Anthony, Your recent spate of posts interrogating me about my description of `illusions' have caused me to think more about it, and I think I've come up with a better analogy.
Illusions are to reality as a graphical user interface (GUI) is to a digital computer. The digital computer is at its most basic level just a collection of electric switches or gates. These switches are either on or off, open or closed. Today's computers have billions of these gates. In and of themselves the state of these gates have no meaning until given meaning by the operating system. At any point in time (called clock cycle)) all these gates are in one and only one of the two possible states, so the computer is constantly changing configuration depending on the operating instructions it is given. The switches or gates can be represented by the binary digits 0 and 1. These binary digits are called bits and can be grouped into 4 (byte) and represented by decimal number 0 thru 9 or a hexadecimal number 0 thru 9 and A thru F. So the switch configuration of on-on-off-on can be represented as 1101 (binary) or 13 (decimal) or D (hexadecimal). The switch configurations are usually grouped into 2 bytes called a fullword and represented with 2 hexadecimal digits like 4D. A fullword can represent 256 different configurations. These fullwords can be used to represent numbers, letters and other symbols, addresses within the computer operational instructions. The lowest level operational instruction is machine code and it is written in hexadecimal. The next level up from that is assembler language. It has a one-to-one relationship with machine code but is expressed in letters and numbers. The next step up from that is a compiled language like COBOL or BASIC. The expressions in a compiled language have a one-to-many relationship with machine code. In other words one BASIC command generates many lines of machine code. There can be many steps after this but one of the highest levels is a graphical user interface (GUI). An example of this is Windows or the Macintosh GUI. There are other interfaces besides graphical ones. Touch screens as a variant and voice activated interfaces are examples of these. All of these help the user interface with the computer, but all limit the user's ability to access the resources of the entire computer. You have to give up functionaly for convenience. Illusions are like GUI's. They sit on top of reality and conceal it. They probably evolved for the same reason GUI's were developed to hide the complexity of reality from you and to give you some limited access to reality by presenting reality in a more understandable context. That is illusions present parts of reality to you within a restrictive framework of logic. Just as a GUI gives you the ability to do some simple things while restricting your access to the complete power of the computer because it is to complex illusions give you a nice, comfortable interface with reality that has been cropped and modified to fit within a logical framework while cloaking the chaos that is reality. How's that? A better explanation/analogy? Bill! --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Anthony, > > That is essentially the case but I'd need to change the wording somewhat to > make it more correct: > > Reality and illusion do not operate in parallel. There is only reality. > Illusions are like a contorted, make-believe add-on. > > Reality is not a system since a system has rules and forms. Chaos is a good > word for it - or emptiness. > > Illusions can have rules and forms. I suppose there could be illusions that > don't, but the ones we usually have are illusions of duality and logic so we > can create them with rules and forms. You can conduct business or play chess > with an illusion of predictibility based on the rules and forms you think > apply, but these rules and forms are illusory, which means they are ephemeral > and impermanent, so the results are not really predictive but only > probabilities. In the best case the illusions we create have rules and forms > that approximate reality - like a structured sequence of pixels approximate a > curved line - a digital representation of an analog shape. > > Just think logic = digital and reality/chaos = analog. It's kind of like > that. > > ...Bill! > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > I am continuing my attempt to understand you. At this moment, I assume you > > have two systems in parallel: > >  > > 1. Real system with no rules or cause and effect. In other words, complete > > chaos. > >  > > 2. Illusions with rules and cause and effects, where you can conduct > > computer business with predictability and play chess to try to overwhelm > > your rival. > >  > > Is that right? > >  > > Anthony > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 3:19 PM > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > >  > > Anthony, > > > > I do work with illusions all the time. I like to think however that I know > > they are illusions and don't confuse them with reality. I'm very good at it. > > > > It's like being a good chess player. You play on a finite board moving > > chess pieces around that are assigned certain characteristics and have to > > obey certain rules. As long as you know that the chess match is just a game > > then you're okay. If you start to become attached to your chess pieces, > > like your queen or your rooks, you're going expereience sufferring very > > quickly. