Edgar, You are 'getting through and it is registering', but I am not buying all of it.
My responses and comments are embedded below: --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > 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! So...no 'understanding' is required. > 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. No. Experiencing does not require understanding. It only requires sentient-ness. (And maybe even doesn't require that, but it certainly doesn't require 'understanding'.) >Otherwise illusions will be taken for reality instead of the >illusions that >they are. Zen requires the understanding that >discriminates illusion from >reality. 'Self' does indeed mistake illusions for reality. This is because of the dualistic nature of 'Self'. Buddha Nature does not create dualism but experiences everything as One. There are no illusions to mistake for 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... All those examples above are illusions. All of these are your discriminating mind's dualistic interpretation of reality. The sun does SEEM to rise from the perspective of an observer on the earth who assumes he is motionless. The earth does SEEM to orbit around the sun from the perspective of an observer on the sun (or elsewhere) that assumes the sun is motionless. The earth does SEEM to be something distinct and separate from the sun from the perspective of an observer (a 'self') that assumes all these objects, including himself, are distinct and separate. That's a dualistic viewpoint and that's has been created by your discriminating, rational, dualistic mind. Buddha Nature is NOT dualistic and has not perspective. All these things are One. > 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. Yes I do. Sorry to disappoint you. >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... What you call 'the logic of reality' I would call 'illusions'. They have evolved in humans (and other living beings) because they have proved useful to survival - but that doesn't make them an accurate or true representation of reality. It only makes these illusions useful, practical. > 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. Okay, I agree 90% with this paragraph. I would only substitute for 'laws of the world of forms' with 'illusions which may or may not be based on actual sensual experience'. > 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 agree 99%! I would only substitute one word: remove 'accurate' and insert 'successful'. These illusions don't have to accurately reflect reality, they just have to work well. > 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... "I think your error is that you..." ...actually believe you CAN and DO 'understand' reality, and it is that 'understanding' that enables you to differentiate between reality and illusion. I say that 'understanding' you think you have is ITSELF an illusion. You cannot understand reality, you can only experience it - sensually. That's the gist of it. > 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. Again, I agree with all this but the last sentence, and that sentence is horribly, horribly flawed. ALL logic, rules, computation, structure, etc..., you think you had DISCOVERED in nature (reality) have actually been SUPERIMPOSED there (force-fitted) by your discriminating, dualistic mind. I call that illusion. I could also live with the term 'concepts'. But in any case these things just do not exist anywhere but in your mind. > 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... Again, I almost agree with the sentence above but would have to strike out the phrase '...with the real laws...'. These are your own invention and do not exist in reality. > 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. Reality has no rules and can certainly not be 'computed' (understood?). Buddha Nature is direct experience of reality. Your discriminating mind does create rules and models and does lots of computations on these. Some are based on experience and some are pure fantasy. All are illusory. > You admit mind has a logical structure. Mind is part of reality. >Therefore > reality itself must have some logical structure. QED. In a recent corrective post I did address this but I'll expand on that. Actually, your mind is not really logical. There is an illusion of logic. You mind does try to impose logical structures on experience - that's called 'perception'. Many structures your mind leads you to believe are logical are not, but some are. Logic is just one classification of structure, not the only one. I do deny that reality is logical. It is a-logical - not bounded by or definable using logic. 'QED' is an appropriate ending to your logical arguments. 'Just THIS!' is an appropriate ending to my account of experience. > > I hope some of this is getting through and registering? All of this is getting through and registering, but I'm just not buying it... ...Bill! > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
