Bill, thank you; that helps a lot. --ED
--- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote:
ED,
I assume what you mean is that when we (I) categorize things as illusory
I
create the dualism of non-illusory - or real. That is true, but it is
mostly so
because of the way we are communicating. Our language a product of our
discriminating mind so it is based on dualism. To make any postive
statement is
to infer the negative exists also, and more so for some terms we use
such as
good/bad, false/true and illusory/real.
This very problem is why a lot of zen masters answer such questions as
these two
involving the same zen master - Zen Master Basho:
"Taibai asked Basho in all earnestness, "What is Buddha?" Baso answered,
"The
very Mind is Buddha"" THE GATELESS GATE, Case 30
"A monk asked Baso in all earnestness, "What is Budda?" Baso replied,
"No mind,
no Buddha." THE GATELESS GATE, Case 33
On first reading Baso seems to be contradicting himself, but that is
only true
if you are judging him from a dualistic perspective, which is to say
imposing
dualistic rules on his speech.
So I admit that all characterizations can be seen as dualistism, but the
only
alternative in a text-based medium like this is to say (type) nothing.
Or
perphaps compose a poem, or type something describing an action you are
doing
like: 'deep sigh, turns around and walks away'.
The concept of cause-and-effect is a product of the discriminating mind
and
therefore (in my book) illusory. The sting of a slap on the face is
real.
After-the-fact you can deduce that the sting was the result of a slap,
which was
the result of my hand hitting you, which was the result of you asking me
a
questions, etc..ad infinitum. All that is just discriminating mind
runing away
with itself as far as I'm concerned.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=rCVYNXU38MSLKejMKJV\
AbFa3YACOeTjOyp6FtnTSFkg3qA2W21dcnoo8n85U1bcXiL4817KCJ8g0rbXUIZkk> ,
"ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> To assert that 'cause and effect' is an illusory concept is dualistic
-
> and so is denial that the concept is illusory ???
>
> Thanks, ED
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=rCVYNXU38MSLKejMKJV\
AbFa3YACOeTjOyp6FtnTSFkg3qA2W21dcnoo8n85U1bcXiL4817KCJ8g0rbXUIZkk> ,
"Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote:
> >
> > Anthony,
> >
> > I don't consider myself 'more advanced' than you. In fact if
anything
> I would like to think I am 'less advanced' than you. In the case of
zen
> practice the more you unlearn and the less advanced you are from your
> Original Nature the better.
> >
> > I believe the concept of 'cause-and-effect' (like all concepts) is
> illusory. ONE of the reasons I believe this is because the concept of
> cause-and-effect is completely dependent upon the belief in a
> sequencial, serial, uni-directional flow of time. Cause-and-effect
> requires at least two separate actions, one - the cause- which happens
> before the other - the effect.
> >
> > There is no sequencial, serial, uni-directional flow of time. There
is
> only an ILLUSION of a sequencial, serial, unidirectional flow of time.
> There is only Now. The past exists only in our mind - we call this
> memory. The future exists only in our mind as a logical
projection(based
> on our belief in cause-and-effect) of a concatenation of our illusion
of
> Past and Now.
> >
> > And, to employ the also equally illusory power of logic I can state:
> since the flow of time itself is illusory any concept based on time
must
> also be illusory.
> >
> > I hope this helps to retard you a little...
> >
> > ...Bill!
>
