Merle,
This post was directed primarily to Edgar. He and I like to discuss such
things.
None of this is really important or a pre-requisite to zen practice.
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Â what a mouthful...all about what is real and what is not..jesus... what
> till dementia gets ya..what's real then?..merle
>
>
> Â
> Edgar,
>
> I got up this morning, had a cup of tea and settled in to watch CNN 360 when
> a neighbor had an emergency which captured my attention so I am just now able
> to attend to your post.
>
> I'm feeling very generous this morning so I will forgo the usual 'tough love'
> and concentrate instead on 'kumyaya love'...
>
> As usual my comments are embedded below:
>
> > > Bill!
> > >
> > > Realty is what exists in the present moment. It includes Buddha Nature
> > > and everything including all the forms and any illusions that exist in
> > > the present moment by manifesting Buddha Nature. But the fundamental
> > > reality of all these forms is Buddha Nature only.
>
> [Bill!] Okay. I think then I can say that our differences in the way we use
> the term 'reality' is that I call 'reality' what you call 'fundamental
> reality', and you call 'reality' what I call 'reality' plus 'illusions'. Or
> symbolically:
> [Bill] REALITY = Fundamental Reality = Buddha Nature
> [EDGAR] FUNDAMENTAL REALITY = Buddha Nature
> REALITY = Fundamental Reality + Illusions.
>
> > > Illusions are the differences between an organism's simulation of reality
> > > in its mind and reality itself as it actually exists...
>
> [Bill!] Agreed!
>
> > > PS: I actually agree with you that all that exists is experience, but
> > > that experience is not just in YOUR mind. That's the major disagreement I
> > > think I have with you. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you call 'Your' mind
> > > is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self
> > > and not self.
>
> [Bill!] I do agree with you that his area is an area of disagreement if I'm
> understanding you correctly. To put it in simple terms, I believe Reality is
> ONLY what you experience and there is no more. An example: Right now I hear
> the sound of a rooster crowing outside my window. The SOUND is REALITY, and
> it is the SUM TOTAL of reality. It is experienced by Buddha Nature - in fact
> the very EXPERIENCE itself IS Buddha Nature. The inferences that the sound
> is from a rooster, and that the rooster is something separate from me, and
> that it is in a different location than me, etc..., are all products of my
> dualistic mind, and are what I generalize and term as 'illusion'. And this
> INCLUDES inferences, and projections that lead me to believe there are other
> roosters living in the USA or France. I am not experiencing them. The
> 'idea' of them is just that, an idea, an inference - or what I generalize and
> term illusions. And I do include logical
> inferences in this category. I maintain Illusions do not exist in Buddha
> Nature because again I believe Buddha Nature is sensory experience only, or
> what you have called above 'Fundamental Reality'. I believe our logical
> inferences what cascade out from our experience are not 'Fundamental Reality'
> have a dualistic base so are part of our discriminating mind, not of Buddha
> Nature.
>
> I am also uncomfortable with your characterization of what you think I
> believe as "What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as
> it becomes categorized into self and not self." That's close, but you need
> to again be very careful about the terms. I do believe Buddha Nature
> (singular) is Experience, is Reality. I do believe 'our individual
> discriminating minds' (plural)when they arise then create dualism which
> allows for the dualistic set of Reality/Illusions. If there is no dualism,
> only Buddha Nature there is only Reality - no Illusions. Or as I say (and I
> know you're sick of reading it but it's the best I can do...) Just THIS!
>
> > > Experience itself is raw and unmediated. Experience itself is reality.
>
> [Bill!] Yes! Yes! Yes!
>
> > >It consists of forms manifesting Buddha Nature.
> [Bill!] Reality/Experience is Emptiness. Forms are generated and imposed by
> our discriminating minds. Emptiness is Emptiness. Forms are Forms. They
> are not interchangeable.
>
> > >Many if not all of those forms are illusory. But they are reality when
> > >recognized as illusory. They are illusory only when taken as reality.
>
> [Bill!] Some of those Forms are based on Reality/Experience and some are
> not, but even those based on inferences about Reality/Experience are not
> Reality, they are Forms. I say all Forms are Illusory - dualistic products
> of our discriminating minds.
