Kristopher, Very nIcely stated....
However to complete your thought you must recognize that the choosing and judging etc. you reject are also part of the same reality of what presents (I generally use the term manifests) and in the final realization it's just a matter of realizing that as well. That's why I say, "Illusion seen as reality is illusion but illusion seen as illusion is reality." Your rejections imply making choices. Choices may or may not be made, but in either case it is still what presents.... Best, Edgar On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:27 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > This appears to be a very > judgmental/delusional/dualistic/self-identified/assumed(etc.) interpretation > of what is being called 'illusion'. A classic misunderstanding of the > teachings as nihilistic. Perhaps you simply play devil's advocate - but this > is an old and groundless argument. > > Form IS emptiness, emptiness IS form. There is nothing else to "deal with" > but what presents, and no one else/no other way to deal with them but what > presents as 'self', so deal with whatever presents without making more > (materialism/attachment) or less (nihilism/rejection) of it than this. > > Realizing the appearances and thoughts as 'false' or 'empty', as mental > reflections/projections (including 'self'), has nothing to do with doing/not > doing anything. Action and inaction appear in the same way as everything > else. There is simply no effort wasted choosing between such false choices. > Concepts of real and unreal are only limited pointers/mental dead ends. > > KG > > > On 7/30/2012 6:07 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: >> Bill!, >> You may have answered the questions in more than 3 ways, but the only one >> that 'makes sense' is that everything is illusion, so Holmes in Colorado >> should be acquited. All doctors should shut down their clinics as it makes >> no sense to deal with illusion all the time. >> Physical chi can be detected by modern instruments and can cure diseases. >> However, you can say that the instrument only 'feels' it, so that kind of >> chi is also illusion. >> Anthony >> >> *From:* Bill! <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Monday, 30 July 2012, 12:48 >> *Subject:* [Zen] Re: Chan and zen >> >> Anthony, >> >> It amuses me that you've accused me of 'sidestepping' a difficult question. >> I answered it 3 different ways. I'll try one more... >> >> [Anthony] "My question is whether or not you say the physical chi is also >> illusion. How does illusion cure a disease?" >> >> If this think you call 'physical chi' can indeed be 'felt' as other >> 'physical objects' are (and not just perceived to have been felt), then it >> is not an illusion. If it is only perceived then it is, or at least part of >> it is, an illusion. >> >> Illusion can indeed 'cure' (make it go away) disease because 'disease' is >> also an illusion. >> >> ...Bill! >> >> --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: >> > >> > Bill! (not Bill), >> > I envy your capability of sidestepping a difficult question. However, it >> > dawns on me that Holmes in Colorado did nothing but illusion, so he should >> > be acquitted. In particular, he announced the illusion, before he did it. >> >  >> > Anthony >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> >> > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com >> > Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 11:31 >> > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen >> > >> > >> >  >> > Anthony, >> > >> > I'm not sure if you know what a very difficult question you've asked. At >> > lease trying to answer it logically is very difficult. It's a deeply >> > nested question. >> > >> > [Anthony] "My question is whether or not you say the physical chi is also >> > illusion. How does illusion cure a disease?" >> > >> > The best answer to your question was given by Joshu many years ago and it >> > is "Mu!". >> > >> > My poor (and very curt) attempt at answering it now follows: >> > >> > - Dualism is illusory, therefore... >> > - Physicality itself is illusory. >> > - All things such as 'chi' and 'you' and 'me' are illusory. >> > - The concept of 'disease' is illusory >> > - The concept of cause-and-effect is illusory >> > - ...so when you strip all that away you get Just THIS!, or "Mu!'