Edgar and Merle, To think dualistically is to think that reality has parts, like has a part which is called illusion. Holistic (non-dualistic) experience (not thinking) reveals only One - and that can be called Reality, or Buddha Nature or Just THIS!
I do agree with Edgar that self/not-self is an illusion and before that duality is created there is simply experience - what I call reality, Buddha Nature, Just THIS!. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill! and Merle, > > It's Bill! that thinks dualistically because he separates illusion from > reality. I understand illusion is part of reality which is a unity. That is > NOT dualistic. > > I think we may agree however that the dualistic separation between self and > not self is an illusion since antecedent to both there is simply experience, > which only then becomes categorized in many ways including into self not self. > > Edgar > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Merle, > > > > I say he is in error, but that really depends on your perspective. He's > > talking about reality from a dualistic point-of-view. That's okay for > > scientists and philosophers, and is the way we all usually perceive things > > - dualistically. That means there's a subject/object split. The most > > personal dualism we create is the concept of 'self'. We think of ourselves > > as having an individual and unique 'self' that is separate from everything > > else. I call that the self/other split or dualism. Edgar's words below > > (which are representative of most of his posts) are based on that dualistic > > view. > > > > Zen training is a process of halting the creation of dualism, like self, > > 'realizing' (making real, NOT 'understanding') that all products of > > dualistic thought are illusory coming from your dualistic, discriminating, > > rational mind. (The same one that creates the illusion of logic.) > > > > When you halt this seemingly continual process of the generation of > > illusions you are then able to experience (NOT understand) reality > > directly. That is called Buddha Nature. > > > > I've read a lot of Edgar's suggestions to you and believe many of them are > > very good and I'm sure very helpful - but they're not zen, they're not > > useful in leading you to a point where you can experience Buddha Nature. > > > > Of course all this is my opinion. Edgar has a different opinion. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Â i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in > > > error?... merle > > > Â > > > Merle, > > > > > > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. > > > It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a > > > closed boundary nonetheless. > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG: > > > > > > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own > > > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality > > > except as it is experienced by some observer or other.... This is a > > > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I > > > have right now... > > > > > > Your errors (IMO) are two: > > > > > > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some > > > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it > > > is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is > > > not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created. > > > > > > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep > > > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience > > > of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You > > > just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, > > > not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the > > > key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate > > > and very, very simple. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÂ some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to > > > > break through..a stick would not do...merle > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > Kristopher, > > > > > > > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality > > > > differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a > > > > deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some > > > > observer or other.... This is a complex subject that requires a deep > > > > understanding and more time than I have right now... > > > > > > > > > > > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering > > > > in his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by > > > > approaching Zen.... > > > > > > > > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular > > > > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness > > > > and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen. > > > > > > > > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, > > > > but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a > > > > favor by pointing out how we might each do better and that we should > > > > all be free and open in exchanging and receiving such insights. > > > > > > > > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all > > > > in that respect and we should all take her lead on this.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by > > > > directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of > > > > all things really really here right now in the present moment it can be > > > > said to reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of the > > > > seeker... > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not the > > > > >Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical > > > > >construct in your head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you > > > > >will logically think Bill! to be illogical. You will see what you > > > > >think is Bill!'s error. If you think them apart, you make the same > > > > >error for him. > > > > > > > > > >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of him, no > > > > other can be known. There is no difference. > > > > > > > > > >Same goes for 'Zen' > > > > > > > > > >KG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > >ÃÂ > > > > >>Bill!, > > > > >> > > > > >>Bill! claims logic is NOT Zen... > > > > >> > > > > >>Bill! says he uses logic in his daily life... > > > > >> > > > > >>Therefore Bill must believe he CANNOT have Zen in his > > > > daily life... > > > > >> > > > > >>This is a serious error... > > > > >> > > > > >>Zen is 24/7 whether one is using logic or sitting > > > > mindlessly. > > > > >> > > > > >>It is a fundamental error to believe only mindless sitting > > > > is Zen. That's mistaking a particular meditative state for > > > > Zen. > > > > >> > > > > >>There is no part of reality that is not Buddha Nature. > > > > Illusion is part of reality and thus is a manifestation of > > > > Buddha Nature. > > > > >> > > > > >>Realization is seeing the illusion that is part of reality > > > > as illusion rather than the fake reality it pretends to > > > > be.... > > > > >> > > > > >>When Bill! understands that logic is part of reality and > > > > thus like everything else is a form manifesting Buddha > > > > Nature rather than something contrary to and apart from > > > > Buddha Nature, then and only then will Bill! allow himself > > > > to completely realize Zen in his daily life as well as > > > > when he is sitting mindlessly... > > > > >> > > > > >>This is the crux of Bill!'s misunderstanding.... At the > > > > most fundamental level he dualistically divides reality > > > > into illusion and Buddha nature without realizing that > > > > even illusion is a manifestation of Buddha Nature because > > > > there is nothing that is not Buddha Nature... The world of > > > > forms does NOT stand apart from Buddha Nature. The world > > > > of forms is a direct manifestation OF Buddha Nature. > > > > >> > > > > >>Zen does not try to dismiss the world of forms; Zen is > > > > seeing the Buddha Nature that is manifested in the world > > > > of forms... It is seeing the world of forms AS Buddha > > > > Nature... > > > > >> > > > > >>Only when this becomes clear can realization occur.... > > > > >> > > > > >>Edgar > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
