Falling from an airplane, you can debate whether you are moving towards the ground, or the ground is moving to you, or both are moving toward each other, or if "moving" and "direction" and "ground" and "self" are illusion, or maybe all of these are true in that they synchronize within a formless
... oops, you just slammed into the ground at free-fall speed, really putting the "terminal" in "terminal velocity". Did someone already forget they were falling? Next time you wonder if it is, is not, is both, is neither, is all, is nothing, is analogy, is illusion, is real, is enlightenment... just deploy your parachute! When you are born falling, it can be hard to understand what "falling" is, and there's not enough time to explain it on the way down. It's funny; all the time we spend falling, debating what "falling" is, yet the concept is immediately understood as soon as you land safely on solid ground. -PBS ------------------------------ On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:28 PM EDT Edgar Owen wrote: >JM, Mike and Bill, > >Yes, in my view both the forms and the formless are part of reality because >the forms are forms that arise in the formless like waves (forms) arise in >water (which without waves is formless). Thus the forms are part of the >formless and thus they are real - but only when seen > >This is the correct view because the dualism or forms and the formless is >resolved in the unity of reality. > >Bill's view is that reality is only the formless, and the forms are illusions >that exist outside of reality. > >Thus Bill's view is necessarily dualistic because there is reality and then >there is something that is not reality and there is no reconciliation. > >This is an incorrect solipsistic view that has been rejected by every Zen >master going back to Buddha and the Hindu sages that preceded him.... > >Edgar > > > > > >On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:43 AM, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） wrote: > >> Dear Edgar, Bill, Mike, >> >> Please allow me to bud in. I believe this looooong thread about "reality" >> is really different only in definition. >> >> Edgar's "reality" includes all forms, both formed and formless. But Bill >> and Mike's "reality" do not include impermanent forms, because they >> contains birth and death. >> >> To Bill and Mike, only Just This is real. Everything else is delusional. >> This is typical Buddhism. >> >> If we give ourselves a little room for different interpretation, we would >> see truth in every logic and in every argument. Chan is ALL. If we are >> attached to a particular definition, or position, or logic, then it is >> called attachment to dharma. >> >> That's why Buddha said, "Cast not in words. Transmit beyond formalities." >> In other words, only heart to heart transmission is true dharma >> transmission. Then, awakening could occur from within. Heart could open and >> mind could become secondary. Truth of the universe would unfold. Wisdom >> arises. >> >> For your reference, >> JM >> with palms together >> >> On 7/9/2013 7:23 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Edgar, >> >> When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my stance. >> I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here and you've >> just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just got basic >> Buddhist principles plain wrong). >> >> Mike >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >> >> From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; >> To: <[email protected]>; >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >> plain is that? >> Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM >> >> >> Mike, >> >> >> Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you "completely disagreeing >> with me"? >> >> I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> >>> Edgar, >>> >>> I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that "just THIS!" isn't >>> really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. Yes, >>> there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known >>> subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but absolutely >>> none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only be known >>> within "this fathom long body". If someone shows Dave and John a picture >>> of a nude woman they will both have totally different reactions to it >>> depending on a multitude of personal factors. The photo stays the same, >>> but the reactions are what counts. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>> >>> From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; >>> To: <[email protected]>; >>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >>> plain is that? >>> Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM >>> >>> >>> Mike, >>> >>> >>> That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive >>> reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive.... >>> >>> You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of >>> inconsistencies and delusions... >>> >>> That's another reason that Bill and your "just this" just doesn't cut it. >>> All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal >>> biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that "just this" is somehow >>> direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's >>> exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how >>> enlightened you may or may not be... >>> >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> Edgar, >>> >>> How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This >>> iPad in front of me creates many sensations and perceptions, yet for you >>> it doesn't exist. But my previous point is that you can't know if >>> something is what you perceive it to be. The perception is more crucial >>> than the apparent reality of what it is (eg the snake and rope). >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>> >>> From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; >>> To: <[email protected]>; >>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >>> plain is that? >>> Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:35:42 AM >>> >>> >>> Mike, >>> >>> >>> There is no "our reality". There is only one reality. You can't define >>> reality as YOU like. It is self defining... >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Edgar, >>>> >>>> You still haven't answered. You seem to be far more interested in >>>> metaphysical entanglements than reality. Like I said previously, reality >>>> has many definitions, but the one that counts is the one that affects our >>>> mental processes and how we respond to them. Trying to figure out whether >>>> an external object is what you think it is is beside the point because >>>> It's impossible to determine in all cases. However, how you react is real >>>> in 100% of cases and how you react will determine whether you suffer, or >>>> not, from that reaction. This is our reality. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>; >>>> To: zen group <[email protected]>; >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >>>> plain is that? >>>> Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:32:37 AM >>>> >>>> >>>> Edgar, >>>> >>>> Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How would I >>>> know if it's a snake and not a piece of rope - especially if my reaction >>>> was to avoid it believing it to be poisonous? What if i killed it >>>> believing it was a snake I believed to be poisonous, but it turned out to >>>> be someone's harmless pet snake? Again, my reactions are central - not >>>> what it actually is - if that is all I have to go on at that time. >>>> They're all I have 'control' over. It's really not a difficult point to >>>> grasp. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>; >>>> To: <[email protected]>; >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >>>> plain is that? >>>> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10:39:57 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> you could try that, but it'd just be more of the same. >>>> 10,000 things and counting... >>>> >>>> Hong >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mike, >>>> >>>> >>>> OK, I finally managed to pick myself up off the floor! >>>> >>>> What difference does it make?????? >>>> >>>> OK, I hope I really have managed to stop laughing now..... >>>> >>>> Try stepping on a piece of rope and then a rattlesnake and maybe, just >>>> maybe, you might understand the difference! >>>> >>>> Jeeeez.... >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:44 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Edgar, >>>> >>>> Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a >>>> snake or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely perceive at the time? >>>> It's my reaction that is important. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; >>>> To: <[email protected]>; >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >>>> plain is that? >>>> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:25:37 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike, >>>> >>>> >>>> Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) "just this" at night >>>> would have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! >>>> >>>> That's why "just this" JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the >>>> magic show yelling "just this" as every illusion is performed believing >>>> they are all real because they are his direct experience! >>>> >>>> By claiming the immediate experience of "just this" is reality you >>>> mistake illusion for reality..... In the cases above it's obvious, but if >>>> you understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY >>>> TIME.... >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Edgar, >>>>> >>>>> There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we >>>>> experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, >>>>> how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning >>>>> realising it was just a piece of old rope. >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; >>>>> To: <[email protected]>; >>>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >>>>> plain is that? >>>>> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bill, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The point is that Bill's "just this" is something produced by complex >>>>> sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality >>>>> as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence >>>>> of processes. >>>>> >>>>> That's why Bill's just this is actually "just this ILLUSION mistaken for >>>>> reality".... >>>>> >>>>> True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT >>>>> EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Edgar, >>>>> >>>>> But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand >>>>> the endocrine system to take a pee? >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; >>>>> To: <[email protected]>; >>>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >>>>> plain is that? >>>>> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bill, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw >>>>> sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense >>>>> organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and >>>>> motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic >>>>> lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the >>>>> context of one's internal model of reality. >>>>> >>>>> You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology >>>>> actually works... >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Edgar, >>>>>> >>>>>> What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only >>>>>> from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction >>>>>> between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there >>>>>> is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated >>>>>> into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. >>>>>> It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism >>>>>> there is just experience - Just THIS! >>>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like >>>>>> eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't >>>>>> produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being >>>>>> blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for >>>>>> vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are >>>>>> sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not >>>>>> have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Bill! >>>>>> >>>>>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs >>>>>> > glasses, or a blind person? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Edgar >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > Edgar, >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon >>>>>> > > eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we >>>>>> > > call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience >>>>>> > > and would have no awareness. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > There would be nothing. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > ...Bill! >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Panda, >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without >>>>>> > > > glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of >>>>>> > > > 'things'.... >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Edgar >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > Are you wearing glasses right now? >>>>>> > > > > Can you see the frames in your periphery? >>>>>> > > > > Did you see them before I asked? >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------ 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/
