JMJM, Good synopsis...Bill!
--- In [email protected], 覺å¦ç²¾æ ï¼JMJMï¼ <chan.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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > > *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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > >> *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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > >>> *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, uerusuboyo@... 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: * uerusuboyo@... <uerusuboyo@...>; > >>>> *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: * yonyonson@... <yonyonson@...>; > >>>> *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 <edgarowen@...> 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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > >>>>> *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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > >>>>>> *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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > >>>>>>> *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/
