Edgar, My comments are embedded in your post below"
--- 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. > As you know I consider our thoughts as illusory and don't include them in what I call reality. > 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. [Bill!]I certainly do understand that humans, through their intellect and science, have concluded "...that human sensual experience does NOT accurately represent external reality." The problem I have with this statement is the adjective 'external' as applied to 'reality'. This as I'm sure you know is based on a dualistic concept which assumes there is a separate you (subject/self) which is experiencing an external reality (object). That's certainly the way the discriminating mind works and presents this to us. This is illusory. Buddha Nature however is not dualistic. It is holistic. There is no subject/object, self/other or internal/external. There is Just THIS! And that experience IS reality. > 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. [Bill!] There is reality (sensual experience) and in the case of humans there are illusions (thoughts, concepts). I don't know if other sentient beings have illusions also. 'Universe' is an illusory concept and might be just another word for 'Everything I can conceived of', but then all conceptions are illusory. > 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. > [Bill!] As I've shown above your idea of reality is definitely dualistic (external). My idea of reality is holistic - just raw experience. Just THIS! That's reality - only reality. That's Buddha Nature. It's only when you create dualism then there is reality/illusion, self/other, external/internal, etc... > 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.... > [Bill!} I do agree we're probably not ever going to agree on this. I realize what your point is, I just don't agree with it. There is really no world of forms. It all an illusion. The world of forms does not manifest Buddha Nature. Buddha Nature is raw experience. Your discriminating mind manifests the world of forms. > It's the meaning of "mountains are mountains again." > > If you don't agree what's your interpretation of that phrase? > > Edgar [Bill!] I actually touched on this before. A representation of that progression according to Seung Sahn is: 1. Attachment to Name and Form First there is a mountain. 2. Attachment to Thinking First there is a mountain. 3. Attachment to Emptiness Then there is no mountain. 4. Attachment to Freedom Then there is no mountain. 5. Non-Attachment Thinking Then there is. - Source: THE COMPASS OF ZEN, Seung Sahn, Fig: The Circle of Zen, page 291 This is very similar to my previous post which modified Descartes' axiom to: - I think and attach, therefore I am. (Steps 1 and 2 above) - I think but am not attached, therefore I seem to be but know 'I' am illusory. (Step 5 above) ...Bill! > 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/
