Edgar, Your interpretation of my POV below is not quite correct.
Trying to use your words (forms/formless) a correct interpretation would be: - 'Reality' is formless (empty, monistic,) and is experienced. - 'Forms' are a creation of the intellect (delusion, dualistic/pluralistic) and are preceived. The belief that reality is formless (only) is monistic. The belief that reality contains both forms and formless is dualistic. I know you don't agree with this but please try to quit reinterpreting what I say to bolster your arguments. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> 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 those waves is formless). Thus the forms are part of the > formless and thus they are real - but only when seen as the empty forms of > pure information they actually are. They are not the things they appear to be > but only the information of those things given reality by appearing in the > formless presence and actuality of reality. > > 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. Bill's > view is that the formless ocean is reality and the waves that arise in the > ocean are somehow separate from the ocean which is of course impossible. > > 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å¦ç²¾æ ï¼JMJMï¼ 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/
