Bill, Encouraging words!
Perhaps what I'm saying would be clearer if you consider that thoughts ARE experiences and illusions ARE experiences. That is in fact the only way they are experienced, as experiences. Thus your attempted separation of thoughts from what you call "sensual experiences" is a false and dualistic separation. Everything that arises in consciousness IS an experience. Your separation of experiences into 'real' sensory experiences and 'illusory' thoughts is an artificial dualistic separation that exists ONLY in the unrealized mind.... ALL FORMS, not just thought forms, are illusory. Sensory experience also consists of FORMS because the definition of a form is ANYTHING that can be discriminated from anything else. Thus by discriminating "sensual experiences" from all that is not "sensual experience" it is seen to be a form. So all your sensory experiences are also forms and thus are also illusory. So you see that all forms are illusory but that includes those you call real. QED illusions (the world of forms) ARE reality, but ONLY when their illusory nature is realized. Slight correction to your first thought below. Buddha Nature is NOT quite "the direct experience of reality". It is the very fundamental nature of reality which includes everything; you, me, what you call reality, and what you call illusion. Buddha Nature does not depend on direct experience, it IS direct manifestation of itself most often through the world of forms. It manifests through everything that exists, whether we label that reality or illusion, because fundamentally Buddha Nature, what I call ontological energy, the energy of being here now in the present moment, is all that exists. Fundamentally it is formless, but it also manifests all the forms of the world of forms that arise within it as the forms called waves arise in a formless ocean of water... But there is a further twist. Since reality only manifests via experience (in the most generic sense as what I call Xperience, which is the interaction of ANY form with any other form including human forms). This means that EXPERIENCE = MANIFESTATION. Experience and manifestation are one and the same thing. = Buddha Nature! Also called Tao or ontological energy... Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts! EDgar On Nov 23, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > Since I posted this I thought more about the subject and have something to > add. It's just a nascent thought and I need to think about it more but I > believe it shows promise... > > Before I get to the thought I do want to say I think we agree that Buddha > Nature is the direct experience of reality. Please let me know if this is > incorrect. When I say this the 'direct' part means pre-thought, and the > 'experience' part means only sensory experience. I think you interpret this > differently, and please let me know your interpretation. > > I also want to say that this difference between us of 'reality includes > illusions' and 'illusions are not reality' is really not that important - to > me, although I do come back to it a lot. The important part to me is that > experience and illusions are differentiated. > > The new thought I had that has developed from thinking more about Descartes' > axiom is 'existence', and how existence relates to reality and relates to > illusion. My new thinking is trying to integrate the concept of 'attachment' > into the mix, because I like you do not believe thoughts or illusions in and > of themselves are problematic once you are able to differentiate these from > experience. It is the attachment to them that is the problem. > > Continuing on my new line of thinking I could say that it may be the > attachment to illusions that make them seem to exist and therefore seem to > elevate them to the level of reality. If/when you drop the attachment then > (for me) they are not confused with reality (experience) and are benign. > > Trying to fit this into Descartes' I would need to alter it into Before/After > modes: > > Before realization of Buddha Nature > "I think and attach, therefore I am." I 'exist' (have elevated my illusion to > 'reality) because I am attached to my illusion of self. > > After realization of Buddha Nature > 'I think, therefore I seem to be.' There are still illusions but because > there is no attachment they are seen as illusions and not elevated to > 'reality'. > > That's all for now. I'm getting ready to go out and do some errands. I assume > you're getting ready for bed. Sleep well. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