. >> > >> > Or using dualistic (logical) terms to answer: >> > >> > - if we can sense something it is real - not illusory. It is Buddha >> > Nature. This includes things we can detect by 'extending' our senses with >> > scientific instruments - like binoculars. >> > - 'disease' is a state (of health) that we don't like. We can if we choose >> > try to influence the environment so this state of health changes (or of >> > course we could choose to stop disliking it and accept it for what it is). >> > - if the state we don't like changes or even disappears frequently when we >> > also perceive some other factor (like 'chi') then we might choose to >> > believe there is some kind of cause-and-effect relationship between these >> > two (illusory) events. >> > >> > Okay? ...Bill! >> > >> > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: >> > > >> > > Bill, >> > >  >> > > I don't contradict your statement, nor do I agree with, as tht is a wide >> > > spectrum topic. My question is whether or not you say the physical chi >> > > is also illusion. How does illusion cure a disease? >> > >  >> > > Anthony >> > > >> > > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> >> > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com >> > > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 18:18 >> > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen >> > > >> > > >> > >  >> > > Anthony, >> > > >> > > Anything metaphysical is illusory...Bill! >> > > >> > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Bill, >> > > >  >> > > > Chi can be classified into two areas: metaphysical and physical. The >> > > > former is associated with your feelings of 'light' or 'warm currents' >> > > > flowing in your body. I am not clear about that. If you say it is >> > > > makyo or illusion, I don't agree or disaagree. But the latter >> > > > classification of chi, which can be detected by modern instruments and >> > > > used to cure diseases, is definitely physical and worldly, not at all >> > > > illusion. >> > > >  >> > > > Anthony >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ________________________________ >> > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> >> > > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com >> > > > Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2012, 13:51 >> > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >  >> > > > Joe, >> > > > >> > > > I think "...entirely Empirical and Experiential..." describes what I >> > > > am talking about. I would not use the word 'mystical' or 'spiritual' >> > > > to describe that though. >> > > > >> > > > Again I would say there's nothing 'spiritual' or 'mystical' about the >> > > > zen I practice. It's quintessentially mundane. I associate >> > > > spirituality and mysticism to religions, and I do not consider zen a >> > > > religion - like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc... These religions >> > > > all have varying degrees of belief in spirituality and mysticism - and >> > > > a lot of rules too! >> > > > >> > > > I do believe 'chi' is makyo (illusory). I have 'experienced' it myself >> > > > in many ways, but most especially as associated with my early zen >> > > > practice as 'joriki' - but I do believe it to be illusory like my >> > > > 'experiences' of good and evil, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly. >> > > > >> > > > I know this is one of the more important areas that my zen practice >> > > > diverges from Zen Buddhism but most especially Chan. >> > > > >> > > > ...Bill! >> > > > >> > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, Bill. Those are GREAT teachers who you worked with. >> > > > > >> > > > > I knew Maezumi, and he was our first teacher in Tucson, before the >> > > > > sangha here early-on decided to become aligned with Aitken Roshi and >> > > > > the Diamond Sangha. We became the first affiliate of the DS, and >> > > > > there are now about 21 such around the world. >> > > > > >> > > > > Maezumi came to Tucson once or twice and held sesshin here in the >> > > > > earliest days of ZDS (Zen Desert Sangha). >> > > > > >> > > > > But I was not here (in Tucson), then. >> > > > > >> > > > > I knew Maezumi Roshi in New York City and sat with him at Bernie >> > > > > Glassman's place when Maezumi finally came to visit Bernie after >> > > > > Bernie set up a place of his own. Maezumi "kept away" from Bernie's >> > > > > for at least a year, so Bernie and his sangha would not be >> > > > > distracted by a more experienced and older teacher. I remember >> > > > > Maezumi Roshi fondly, although I did not have dokusan with him. I >> > > > > sat with him on a few nights when he was at Bernie's first place in >> > > > > NYC, in Riverdale (before they later bought the Greystone Mansion), >> > > > > while I was Sheng Yen's student. It was 1980, and