>
> > > All that exists is Xperience (I use this more general term because it
> > > applies equally well to all things, not just human minds). Even the most
> > > profound and complex intellectual theory ultimately exists only as
> > > experience, as the experience of its forms.
>
> [Bill!] I'm not sure about this new (to me) term 'Xperience'. How does that
> differ from 'Experience', or is it just a short-hand way of writing
> 'Experience'? Anyway I disagree with the last phrase of your last sentence
> above: "...as the experience of its forms." You don't Experience Forms. You
> create them. You only Experience Reality.
>
> > > All that exists is Xperience only. Reality is not at its most fundamental
> > > level a physical structure. It consists of Xperience, the Xperience of
> > > everything in the universe of everything else. Your Experience is just
> > > part of that overall structure...
>
> [Bill!] I thought I was going to agree with this but I see now that you do
> differentiate between 'Xperience' and 'Experience'. It now seems you are
> saying we each individually have 'Experience', but the total summation of all
> 'Experiences' is 'Xperience'. Is that what you're implying? I hope not.
>
> And while I'm at it I'd strengthen your statement to say 'Reality has nothing
> to do with the concept of 'physicality'. That too is what I'd call an
> illusion.
>
> > > First is xperience, then it's categorized and analyzed and theorized, but
> > > ultimately it all remains xperience only, the xperience of those
> > > processes...
> > > Including my experience of thinking and writing this right now..
>
> [Bill!] You've lost me here...
>
> > > Thus it is clear that experience has a logical structure. And since
> > > xperience is the ultimate reality, that ultimate reality must also have a
> > > logical structure.
>
> [Bill!] What you call 'Fundamental Experience' does NOT have a logical
> structure. Structure is super-imposed upon Experience after-the-fact by our
> discriminating minds. But, I guess I'm just re-stating my position here,
> probably to no avail.
>
> > > Our basic disagreement as I see it is that recognizing this I embrace
> > > this logical structure of experience as a manifestation of the reality of
> > > Buddha Nature since, as we agree, experience is the ONLY reality, and it
> > > has a logical structure, while you throw up your hands and deny that part
> > > of experience is reality, and claim only the formless aspect of Buddha
> > > nature you experience while doing zazen is reality.
>
> [Bill!] I'd say that's about 90% correct. I'd wordsmith a few things before
> I could accept it completely but most especially I'd have to drop a small but
> important portion of the last sentence, "...while doing zazen...". Buddha
> Nature is not only manifested while I'm doing zazen but at other times too.
>
> > > As I say over and over, ALL of experience is reality, all of experience
> > > manifests Buddha Nature, not just the formless aspect of it.
> [Bill!] And I also say all experience is reality, and all reality is
> formless (empty). Forms are supplied by our discriminating mind, and being
> dualistic cannot be said to be Buddha Nature.
> > >
> > > Edgar
>
> [Bill!] Thanks a lot for clarifying your position and the terms you use in
> this post. It will help me better communicate with you in the future.
>
> ...Bill!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > > Edgar,
> > > >
> > > > I've yet to see a set of succinct definitions of what you mean by
> > > > 'reality' and 'illusions'. How about taking the list I posted and tell
> > > > us what your definitions are?
> > > >
> > > > And try to keep the definitions to a couple sentences.
> > > >
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ED,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been trying to do just that in almost every one of my posts
> > > > > since I've been here but apparently not well enough...
> > > > > :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > Edgar
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:41 AM, ED wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edgar,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you mean by 'reality' is different from what Bill! means by
> > > > > > 'reality'. In a recent post, Bill! has stated in some detail the
> > > > > > meaning he attaches to the word 'reality. You may want to define
> > > > > > what you mean by 'reality'. Then, we may be able to see how and why
> > > > > > you two are in disagreement over 'reality'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --ED
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the
> > > > > > > street without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality
> > > > > > > has no logical structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus
> > > > > > > it's all in her mind as an illusion and not reality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run
> > > > > > > out on the street without looking because it's ME that is saying
> > > > > > > that buses are real and you can really get killed running out in
> > > > > > > front of one BECAUSE REALITY HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS
> > > > > > > THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend is NOT an illusion...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out,
> > > > > > > that each of us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in
> > > > > > > our respective minds. But because our mental models of reality
> > > > > > > are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what they model, the laws
> > > > > > > of nature, do not exist....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
