Bill, The world of forms is the manifestation of the reality of Buddha Nature.
The mind creates an additional set of forms which is an internal MODEL of the external world of forms. One needs to clearly understand which forms are in the mind (our cognitive model of the world) and which in the external world (eg. are intrinsic laws of nature) The Zen picture is realizing these are both part of a single reality that models itself. Zen mind is realizing these forms are all manifestations of their underlying Buddha Nature and existing within them as an expression of that Buddha Nature... Edgar On Mar 31, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Bill! wrote: > Joe, > > IMO all concepts (like cause-and-effect) are illusory. The 'exist' in the > same way all illusions 'exist'. The are created by us (humans, and maybe > other rational beings too)and superimposed on experience. I assume we do this > because it gives us a sense of order and therefore control over what is > undoubtedly pure chaos. > > When I use the phrase in single parenthesis 'out there', I mean the dualistic > illusion that there is an 'out there'. I know many/most of you really believe > there are what you call 'principals' or 'laws of nature' (and now I have to > add) 'out there'. You believe these principals or laws exist independent of > you and that you, the smart fellow that you are, have the ability to observe, > recognize, separate out, classify and document these principals. I don't > believe that. I believe we create them, or at least some of us who are > really, really smart create them and then teach them to the rest of us, which > of course we all believe on faith. That faith is bolstered by our ability to > observe the same principals or laws at work in our own dualisitic and > rationalized perception of our experience. > > Kapeesh? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > > > Bill!, > > > > I've seen you put it like this several times before, and I think you are > > being a little amiss in how you're saying one small part of this. > > > > I don't think you mean the "concept" doesn't exist "out there". > > > > I think you mean a kind of functioning that results in what looks to us > > like cause and effect does not exist out there. > > > > By contrast, of course the concept exists: it exists in us, as a concept. > > Otherwise it would not be a concept for us. Concepts exist nowhere else but > > in us, so of course we won't find it "out there". > > > > But, what about the "functioning" I refer to above? ...the functioning that > > results in our ascribing cause and effect. I would not say it exists out > > there as a concept (as I think you would not). I would not say it exists > > out there as a Principle. I would not say it exists out there as a Law. I > > think all we can say is that there is a functioning, and that functioning > > is a VERB, not a noun. It functions. But we do not see "something" > > functioning, or the mechanics and gears of the functioning. We see instead > > manifestations or consequences. Consequences of WHAT? When we ask that, > > "WHAT?", and ANSWER it, this is where we start drawing up phantoms. And we > > attach to them, if we are not awake. They become our models. It's OK to use > > the phantoms for our purposes, and emploit them in our skilful means. But > > attachment to them as something "out there" is the root of suffering. The > > concept or idea of a self is one of these "things", I know everyone here > > agrees. > > > > --Joe > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > I'm not denying that cause-and-effect seems to provide independent > > > conditioning in the world of forms (illusions), I'm saying like the world > > > of forms the concept of cause-and-effect is just a projection of our > > > rational mind. It's not something that exists 'out there' independent of > > > intellect. > > > > > > This is a good example of the question: "If a tree falls in the forest > > > and no one (human) is there, is there a sound?" No, there isn't. > > > >