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > à> > > Setting aside what Asanga thought two thousand years ago about 'mind', > > > whether it meaned discriminating or non-discriminating mind, I feel you > > > are a soloist in the field. > > > à> > > If you can work so smartly on computer software, then degrade the > > > approach to an unreal field, I am led to believe that you are working > > > with illusions all the time. > > > à> > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 9:38 AM > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > à> > > Anthony, > > > > > > My points and perspectives are the exact opposite of "...mind only > > > philosophy, which says nothing is real except the mind.". My assertion is > > > that nothing in the mind (the discriminating mind) is real. Some of it is > > > pure fantasy and some of it may have a basis in reality but the concepts > > > created by the discriminating mind have are like Plato's 'shadows on the > > > cave wall' and worse. They have been filtered, augmented, categorized, > > > judged, etc..., all from an manufactured dualistic perspective. > > > > > > I make a living working on computer software by applying logic, because a > > > finite state (digital) computer is a manifestation of logic. I like to > > > say a computer works the way we like to THINK our brain works. It > > > doesn't. A computer is pure logic. We are a mixture of logic, emotion, > > > whim, likes and dislikes, etc... > > > > > > And, by the way my specific expertise in computers is in decision systems > > > which are an attempt to apply logic to chaos, to search out/deduce > > > (invent actually) patterns in chaos. You can view my CV/Resume to see > > > more exactly what I do at www.billsmart.bsc on the RESOURCE Page. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > Ãâà> > > > Your point is along the line of the mind only philosophy, which says > > > > nothing is real except the mind. But whether or not the reality is > > > > chaos, no rules, no cause and effect and no flowing time sequence is > > > > another matter. Besides the existence of absolute reality (which I > > > > don't deny), you should consider the conventional wisdom. Otherwise, > > > > how do you make a living on computer software. Next time your customer > > > > calls on you, you can just go and throw their computer out of the > > > > window to complete the 'chaos'. > > > > Ãâà> > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2011 3:42 PM > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > You can 'deduce' all you want. That doesn't make your deductions real. > > > > They may be and they may not. I can see what I think are footprints in > > > > the snow and deduce they were made by Bigfoot. That doesn't make > > > > Bigfoot real - although I might realy, truly believe in his existence. > > > > > > > > Experience is real, nothing else. And that doesn't mean your > > > > perceptions of experience, that means just your raw, unfiltered > > > > experience. I call the awareness of that Buddha Nature. > > > > > > > > I do work in computers. They are a manifestation of logic and > > > > sequential time - at least finite state (digital) computers are. > > > > Reality is not a manifestation of logic or sequential time no matter > > > > how much humans would like it to be. Reality is a manisfestation of > > > > chaos - no patterns, no rules, no cause-and-effect, no flowing time > > > > sequence (past, present, future): Just THIS! Only NOW! > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > I don't deny that you experience 'just this', so you think it is > > > > > real. On the other hand, you don't need to experience everything to > > > > > deduce that some of them are real. You believe jumping from a high > > > > > building will cause death. You don't have to experience it. If you > > > > > did, you would have to talk to us from heaven. That is what is called > > > > > 'anti-science'. I understand you do computer software services, when > > > > > you sort out your customer's problem, you believe it is real in the > > > > > sense that the customer will run it well. Do you have to run their > > > > > system every minute? Since it may go wrong although it is fine at the > > > > > moment. > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 5:47 PM > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > I DO believe that jumping from a high building will cause death. I'm > > > > > not arguing that. What I am arguing is that it is a belief and not an > > > > > experience, therefore it is not real. It's only a belief - a concept. > > > > > > > > > > Just THIS! is experience and only an experience, therefore it is > > > > > real. The term 'Just THIS!' which I use to communicate and the > > > > > concept of 'Just THIS!' which you might form as a result of my > > > > > communication are just terms and concepts. They are not real. You may > > > > > believe in them if you wish but that doesn't make them real. If you > > > > > experience 'Just THIS!' (Buddha Nature) then you will know it is real. > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > If jumping from a high building will get oneself killed is not > > > > > > real, I don't know what is real. Do you want to try it to find > > > > > > whether it is real? > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > 'Only just this is real is another of your belief system. > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 9:00 AM > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > You're partially correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is part of my belief system, but it's not real - it's just a > > > > > > belief system. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only Just THIS! is real. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > So that is your belief system, and it is real. > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, 30 October 2011 4:52 PM > > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're asking would I jump off a 9-story building, the answer > > > > > > > is no, and the reason is because I would be afraid of getting > > > > > > > hurt or killed. And yes, this is because of my belief in > > > > > > > cause-and-effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're asking about the raw experience of jumping off a > > > > > > > 9-story building I'd say the experience when you landed would be > > > > > > > pretty severe and your discriminating mind probably wouldn't have > > > > > > > much of a chance to create such determinations as 'gee, this > > > > > > > hurts', or 'this is bad', or 'I don't think I'll do that again!'