Joe, Well you can say it that way which I have no argument with. I just say that the illusions SEEN or REALIZED as illusions are reality. You say they are no longer illusions but reality. I have no problem with that but I think it runs the risk of misunderstanding the world of forms because what was called an illusion before has not somehow mysteriously changed it's character, it's character has just been realized. That's why I'd rather say the illusion DIDN'T CHANGE into a reality like you imply, it's just that its reality has now been realized. And that reality is that it is still an illusion. But an illusion realized as an illusion is reality.
So it was reality all along, just not seen as it actually was, and therefore as illusion. Edgar On Nov 24, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Joe wrote: > Edgar, > > You made me think (damn you!). ;-) > > > > AND it's important to understand that quote applies ALSO to illusions in > > > Zen. > > Only two little problems with what you say there, as I see it/them. > > (1.) When an apparition or presentation is still an illusion to one, it shows > nothing to one of the nature behind it; one is "open" only to seeing the > illusory cover, the (karmically) transfigured substrate, and senses nothing > of the absolute Nature; > > (2.) When one is awake, appearances and presentations of all types are simply > the radiance of the Tathagatha, manifestations of this wondrous Mind. There > are NO illusions. > > (now back to our regularly-scheduled Samadhi bliss). > > --Joe > > > > AND it's important to understand that quote applies ALSO to illusions in > > > Zen. > >
