Bill!,

We've discussed this before. Mu is the nothingness of all things. What that 
means is that the materiality and apparent self substances and qualities of all 
things are illusions generated by mind. All the things of the world are just 
information forms. They have none of their apparent material substances. All 
they are is a logical computational structure and much but not all of that is 
also an illusion of particular observer minds as well. 

Reality consists of pure existence, Tao, Buddha Nature - what I call 
ontological energy, in which purely logical forms arise and continually self 
compute their state of existence of the universe. These are interpreted by mind 
as material things which are actually just more information forms of/encoding 
the interactions of mind and external reality (there is actually no division 
between 'mind' and 'external' reality but just to make the point. How and why 
that is true requires another understanding).

Since all forms are pure computational information in ontological energy they 
have no self substances and thus are called empty = Mu. So mu is exactly the 
same as Tao, Buddha nature etc. just a term that emphasizes that the apparent 
substance of reality is actually just pure information forms rather than 
material substances.


If one wants a God the only consistent definition of God would be the universe 
(reality) itself. That is the best definition because then there can be no 
doubt but that God does exist since the universe exists. And the age old 
arguments over the nature and characteristics of God becomes solvable because 
it is just what science and reason tells us about the nature of reality. (Merle 
will howl here but this definition does not deny a spiritual awe and 
appreciation towards God and nature in the slightest, in fact by revealing God 
and reality's true nature it better reveal its wonders and makes it easier to 
appreciate spiritually!)

In this definition of God the forms, the computational information structure of 
reality, becomes analogous to thoughts in the mind of God by which the universe 
continually creates itself by self computing its current form state of 
being..... These thoughts manifest as the physical reality of the universe in 
the minds of observers or organisms of all species. Sticking with the God 
analogy one could say that the thoughts of God continually create the 
universe...



Bill's error is that he denies the computational information structure of 
reality. Bill misunderstands illusion to mean that the forms do not exist. The 
correct understanding is that the forms DO exist but they are empty of material 
self substances. 

No master I'm aware of ever claimed the forms do not exist. They all say the 
forms are empty, which implies they do exist, but are pure form without their 
apparent substances. It is the apparent substances of forms, not the forms 
themselves, which do not exist.


But then when that is understood the next level of understanding is that the 
illusion of materiality DOES exist, but it exists as illusion, not reality. 
Illusion understood as illusion IS reality. It is only illusion understood as 
reality that is illusion.

Reality includes everything without exception but only as it is in its true 
nature. Illusion does exist, but only as illusion. Thus illusion is part and 
parcel of reality.

Thus realization excludes nothing because everything is part of reality. 
Everything remains exactly the same as it was before. It is just experienced as 
it actually is, not as illusion masquerading as reality, but as the illusory 
nature of reality. That reality consists of illusion...

Reality consists of illusion. Realization is the direct experience of this...

Edgar


 
On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Bill! wrote:

> Kris,
> 
> Absolutely! I don't understand Mu! either...Bill!
> 
> --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/28/2012 4:19 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > I have heard it said that 'all sentient beings have Buddha Nature'. 
> > > That doesn't exclude non-sentient beings/items from also having Buddha 
> > > Nature, but I cannot understand how they could.
> > 
> > It's this business of having, of this having that, that creates such 
> > misunderstanding.
> > 
> > MU!
> > 
> > KG
> >
> 
> 

Reply via email to