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > While I can see that your statement regarding Buddha Nature > > > > > > > > experience makes (zen) sense. You have to explain the cause and > > > > > > > > effect of a person jumping from a nine story building. Does it > > > > > > > > have a determinant effect? Is it 'raw'? > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > > > To: Zen_Forum@ > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 10:29 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quarks, dinosaurs, etc..., can only stand up to 'proof' if you > > > > > > > > have faith in the 'proof', have faith in the scientific method, > > > > > > > > have faith in logic and human concept of cause-and-effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All belief systems are built on faith, and science is such a > > > > > > > > system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only raw, un-filtered, un-censored, un-interpreted, > > > > > > > > un-categorized, un-valuated sensory experience (Buddha Nature) > > > > > > > > can be accpeted without faith. It is the only real thing you > > > > > > > > have. All else are concepts and beliefs - and are based on > > > > > > > > faith, not immediate, raw experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > The story of turtles cannot stand proof, but quarks, > > > > > > > > > dinosaurs, supernova... can. Science and > > > > > > > > > historyÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàare > > > > > > > > > as much a belief system as the knowledge that jumping from a > > > > > > > > > nine story building without your psychic guru will get > > > > > > > > > killed. They are less of that than Yehowa asking you to kill > > > > > > > > > the people you conquered, and Buddha presenting a flower at > > > > > > > > > the Vulture Peak. > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 9:27 AM > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and is the endless series of turtles any less of a belief > > > > > > > > > system than our theory of matter, molecules, atoms, atomic > > > > > > > > > particles, hadrons, quarks, etc..ad infinitum? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Historical facts and science are NOT based on a belief > > > > > > > > > > system. Many times they run counter each other. For > > > > > > > > > > instance, a scientist was lecturing on our solar system of > > > > > > > > > > the earth rotating around the sun. A woman rose from seat > > > > > > > > > > and declared it nonsense. She said, 'the earth is flat, > > > > > > > > > > supported by a huge turtle.' 'Who supports the turtle?', > > > > > > > > > > she was asked. 'Oh, you stupid. It is supported by another > > > > > > > > > > turtle. And still anothor turtle. It is turtles all the way > > > > > > > > > > down.' That is a belief system. > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâæÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > Grasshopper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 4:13 PM > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâæÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And so, little grasshopper, are you saying that 'historical > > > > > > > > > > facts' and 'science' aren't based on a belief system? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâæÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ' > > Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâæÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > Belief systems and historical facts are different things. > > > > > > > > > > > It is OK to deify Buddha in sutras or any scriptures > > > > > > > > > > > compiled in the name of Buddha, as long as you bear that > > > > > > > > > > > in mind. However, historical facts such as the real life > > > > > > > > > > > of Buddha and that of the sixth Patriarch had better be > > > > > > > > > > > maintained in as close to history as possible. I consider > > > > > > > > > > > the latter a 'science'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâæÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ' > > Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâæÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011 4:56 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâæÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ' > > Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâæÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã 'ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃââÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâìÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã¦ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââ¬Â 'ÃÆ'Ã'ÃââÃÆ'ââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆ'ââ¬Â¦ÃâáÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony and ED, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't take any of the Sutras or the story of the Flower > > > > > > > > > > > Sermon as absolute fact. I just assume they are mythic to > > > > > > > > > > > a greater or lessor extent. Whether or not any of these > > > > > > > > > > > things written about in the Sutras, the Bible or any > > > > > > > > > > > other Holy Books actually happened is not important to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still believe the 'seeds' of Buddhism are containted in > > > > > > > > > > > the Sutras; the 'seed' of Zen is revealed in the Flower > > > > > > > > > > > Sermon; and the 'seed' of zen (Buddha Nature) already > > > > > > > > > > > exists in every sentient being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All teachings are continually evolving. See: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find the Flower Sutra to be magnificent. Anyway, what > > > > > > > > > > > > matter to me is > > > > > > > > > > > > that the Flower Sutra edifies and inspires me - and > > > > > > > > > > > > that's all that > > > > > > > > > > > > matters to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ED, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Flower Sermon appeared in the 14th century, > > > > > > > > > > > > > while the Buddha > > > > > > > > > > > > lived in the 6th Century BC, what happened in the 2,000 > > > > > > > > > > > > year gap? Did > > > > > > > > > > > > the physical Buddha returned from the grave to transmit > > > > > > > > > > > > the dharma? Or > > > > > > > > > > > > the 'dharmakaya' of the Buddha showed up to spread the > > > > > > > > > > > > untold teaching? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
