Arg, pardon the typos. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524
On Jul 5, 2013 9:51 AM, "Chris Austin-Lane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I meant how. > > There’s no way thinking will allow you to differentiate between angry seeing and tired seeing and neutral seeing. It's all a piece - the experiences mediated by introspection are the same experiences mediated by sight. You seem to be claiming your seeing is cut away from the rest of you. > > And I'm not arguing against your line between the experience and the perception, I am arguing against the exclusion of the sense of introspection from sensory experience. > > As far as what I write, of course what I write is delusion, but please not i did not write more pleasing, just brighter. Pleasing/displeasing of course have an almost irritable Irresistible force to put the gaps back into our living >force to put the gaps in our living. Brighter/duller I mean to be as close to just experiencing that sense of introspection as words will let me go. > > You added the pleasing, that seems to me to very clearly show your resistance to my point of view here. To you my decidedly neutral words have to carry some judgment. But I am used to being clear some days and cloudy others. It's ok. Each day is as it is. > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > > On Jul 5, 2013 1:37 AM, "Bill!" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Chris, >> >> Are you saying you don't know HOW I draw such a bright line between experience and perceptions? Or are you saying you don't know WHY I draw the line? >> >> 'How' is easy. Experience is sensual and monistic (Buddha Nature). Perceptions are intellectualizations and pluralistic (Human Nature). >> >> 'Why' is not as easy to explain, but I'll go through the steps below: >> - The vast majority of humans experience suffering. >> - In order to alleviate suffering you must drop attachments. >> - In order to drop attachments you must awaken to the realization that your identification with a separate and unique 'self' is a delusion. >> - In order to do that you have to experience monism (Buddha Nature) where all is one and there is no separate self - or anything else for that matter. >> - In order to do that you must suspend the creation of pluralism and delusions which are products of your intellect (Human Nature). >> - In order to do that you could employ any number of zen teaching methods including zazen, chanting, bowing and koans. There are probably many other non-zen ways also. >> - After you do that you can resume your intellect and the creation of pluralism and delusion, but now with the realization that these are delusions. You are melding together Buddha Nature and Human Nature so that Human Nature no longer obscures Buddha Nature. The result of that is Buddha, the Awakened One, 'Tathagata' as it is called in the sutras. ...and speaking of sutras... >> >> SUTRA STUFF >> >> As you know I don't usually quote things from sutras because I try as much as possible to separate zen and zen practice from the religious doctrines of Buddhism. But just for you here are some labels used in the sutras for concepts I regularly talk about: >> >> - Buddha Nature is called 'Tathāgatagarbha'. >> - The experience of Buddha Nature is called 'samadhi' and 'tathata'. >> - Delusions are called 'maya', although it is also often referred to as 'illusion'. >> >> When you are experiencing samadhi/tathata there is no 'red'. There is just the awareness of experience. It's only later when you start intellectualizing that you name your experience 'sight' and then more specifically 'red' and maybe 'pretty', etc... 'Seeing', 'red', 'pretty' do not exist during samadhi/tathata. I often refer to that experience as 'Just THIS!' which is the best I have come up with to describe that experience using English words. >> >> Everything you described in the last part of your post starting with "Seeing includes whatever mental state..." and ending with "And when I have not sat, my mind is crinkled, the world grey, >> and the blue is pale" are intellectualizations, poetic though they may be. >> >> In fact when you say 'when you sit the world seems brighter and more pleasing than when you don't sit' should in itself be a big, flashing warning light for you that all this is a delusion. >> >> Everything I wrote above is of course only IMO...Bill! >> >> --- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> wrote: >> > >> > I still don't know how you draw such a bright line between these >> > experiences are experience and those experiences over there are delusion. >> > There's no sharp dividing lines anywhere that I can find, much less between >> > the natural unlabeled living in sensory experience with red known as red >> > being salient and with thoughts known as thoughts being salient. Either way >> > there is no domain of red and no domain of thoughts. >> > >> > To me the inclusion of "awareness of the state of thinking" as a sense >> > along with awareness of the state of vision is a very subtle and profound >> > insight I first heard in the Heart Sutra. Out There is In Here, there's no >> > line. Seeing includes whatever mental state (relaxed and on holiday, but >> > bringing up a point with a valued debate friend) we are in, as much as >> > whatever sensory experiences (blue tiles, warm water or noises from >> > children) that consist of living right now. How could this supposed part be >> > excluded? When I have sat, the trees' green is greener, the sky is close >> > and intimate with my thoughts arising and falling, now stopping now >> > starting, and you will ask me to put space between these that you are not >> > one but two? And when I have not sat, my mind is crinkled, the world grey, >> > and the blue is pale. I find no lines or boundaries. