Edgar, I just woke up (pardon the pun) but don't have time to adequately address your important questions below. I've got to do my 18-hole kinhin this morning but will fully respond to all this when I return this afternoon (your early morning).
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > Couple of points. > > We are part of reality and thus so are our minds and our thoughts. > > I agree with you that illusions exist ONLY in human (and all organism's) > minds. We agree this includes thoughts, but what you don't understand is that > it also includes what you call "sensual experience". It is abundantly clear > from cognitive and physiological studies that human sensual experience does > NOT accurately represent external reality. And that it misleads in almost > every way possible.... > > So our sensual experience is also illusion. This is trivially easy to prove > with any number of simple experiments. And it is also demonstrated e.g. by > the phantom pains of missing limbs. > > You didn't give me an answer to my core question though. What do you call > that which includes your concept of reality plus what you call illusion? Do > you call that the universe or what? > > To me reality and the universe are identical. > > My reality is all inclusive and non dualistic. Your reality is dualistic in > opposition to illusion. I'd argue my definition of reality by being non > dualistic is closer to Zen. > > In any case I don't think we are going to resolve this anytime soon, until > you truly realize my point that illusion seen as illusion IS the reality of > the world of forms. It IS how the world of forms manifests Buddha Nature.... > > It's the meaning of "mountains are mountains again." > > If you don't agree what's your interpretation of that phrase? > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 23, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Bill! 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
