Edgar, I think the key question you ask below is "Since reality is ALL that exists please tell me where illusions could exist if not in reality?". The answer to that is dependent upon what you define as 'real' and therefore part of 'reality', and I agree we seem to have a different definition of 'reality'.
You seem to define 'reality' as EVERYTHING including thoughts. I define as 'real' only sensual experience. Everything else, which mainly consists of thoughts, are not real. Yes, they SEEM to be real and that's whey I call them 'illusions'. So when you ask, "Since reality is ALL that exists please tell me where illusions could exist if not in reality?", and since I define reality as only sensual experience I would just say that illusions 'exist' only in our thoughts - just like Descartes' 'I am'. Descartes' 'I' is not real. It's an illusion, and only appears (exists/am) when he thinks. When he doesn't think (realizes Buddha Nature) the 'I' disappears. So unless you actually believe that you can think things in and out of existence, or like Descartes declare that only the things you think exist, I suggest you reexamine your definition of reality vis-a-vis illusions. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > The corollary of your position is that there is something called illusions > which are not part of reality. My position is that everything that exists, > including illusions, are part of reality. > > Since reality is ALL that exists please tell me where illusions could exist > if not in reality? > > Illusions DO exist. They exist as illusions which are part of reality. > > This is a fundamental difference between our views and I'm not sure how to > resolve it. Any ideas? > > It seems to be basically different definitions of reality. > > It reality does NOT include illusions then what do you call that which > includes BOTH reality and illusions? You have to have some name for it. The > universe? The world? What? Whatever that name is that's what I call reality. > > To me its absolutely obvious that illusions exist. It's like a magician's > trick. It actually exists. It is completely real. It just isn't as it > appears. All the illusions of the world of forms are exactly the same..... Do > you at least understand what I'm saying? > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 23, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Bill! 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/
