Edgar, If I do as you state "nearly always say it's OUR experience and illusions are in YOUR mind..." then I apologize because that's not what I mean to say - and in fact I don't think that is what I do say. In any event I will take more care in the future when describing such things.
As far as your post all I can say is "Nice try". I too was hoping to get some kind of agreement or at least understanding, but what you've written is not it. You start out okay: "The true view is that experience PRIOR TO THE DUALISM OF EXPERIENCER AND EXPERIENCED is the only truth and the only reality." I agree although I wouldn't use the terms "experiencer and experienced" because I believe 'experience' to be monistic. I would use the pluralistc terms 'perceiver and perceived'. But that's just a nit pick. However, then you go on to say "Thus experience is NOT in YOUR mind. And illusions are NOT in your mind." My version would be that 'experience' is NOT in your mind because when there is just 'experience' there is only monism and therefore there is no 'you' nor 'mind'. Once however the delusion of pluralism arises there is a delusion of 'you', and a delusion of a 'mind', and this mind does have delusions called 'perceptions'. So you (or I) could say 'these 'delusions' or 'perceptions' (plural) are in 'your' or 'our' 'mind'. I'm familar with the zen aphroism 'first there is a mountain...'. For me and in the terms we've been discussing it means 'First there are delusions that I think are real. Then there are no delusions. Then there are delusions again but now I recognize them as delusions.' ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > I agree with that but that is not the way you say it. You nearly always say > it's OUR experience and illusions are in YOUR mind... That's solipsism, not > Zen... > > The true view is that experience PRIOR TO THE DUALISM OF EXPERIENCER AND > EXPERIENCED is the only truth and the only reality. > > Thus experience is NOT in YOUR mind. And illusions are NOT in your mind. They > both just appear, and one of those illusions is a you having a mind.... > > Do we now agree on that at least? > > However the additional truth and reality that you can't seem to grasp is that > this means that everything without exception is real including all illusions > but only recognized as the illusions they are. > > Only in this way do mountains become mountains again which is a core teaching > in Zen.... > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > No, I'm not assuming it's a pluralistic experience as I know you do. I may > > use language and sentence structures that describe it pluralistically, but > > I try conscientiously to avoid that. > > > > I looked in my post below and didn't see anywhere that I'd used the phrase > > "our experience of", but I'm not claiming I never have. > > > > I try to just use the word 'experience' without assigning any modifiers or > > objects. I also try to do this with 'Buddha Nature'. For example I don't > > say 'our Buddha Nature', I just say 'Buddha Nature'. But back to > > 'experience'. > > > > Experience is just experience. Since it monistic there is no subject or > > object. > > - You shouldn't use the adjective pronouns 'my' or 'your' or 'ours'. If > > you did you'd be creating a pluralistic group of subjects. > > - Similarly you shouldn't use a following conjunction like 'of' which > > expects an object. It's just 'experience'. > > > > I know I have in the past used the phrase 'experience of Buddha Nature', > > but that should just be 'experience' or 'Buddha Nature', but not even > > 'experience Buddha Nature' because even that does imply a subject (an > > experiencer) and an object (Buddha Nature). > > > > Most of these difficulties come up because of trying to describe monism > > using a language that's based on dualism. Language is based on dualism > > because it's evolved to communicate intellectually. If you wanted to > > communicate sensually (which is the sole basis of experience) and avoid > > intellectualizations (which is the sole basis of desusions) you'd have to > > do so sensually - like a slap on the face or a shout. > > > > And I haven't figured out how to do that yet on a text-based forum such as > > this. > > > > As always thanks for your comment and question...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > >> > >> Bill, > >> > >> But what is 'our' experience 'of'? > >> > >> That seems to be the core problem... You don't seem to get the point that > >> by claiming it's 'our' experience you already assume the dualism you > >> reject... > >> > >> Edgar > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jul 2, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Bill! wrote: > >> > >>> Edgar, > >>> > >>> Yes, I understand that yours is definitely the pluralistic* point-of-view > >>> on this. You believe you are 'in here' and everything else is 'out > >>> there'. That is how I perceive things also, but I know that is delusion. > >>> > >>> You have again mis-characterized my description on this. I don't think > >>> all our delusions arise 'spontaneously' in our mind. Many are > >>> post-processing of our experience. Some are spontaneous or at least > >>> self-propagating like logic and reason, memories, projections and just > >>> pure fantasy. You are correct however that I do not think our delusions > >>> can be tied to any 'external' source; but as I said above many of them, > >>> perceptions, are a pluralistic-based result of experience. > >>> > >>> *Pluralistic - I've stared using the word 'pluralism' where I used to use > >>> the word 'dualism', just as I've started using the word 'delusion' where > >>> I used to use the word 'illusion'. I mean the same thing as I did before > >>> but think these terms better describe the concept. > >>> > >>> ...Bill! > >>> > >>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Bill, > >>>> > >>>> Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually > >>>> was a SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. > >>>> You deny there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and > >>>> believe your delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external > >>>> source. > >>>> > >>>> That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly > >>>> agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself.... > >>>> > >>>> Edgar > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. > >>>>> As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. > >>>>> ~ Sunryu Suzuki > >>>>> > >>>>> I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. > >>>>> > >>>>> ...Bill! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