I was Sheng Yen's >> > > > > student since Feb., 1979, and became Sheng Yen's Disciple in May, >> > > > > 1979, on a 7-day Ch'an retreat. >> > > > > >> > > > > I became good friends with John Daido Loori, who, like Bernie, was >> > > > > also given transmission by Maezumi. I did not join John's fledgling >> > > > > Zen Arts community at Mt. Tremper NY because I was leaving the USA >> > > > > to do research in radio astronomy in the Andes, but I was there at >> > > > > the start. My friend, the late Lex Hixon of the Pacifica Network of >> > > > > radio stations, station WBAI-FM-99.5 in NYC was hugely instrumental >> > > > > in getting Bernie and John lots of publicity on his weekly Sunday >> > > > > 3-hour radio program, "In The Spirit." >> > > > > >> > > > > All the literature of ZCLA was very influential on me in the 1970s >> > > > > and very early 1980s, and to this day. I continued to receive THE >> > > > > TEN DIRECTIONS regularly when I lived on a mountain in Chile, >> > > > > through the Diplomatic Mailbag. >> > > > > >> > > > > Koryu Roshi, I did not know, but I love his photograph which I saw >> > > > > in some of the ZDS literature. I think in the ON ZEN PRACTICE >> > > > > series, by Maezumi and Glassman, in 1978 and 1979. His kind face >> > > > > made a very memorable impression, but I have not seen it in years. I >> > > > > think Glassman studied with him, too, and said that Koryu Roshi only >> > > > > worked koans, and Bernie worked koans with Koryu. >> > > > > >> > > > > You and I use "spiritual" in very different senses now. I consider >> > > > > everything about our practice to be spiritual, even the most mundane >> > > > > and everyday things, all the way up to and through realization. For >> > > > > you it seems to connote something different, maybe something not >> > > > > noticed by Science or yet verified by scientific instruments. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'd say that "Chi" is not to me spiritual in the sense in which you >> > > > > say understand spiritual: to me it is instead entirely empirical and >> > > > > physical. If one has not experienced chi and its circulation and its >> > > > > effects, then perhaps it is just magical talk. But even as a >> > > > > scientist I can assure you that it is sensed by the practitioner. >> > > > > Not because we cultivate it, but because it goes with the territory >> > > > > when we are practicing well. And it is *not* Makyo. >> > > > > >> > > > > I think that by "spiritual", you personally may mean something like >> > > > > "magical", and "manifestly-false", or "naive", for we Modern folk. >> > > > > I'd say that Chi is not so. Nor are the powers that are often >> > > > > remarked on upon awakening. These are experiences, not hidden >> > > > > suppositions. >> > > > > >> > > > > On the other hand, I'd say that all of our practice is Spiritual, >> > > > > yes, all, even the most mundane and "everyday" aspects. It's not >> > > > > that I am here trying to trivialize the "Spiritual": it's that I am, >> > > > > with all respect, going about elevating the mundane to the >> > > > > miraculous, ...but only because that is the way I see and experience >> > > > > it, even after 60 years. >> > > > > >> > > > > It's not an EFFORT of mine. It's an Appreciation: A word I learned >> > > > > from your/our Maezumi! >> > > > > >> > > > > Hail, >> > > > > >> > > > > --Joe >> > > > > >> > > > > PS By the way, "Mystical" means entirely Empirical and Experiential. >> > > > > This is to distinguish it from "REVEALED" religion, which is through >> > > > > texts, scripture. Mystics are Empiricists (or, Experimentalists). >> > > > > >> > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Joe, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > All of it (zen/Buddha Nature) is not spiritual - IMO. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > (If you will, who is/was that teacher who taught in such a way?) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I've had 2 formal teachers in my life and neither taught me that >> > > > > > zen was or was not spiritual. That topic just didn't come up to >> > > > > > the best of my recollection. These teachers were first Koryu Osaka >> > > > > > Roshi and second Taizan Maezumi Roshi. My involvement with these >> > > > > > two roshis began in the late 60's and continued through the 70's, >> > > > > > but I kept in contact with Maezumi right up to his death in >> > > > > > mid-1990. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > ------------------------------------ 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/
