Bill! This is indeed closer. A couple of responses....
First it is quite true that Buddha Nature can be manifested without intelligence. Everything that exists does exactly that! However realization that you (and everything else) are continually manifesting Buddha Nature does require understanding to get to the point where that realization can be directly experienced. Otherwise illusions will be taken for reality instead of the illusions that they are. Zen requires the understanding that discriminates illusion from reality. When I speak of the logic of reality I mean things like the earth orbits the sun and thus the sun seems to rise every morning. That, my friend, is not something your mind is projecting on reality. That is reality, that's what I call the logic of reality. That there are real actual laws of nature that govern the world of forms... Do you deny the sun really rises in the morning and claim it's an illusion projected by your mind onto reality? Of course not. If you did you'd have stepped in front of a bus and be dead... That's what I mean by 'the logic of reality'. It's obvious to everyone... Perhaps the problem is not understanding that the laws of the world of forms is one thing and that every sentient being conceives of that in terms of a personal simulation model of it in their heads. You are correct that this cognitive simulation model is full of errors and inaccuracies and doesn't. The world you think you live in is actually your internal mental simulation of that world. You are quite right that model is full of illusions, but it also must be sufficiently accurate to allow the organism to function in the real world. It's an evolutionary compromise designed to best allow organisms to function and survive. I think your error is that you correctly recognize that your mind's view of reality is an illusory one as is everyone's. But then you erroneously conclude that because that is true that reality itself must also be illusory and illogical, when it's actually only your rational mind's flawed representation of it that is... Mind's internal model of reality is NOT reality. The world we think we live in is not the actual real world. Mind's representation is flawed, reality itself is perfectly what it is. Both have a rule based computational structure. Don't confuse the errors of the mental simulation of reality with the real laws of the world of forms that mind tries to model but does so only imperfectly... The reality of the world of forms is rule based and computational. It consists entirely of pure information in the substance of ontological energy (Buddha Nature). Your mind certainly projects your INTERPRETATION of it back on it but that doesn't mean it isn't real itself. You admit mind has a logical structure. Mind is part of reality. Therefore reality itself must have some logical structure. QED. I hope some of this is getting through and registering? Edgar On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > I do not ignore the points you make. I just usually disagree, or perhaps as > you suggested in an early post I don't understand what you are saying - that > is what you are saying means something different to me than you intend to > convey. > > In the post below however I think you've come as close as I've seen to > describing what you believe in a manner that is similar to mine. > > I do disagree with most of the early parts of your post below, but when you > say "Realization is seeing Buddha nature THROUGH/IN the world of forms, not > trying to escape the world of forms which is simply impossible anyway" it > comes close. My practice is something close to what you suggest "...seeing > Buddha nature THROUGH/IN the world of forms...". I do not try to 'escape the > world of forms' however. I realize that world is illusory and of my own > discriminating mind's invention. > > Also close is your statement "Until this is understood there is no true > Zen...", although I would have to substitute the word 'understood' with 'put > into practice' or just 'done'. Again, I don't think understanding has > anything to do with it. One reason I believe this by the way is that the > 'understanding' requirement would imply that it takes at least some level of > intelligence to manifest Buddha Nature and I absolutely believe that > implication to be false. > > One last statement "Maya distorts reality, but reality can only be seen > THROUGH maya as the true nature that resides beyond it and manifests it" is > again close to my beliefs, but not as close as those I've listed above. I'd > restate this one to be 'Maya (illusions/forms) may be a distorted view of > reality or may have no basis in reality at all. Reality can be experienced > directly with absolutely no trace of illusion (Maya). In Japanese Zen > Buddhism this is called 'kensho' and 'satori'. A distorted view of reality > (Maya/illusion)can be maintained in the presence and awareness of Buddha > Nature by not forming attachments to Maya. > > That's about as close as I think we're going to come right now. It's > nighttime here again and I'm going to sign off. I'll read any comments you > make in my morning. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill! > > > > That is partially correct. Reality at its most fundamental level consists > > of what you call Buddha Nature which is intrinsically formless; however > > Buddha Nature is such that forms naturally arise within it and those forms > > have a logical structure (they have to have because after all a form IS a > > logical structure). > > > > Your error, if I may suggest so, is not realizing that the forms are PART > > OF Buddha nature. The world of forms and its logical structure is a > > MANIFESTATION of Buddha Nature, not some imagination of your mind.... You > > correctly understand that the world of forms can be/is often misinterpreted > > by mind, but in itself it actually does follow the logical computational > > rules like the software with which you are so familiar does. Otherwise it > > could not exist and it clearly does exist. > > > > Thus realization is NOT denying that the form world and its rules exist, it > > clearly does, but realizing and experiencing the form world as a > > MANIFESTATION of Buddha nature. Realization is seeing Buddha nature > > THROUGH/IN the world of forms, not trying to escape the world of forms > > which is simply impossible anyway. Until this is understood there is no > > true Zen... > > > > Maya distorts reality, but reality can only be seen THROUGH maya as the > > true nature that resides beyond it and manifests it. > > > > > > However I doubt this will ever sink in since you simply ignore most of the > > points I'm actually making... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:08 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Joe, Edgar, Kris, et al... > > > > > > I do want to correct one thing I said below. I said reality (Buddha > > > Nature/zen) is "illogical and irrational". That is incorrect. Saying that > > > would mean it is NOT logical and NOT rational. What I meant to say is > > > reality (Buddha Nature/zen) is a-logical and a-rational. That means it is > > > not contained within or bounded by logic or rationality. It cannot be > > > said to be subject to or defined by logic or rationality. > > > > > > This might not make any difference to you but I wanted to make sure I was > > > as clear as I could be on this very difficult subject. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > > > In all seriousness... I don't know if reality is logical, and rational. > > > > I just don't know! It is a challenge in all ways. > > > > > > > > Certainly, since the Quantum Theory of Atoms was established in the > > > > 1920s, we've known that -- although things may be rational (to > > > > computation, even through the 16th decimal point) -- they surely don't > > > > make much SENSE!... to our macroscopically-conditioned "understanding" > > > > (experience). > > > > > > > > I speak as a working astrophysicist. > > > > > > > > Pretty disheartening, this picture. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, fun! > > > > > > > > Showing the limits of our comprehension, based on macroscopic models. > > > > > > > > I think it takes at least 15 years to make a Quantum-Mechanic (all that > > > > grease, gasoline, and Diesel, you know). > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > PS Don't get me wrong; I'm not one to extend or extrapolate much from > > > > formal Science to the realms of spiritual understanding, practice, or > > > > development. SCIENCE is just another Poetry, there. Good enough for... > > > > something! But *absolutely* not needed, and usually not at all helpful, > > > > except by the most skilful presenter, most practiced with metaphors. > > > > > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Kris, > > > > > > > > > > Much of zen appears to be nonsense because it is nonsense in that it > > > > > is illogical and irrational. That's because reality is illogical and > > > > > irrational. That's because logic and rationality are a human > > > > > invention - concepts, and all concepts are illusory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
