Mike, I could accept the word 'distortions'. To me as you've explained it below 'distortions' seems to carry the same meaning for me as the term 'perceptions'. The important part for me is that they are clearly distinguished from experience. For now I will continue to use the word 'illusions'.
I would only caution though that if you call them 'distortions' be careful not to assume they are always based on reality (experience). 'Distortions' for me carries the implication that there is something actually 'real' out there that is the source of the distortion. Some of what I call 'illusions' are pure fantasy. That's just an FYI (IMO of course). I don't doubt that illusions can be correlated with physical measurements within the brain. I hope we're not now going to go down some scientific measurement road to explain, support or refute zen or zen practices. That's a closed loop and goes nowhere. The bone-pointing description as you've pointed out only works on someone who believes those powers are real. Believing they are real doesn't make them real, although yes there is power in belief - if you are locked-in to the dualistic illusion that your self is real. If you realize your self is illusory and are able to recognize that in your daily activities I am sure bone-pointing wouldn't have that same effect. I only half-agree with your ambivalence about what these are called. I agree the name means nothing, but since they are associated directly with attachment and suffering I think it's helpful to point out that they are only present in dualistic thought and as such are 'distortions' that can at least be recognized and 'brought into clearer focus' through zen practice. (Which is the equivalent of me saying: ...and as such are 'illusions' that can at least be recognized and 'made more transparent' through zen practice. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,<br/><br/>I have no stake in this topic at all because I don't see the > problem with thoughts as being whether they are illusory or not, but rather > that the following of them leads to craving/aversion and thus suffering. The > 20 year old Edgar is a falsehood and he clearly isn't real, but the the > thought itself - however delusional and empty - still exists. It arises from > previous conditions and is itself a condition for further effects. Tests in > neuroscience show that thoughts need energy and create vibrations. The body > can suffer major pathology from a thought. In Australia Aborigines die from > having a bone pointed at them and being cursed. The demon might be a > falsehood and not exist, but the thought does and has dire > consequences.<br/><br/>I found this on wiki regarding > 'maya':<br/><br/>NÄgÄrjuna, of the MahÄyÄna MÄdhyamika (i.e., "Middle > Way") school, discusses nirmita, or illusion closely related to mÄyÄ. In > this example, the illusion is > a self-awareness that is, like the magical illusion, mistaken. For > Nagarjuna, the self is not the organizing command center of experience, as we > might think. Actually, it is just one element combined with other factors and > strung together in a sequence of causally connected moments in time. [[[As > such, the self is not substantially real, but neither can it be shown to be > unreal]]]. The continuum of moments, which we mistakenly understand to be > a solid, unchanging self, still performs actions and undergoes their results. > "As a magician creates a magical illusion by the force of magic, and the > illusion produces another illusion, in the same way the agent is a magical > illusion and the action done is the illusion created by another > illusion."[16] What we experience may be an illusion, but we are living > inside the illusion and bear the fruits of our actions there. We undergo the > experiences of the illusion. What we do affects what we experience, so it > matters.[17] In this example, Nagarjuna uses the magician's illusion to show > that the self is not as real as it thinks, yet, to the extent it is inside > the illusion, real enough to warrant respecting the ways of the > world.<br/><br/> <br/>The Theravada interpretation of maya works better for > me. Instead of meaning 'illusion' they use the word vipallasa which > translates as 'distortion'. This works better for me because it retains the > meaning of 'things not being as they appear' without relegating them to > non-existence.<br/><br/>Hope that helps!<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/>Sent > from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > ------------------------------------ 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/
