Merle, What do you use as a guide and reference when you paint?
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > > bill do not make it up..what you think these words mean ... use a > dictionary...merle > > > Â > Edgar, > > Below you asked: "What do you think illusory actually means?", and that is > exactly what I dreamed about last night and was prepared to explain to you > this morning. I do think part, but not all, of our perpetual disagreement > about this is because we are using the same terms for 'reality' and > 'illusion' but they have different meanings to each of us. Below is what I > mean by these terms: > > REALITY is experience. I sometimes say 'raw' experience to differentiate it > from 'perceptions' or 'illusions'. > > EXPERIENCE is immediate sensory experience. There is actually no other kind > of experience, but we do use that word in common English to describe other > things. These 'other things' are illusions. > > AWARENESS is actually implied by 'experience'. You can't say you've > 'experienced' something if you're not aware of the experience, but I do > sometimes additionally use the term 'awareness' just to emphasize that state > and avoid confusion. > > BUDDHA NATURE is experience, or using the superfluous add-on, is awareness of > experience. Again, experience is reality. > > PERCEPTION is the post-processing of experience by your discriminating mind. > I think we agree on this term. > > ILLUSION is the result of PERCEPTION, and can also just be fantasy (no basis > in reality at all). > > Now I do think an additional difference between us that might not be apparent > here is that when I say reality is experience, I mean just that and only > that. There is no other or more reality than what's experienced. All > inferences you make about other or more reality are products of your > discriminating mind and are illusory. That doesn't mean they are not > logical, practical or somewhat dependable. They can be all of these but are > still illusory. > > Now to your post below. > > I will repeat what I said below using the terms I've defined above. I don't > think that will make you agree with it, but at least you should be able to > more fully understand what I'm saying: > > Reality has no structure. Experience is [the awareness of] reality and > nothing more. Experience does not present nor contains any structure such as > time, place, cause-and-effect, projections, assumptions, conclusions, > judgments, classifications, etc... Experience is reality. Experience is > Just THIS! That's it. That's all. Everything else you 'think' about > reality is illusory - a projection. Reality is holistic (non-dualistic). > It's Just THIS! It's not this and that. When you catch yourself (your > dualistic self) creating this and that then you are no longer holistically > experiencing reality. You have slipped into a dualistic mode are creating > illusions. > > Now to your example... You wrote: "You don't even admit that the sun rises > in the morning is evidence of the structure of reality when any schoolboy > understands that." > > Buddha Nature is the awareness of only the total immediate sensual experience > of what we call the 'sunrise'. It would include sight and possibly touch, > sound and smell, and though unlikely maybe taste also. (These divisions of > experience into 5 senses has been done by our discriminating mind and I use > these terms for clarity only. Buddha Nature being holistic does not > discriminate between these senses and experiences them as a whole, Just THIS!) > > So, what I've described above the experience. When you add things like 'the > sun', 'rising', 'morning' and the implication that this 'event' will 'happen > again' in the 'future', you are engaging your discriminating mind. Buddha > Nature is not aware of the divisions, classifications, projections or even > the terms I listed above in parenthesis (' '). These are all products of > your discriminating mind and are all illusory. (And again let me say that > being illusory doesn't mean they are not logical, practical or somewhat > dependable. They can be all of these but are still illusory.) > > Whew! That's enough for now. I hope this post at least helps clarify my > position on these topics even if you still don't agree with me. > > I might add all that I've posted is not what I have come to understand, but > what I have experienced; and is my best attempt to communicate that to you. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > Bill! > > > > What do you think illusory actually means? I know it's not what I think... > > > > And you are provably wrong on your first sentence. Discrimination is PART > > of reality. Discrimination has structure. Therefore reality (or at least > > part of it) has structure. Therefore your statement is self contradictory... > > > > Thus the world of forms has structure. I think your misunderstanding is not > > understanding that is true even though I agree that discrimination adds > > ADDITIONAL structure. The mental simulation of reality only works because > > there is some degree of accuracy in its modeling of the structure of > > reality. This is basic. > > > > If reality itself had no structure it could not exist and we could not > > exist. > > > > You don't even admit that the sun rises in the morning is evidence of the > > structure of reality when any schoolboy understands that. > > > > I've explained this tooooo many times and it still doesn't sink in! > > :-) > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > Everything that IS discriminated has structure. It's the discrimination > > > that gives it the structure, not the structure that allows it to be > > > discriminated. > > > > > > I don't disagree with you that everything in the world of forms has > > > structure, but all forms are illusory - and the structure is a structure > > > we impose on it. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill! > > > > > > > > Everything that can be discriminated has structure including Merle's > > > > paintings. There is nothing in the world of forms that doesn't have > > > > structure. > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > Very nice! I like them because many of them appear to have structure > > > > > but actually do not...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> check here what i draw and paint > > > > >> Merle > > > > >> www.wix.com/merlewiitpom/1 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
