Chris, I haven't read it, at least under that name. Can you post it here please?
Thanks, Edgar On Nov 24, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > Have either one of you read the Gabyo chapter of Dogen's Shobogenzo ? it > seems to address the issue you are disagreeing on. I have read it but can't > claim understanding, tho it seems to be taking a sort of dialectical > synthesis between your two positions. > > A picture of a cake will not feed you, but it is still a picture. > > On Nov 24, 2012 4:34 PM, "Bill!" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
