring in the > form. >  > I imagine the form of body and mind with all its sophisticated implications > as the waves of the ocean. In it's coming and going, continuously born and > continuously dying, they all have in common the water. They're all made of > the same.  Water is the nature of the wave in the ocean. But for that > matter of that seconds the water takes the form of an impermanent high, > low... wave. Is the form of the wave an illusion?...It all depends under > what kind of perspective is seen. >  > Mayka > > --- On Tue, 5/4/11, Bill! <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011, 1:13 > > >  > > > > Bill! expounds... > > This is not a matter of non-duality/duality, it's a matter of awareness. > Duality is an illusion - probably the Mother of All Illusions. The concept of > non-duality is also an illusion. > > Illusions come and go. This might be the 'switching back and forth' you are > talking about. > > Awareness (Buddha Nature) is persistent. > > This is a matter of how illusions are accomodated. If you become attached to > the illusions of non-dualism/dualism then they come and go, but are mutually > exclusive. If you are not attached to these illusions (or any illusions) they > come and go, but are universally inclusive. > > That's the best I can do this morning before my first cup of tea...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ... until they succeed in making the switch (which of course is not > > necessarily or usually ongoing.) > > > [siska] the way I see it, this happens when it happens. Nobody is > > making the switch. We can try to make the switch, but it won't happen > > until it happens. And when it happens, nobody can switch it back. > > > > > > siska, > > > > After adequate Zen or other practice, I think that an experience of the > > non-dual mind-state switches back and forth, without the individual's > > choice - like is the casse in some optical illusions: > > > > http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=optical+illusions&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sou\ > > rce=univ&sa=X&ei=mL-ZTbmpDY7YiAK09emcCQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1014&bih=540 > > <http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=optical+illusions&um=1&ie=UTF-8&so\ > > urce=univ&sa=X&ei=mL-ZTbmpDY7YiAK09emcCQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1014&bih=540> > > . > > > > With more practice, the mind may prefer the non-dual state over the > > dualistic state. Possibly for a few, the non-dual state will become > > ongoing after sufficient Zen or other practice. > > > > I repeat: Bill would be a better person to expound on this issue. > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > The way I understand it is as follows: 'Non-dualism' is a conception. > > > [siska] don't really get why it is a conception > > > > > > The non-dual and the dualistic states are mind-states in which we > > experience reality non-dually or dualistically respectively.[siska] > > agree with you > > > > > > Most humans experience reality dualistically, > > > [siska] agree with you > > > > > > until they succeed in making the switch (which of course is not > > necessarily orà usually ongoing.) > > > [siska] the way I see it, this happens when it happens. Nobody is > > making the switch. We can try to make the switch, but it won't happen > > until it happens. And when it happens, nobody can switch it back. > > > > > > siska > > > > > > > > > Hi siska, > > > > > > The way I understand it is as follows: 'Non-dualism' is a conception. > > > > > > The non-dual and the dualistic states are mind-states in which we > > > experience reality non-dually or dualistically respectively. > > > > > > Most humans experience reality dualistically, until they succeed in > > > making the switch (which of course is not necessarily or usually > > > ongoing.) > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > > > I was about to ask your views on non-dualism, but I am guessing your > > > view is represented by the article here and in your other post. And I > > > agree with what is being said here. > > > > > > > > The other article was fine too, in terms of putting non-dualism and > > > zen into words. My view is that non-dualism is here and now (as in > > > Hakuin's song), instead of some destination point, which you seemed to > > > imply in your previous post. > > > > > > > > siska > > > > > > > > Hi siska, > > > > > > > > You may want to ask Bill, Mike, Steve and Mayka their views on Zen > > and > > > > non-dualism. > > > > > > > > --ED > > > ------------------------------------ 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: [email protected] [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/
