http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Shobogenzo_Complete.html
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Shobogenzo/039gabyo.pdf On Nov 25, 2012 5:04 AM, "Edgar Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >> >> >> >> > > > >