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > --Chris >> > 301-270-6524 >> >> > On Jul 4, 2013 6:09 AM, "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: >> > >> > > Merle, >> > > >> > > Yes. Experience is not a delusion. That's all. >> > > >> > > ...Bill! >> > > >> > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Â >> > > > Â anything that is not a delusion for you bill?..merle >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Â >> >> > > > I didn't really finish my thought below. It should read: >> > > > >> > > > 'I know math is based on logic. That's all I need to know that it is >> > > delusional.' >> > > > >> > > > ...Bill! >> > > > >> > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Edgar, >> > > > > >> > > > > I know math is based on logic. That's all I need to know. >> > > > > >> > > > > ...Bill! >> > > > > >> > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Bill, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This appears to be part of your problem in understanding the nature >> > > of the world of forms. The math out there doesn't consist of ideal circles, >> > > squares, and lines as some of the ancient Greeks thought. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The math our there is like software that continually computes the >> > > current state of reality in the present moment. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > It has nothing to do with idealized geometry... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Edgar >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:35 PM, Bill! wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Chris, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I fundamentally disagree with you. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Math is no difference than logic or reason. I know many think that >> > > math represents reality, exists 'out there' and we 'discover it'. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > IMO math is just a projection of human intellect. We project it on >> > > reality the very same way we project all delusions. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In reality there are no integers, no straight line, no circles, >> > > etc... >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > That's the way I see it anyway... >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The math's an analogy. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > But I will speak up for math by stating math does something >> > > different than >> > > > > > > > mirror the small individual's intellect. Perhaps it mirrors the >> > > essential >> > > > > > > > uncreated mind :) Like reality it has a certain independence >> > > from thoughts >> > > > > > > > and selves. Unlike reality, it's not reality. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > --Chris >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > --Chris >> > > > > > > > chris@ >> > > > > > > > +1-301-270-6524 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bill! <BillSmart@> wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Chris, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors >> > > the human >> > > > > > > > > intellect. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ...Bill! >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen >> > > is that it >> > > > > > > > > > shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear >> > > equations. >> > > > > > > > > > Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal >> > > unity is >> > > > > > > > > seen. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > > > --Chris >> > > > > > > > > > 301-270-6524 >> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, <pandabananasock@> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Bill!: >> > > > > > > > > > > You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were >> > > looking for >> > > > > > > > > an >> > > > > > > > > > > impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > The thing about using math that way is that eventually it >> > > leads you >> > > > > > > > > back >> > > > > > > > > > > to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of >> > > the model, >> > > > > > > > > then >> > > > > > > > > > > we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we >> > > realize that >> > > > > > > > > both >> > > > > > > > > > > are models of each other and the same, and experience >> > > encompasses all >> > > > > > > > > -- no >> > > > > > > > > > > need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers >> > > and >> > > > > > > > > mountains >> > > > > > > > > > > again! >> > > > > > > > > > > ~PeeBeeEss >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! <BillSmart@> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of >> > > Cause-and-Effect and >> > > > > > > > > > > Karma >> > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] >> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three >> > > > > > > > > > > Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is >> > > > > > > > > > > such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much >> > > a >> > > > > > > > > > > moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality >> > > of >> > > > > > > > > > > the act itself. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], >> > > > > > > > > > > pandabananasock@ wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Most people think of "1+1=2" as procedural, that is, >> > > > > > > > > > > that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes >> > > > > > > > > > > 2. They would regard "2=1+1" and "2=2" to be different >> > > > > > > > > > > equations, but they are not in the least bit >> > > > > > > > > > > different. The equal-sign is the present. >> > > > > > > > > > > > "1+1" is already 2! And the effect IS the >> > > > > > > > > > > cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something >> > > > > > > > > > > "bad" is you doing that "bad" thing. Your karmic >> > > > > > > > > > > reward for doing something "good" is you doing that "good" >> > > > > > > > > > > thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >...Bill! >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently >> > > have >> > > > > > > > > > > read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups >> > > > > > > > > > > Links >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently >> > > have read or >> > > > > > > > > are >> > > > > > > > > > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have >> > > read or are >> > > > > > > > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ------------------------------------ >> > > >> > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are >> > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >>
