Edgar, I'm off to bed now. I'll check out any of your replies in the morning.
Have a good day...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Edgar, > > You consistently misinterpret what I say about realizing Buddha Nature as > thinking I only mean this is possible while sitting on a cushion. I don't > believe that and in fact I agree with you if that was the only way you could > realize Buddha Nature it wouldn't be worth much. You do have to get to the > point where you are capable of realizing Buddha Nature in all your activities > - INCLUDING intellectualization. > > All of the above is exactly what koan study helps you do. The beginning > koans (Mu, Face Before Mother Was Born, Sound of One Hand Clapping > etc...)help you with the initial breakthrough - kensho. The following koans > help you integrate your realization of Buddha Nature into your everyday life > - including intelletualization. > > Where we continue to disagree is your insistence that illusions are part of > reality. They are not. They are part of your human intellect, your human > nature - not Buddha Nature. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > I agree with what you say with one very important addition. > > > > > > After dissolving the illusion of self there is an additional step. That is > > understanding that the illusion of self IS part of reality but only when it > > is recognized as illusion. > > > > This is meaning of "mountains are mountains again".... > > > > It is this further step that allows Zen to be brought back into daily life > > rather than being confined to just zazen. > > > > In zazen the illusion of self can dissolve, but in daily life the illusion > > of self is necessary to operate in the world of forms. > > > > This final step is living in the world of forms while recognizing the forms > > as illusions manifesting Buddha Nature. In this step self is self again but > > realized as illusion manifesting Buddha Nature. One sees the Buddha Nature > > in all forms.... > > > > This is how one operates in daily life 24/7 in the world of forms while > > keeping one's Zen..... > > > > EDgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > I responded to this earlier but that was before your response below in > > > which you ask "Now in terms of Zen and Joe's question applied to us as > > > individuals where does this leave us?" > > > > > > My interpretation of this important philosophical axiom from the > > > perspective of my zen practice is a little different than yours > > > (Surprise! Surprise!). You focus on the consequence (as in cause & > > > effect) of thinking and existence (am). I focus on the consequence of > > > thinking and the creation of self (I am). > > > > > > For me "I think, therefore I am." means (in my words) 'self is a concept > > > created by the discriminating mind'. I could embellish that by saying > > > self is but one example of many dualistic sets created by the > > > discriminating mind (intellect), all of which are illusory. > > > > > > In any case in my zen practice I focus on dissolving the illusion of self > > > (I am). And how do I do that? By ceasing the cause - thinking > > > (intellectualization/creation of duality). When done while sitting this > > > is called shikantaza - but this can be done at any time and then it is > > > called (I call it) realizing Buddha Nature. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > > > Interesting question. > > > > > > > > The fundamental axiom of reality is 'Existence exists'. It is > > > > impossible for non existence to exist, therefore existence MUST exist > > > > and must have always existed. Therefore there was never a nothingness > > > > out of which something arose. Therefore there is no need for a creator. > > > > > > > > Existence exists or to paraphrase Bill. Existence! the single word that > > > > establishes its own existence. > > > > > > > > Existence! > > > > > > > > This is the fundamental self necessitating axiom of reality upon which > > > > all others depend. It's the very bottom turtle. > > > > > > > > This is what is beyond doubt. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now in terms of Zen and Joe's question applied to us as individuals > > > > where does this leave us? > > > > > > > > First there can be NO doubt at all that we exist period. It is > > > > impossible that we even consider the question of our existence and not > > > > to exist. That's a no brainer and it's clear Decartes was either an > > > > idiot or he meant something different by '...I am" than simple > > > > existence. And his 'cogito ergo sum' is tremendously stupid when one > > > > thinks about it since thinking does NOT establish existence. It's the > > > > other way around. > > > > > > > > Back to Joe's question as pertains to a realized Zen person. As I've > > > > often repeated here realization is simply a matter of realizing > > > > realization. Realization is realizing the true nature of things. The > > > > true nature of things continually surrounds us 24/7 in the present > > > > moment so there is no escaping the true nature of things. It's just a > > > > matter of looking and seeing and experiencing them as they are. That > > > > means understanding how human biology and cognition transform reality > > > > into an internal simulation of the 'real' reality in one's own brain, > > > > which when further understood is both the 'real' world and the > > > > simulated internal world at the same time in a single reality which is > > > > the only true reality accessible to humans. It's a matter of > > > > understanding the true nature of illusion so that the reality appears > > > > within it. Illusion recognized AS illusion IS reality. > > > > > > > > Well I had intended to give a simple answer but reality is not simple. > > > > Let me try to cut through to the essence by discarding the unessential > > > > relative to Descartes. > > > > > > > > First of all at the most fundamental level there is no 'I am' and there > > > > is no 'I think' so those can be discarded. > > > > > > > > The essence in a nutshell is more like > > > > > > > > Consciousness! Reality! Enlightenment! > > > > > > > > Or even better just " " to indicate that what is which is nameless > > > > IS.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for asking the question Joe, > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:56 PM, Joe wrote: > > > > > > > > > Group, > > > > > > > > > > I'm interested in your "pensees". > > > > > > > > > > Rene Descartes was the French philosopher who published his "Pensees" > > > > > to great acclaim; it has been an influential study in Western > > > > > Philosophy, and elsewhere, for centuries. > > > > > > > > > > The book, "Thoughts", or "Meditations" is the record of his attempts > > > > > to find what he calls "clear and distinct" ideas. He tried to begin > > > > > with the most basic thought, or idea: he looked for what he could > > > > > absolutely not DOUBT. He looked, and he looked. Some would say he > > > > > meditated on it (but not in the Zen way, probably). This is why the > > > > > title is almost always translated as "Meditations" in English. But we > > > > > know what the translators mean (if we can remember to the time before > > > > > we began meditation practice). I think of the book as "Thoughts", or > > > > > "Pensees". > > > > > > > > > > Descartes writes that when he engages in his meditations, he finds > > > > > that what he cannot doubt is that he "thinks" (probably many of us > > > > > do, too, when we meditate). > > > > > > > > > > He took it a step further, and deduced that, because he thinks, he > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > The "cogito" is the famous proposition he coined: > > > > > > > > > > "Cogito, ergo sum." > > > > > > > > > > "I think, therefore I am." > > > > > > > > > > Now, a question for the group is, how does an awakened person view > > > > > the cogito? > > > > > > > > > > Or, what would an awakened person say, instead?, if asked to find > > > > > something that he/she could not DOUBT. > > > > > > > > > > Don't all say "Mu", at once, though. I'll worry it's a stampede. > > > > > > > > > > And, is there something like the cogito that an awakened person would > > > > > compose? > > > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
