Bill; An ILLUSORY compliment?. And I THOUGHT you were complimenting me for REAL!. Mayka
--- On Wed, 6/4/11, Bill! <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill! <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011, 15:59 Mayka, Yes!!!!!!!!!! You're absolutely correct! (Of course that's a judgment so this is an illusory compliment...Bill! --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > Bill, Siska and all: >  > It has just occur to me: Wouldn't be another illusion making a distinction > trying to figure out between what is real and not real?. Why the > acknowledgement of something that is felt as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral > is an illusion?. Wouldn't be the illusion here the judgement about that > acknowledgement calling it "illusion"?. >  > Mayka > > --- On Wed, 6/4/11, Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > > From: Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011, 10:16 > > >  > > > > > > > > > Bill: >  > I went there by observing and experiencing in myself what you said what it > looked like. This last post of yours might be correct in the way you > experience it. Still it doesn't take away the way myself experience which > is felt as description given about in previous post. It's in the form of > my body and mind that that is felt in that way, including what you > denominate illusions. I can't see how acknowledging any sensation could be > an illusion.  The names given are given accordingly with what arise > felts. My post states very clear the non attachement or entanglement into > that.  >  > Mayka >  >  > --- On Wed, 6/4/11, Bill! <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011, 1:45 > > >  > > Mayka, > > I don't know how you got to where you are in this post from reading my last > post. > > I never said physical sensations were not real. They are. They are the ONLY > thing that is real. However, the judging of those sensations to be > pleasant/unpleasant, good/bad, dualistic/non-dualistic are created by your > discriminating mind and are not in and of themselves 'real'. They are > illusions. They come and go. Physical sensations (sight, hearing, touch, > smell, taste - the 5 categories (illusory concepts) which our discriminating > mind has created to describe these sensation) are trying to describe > something real that does not come and go - that is the ability to be aware of > them does not come and go. That awareness is Buddha Mind. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill: > > > >  > > By the time you'll be receiving this mail you're tea will be cold. > >  > >  If somebody beat a finger with a hammer. Will the pain felt be real?. > > And the answer is yes. Although the pain will be an impermanent pain still > > will be real. > >  > > The different physical and mental states in the body and the mind. That > > switching waves coming and going as the waves of the ocean bringing all the > > rainbow of duality with them. The arising of different sensations > > such as pleasant , unpleasant or neutral, in all the game of > > distinctions, duality are felt as real in the realm of the form. What > > is illusion to me here is not as much the many arising sensations in > > themselves, but to exchange all that occurring as permanent having as a > > result mental attachment to what is happening and mental entanglement as > > one identifies with it as something permanent happening to > > one. Forgetfulness about that everything is impermanent can be > > a cause of great illusion arising in one.  The many sensations are > > real but not their duration as they dissolve by themselves through > > mindfulness or awareness. > >  > > To me here the real massive illusion is to exchange impermanence as > > something permanent but not as much the coming and going occurring in > > the form. > >  > > I imagine the form of body and mind with all its > > sophisticated implications as the waves of the ocean. In it's coming > > and going, continuously born and continuously dying, they all have in > > common the water. They're all made of the same.  Water is the > > nature of the wave in the ocean. But for that matter of that seconds > > the water takes the form of an impermanent high, low... wave. Is the > > form of the wave an illusion?...It all depends under what kind of > > perspective is seen. > >  > > Mayka > > > > --- On Tue, 5/4/11, Bill! <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011, 1:13 > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Bill! expounds... > > > > This is not a matter of non-duality/duality, it's a matter of awareness. > > Duality is an illusion - probably the Mother of All Illusions. The concept > > of non-duality is also an illusion. > > > > Illusions come and go. This might be the 'switching back and forth' you are > > talking about. > > > > Awareness (Buddha Nature) is persistent. > > > > This is a matter of how illusions are accomodated. If you become attached > > to the illusions of non-dualism/dualism then they come and go, but are > > mutually exclusive. If you are not attached to these illusions (or any > > illusions) they come and go, but are universally inclusive. > > > > That's the best I can do this morning before my first cup of tea...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... until they succeed in making the switch (which of course is not > > > necessarily or usually ongoing.) > > > > [siska] the way I see it, this happens when it happens. Nobody is > > > making the switch. We can try to make the switch, but it won't happen > > > until it happens. And when it happens, nobody can switch it back. > > > > > > > > > siska, > > > > > > After adequate Zen or other practice, I think that an experience of the > > > non-dual mind-state switches back and forth, without the individual's > > > choice - like is the casse in some optical illusions: > > > > > > http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=optical+illusions&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sou\ > > > rce=univ&sa=X&ei=mL-ZTbmpDY7YiAK09emcCQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1014&bih=540 > > > <http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=optical+illusions&um=1&ie=UTF-8&so\ > > > urce=univ&sa=X&ei=mL-ZTbmpDY7YiAK09emcCQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1014&bih=540> > > > . > > > > > > With more practice, the mind may prefer the non-dual state over the > > > dualistic state. Possibly for a few, the non-dual state will become > > > ongoing after sufficient Zen or other practice. > > > > > > I repeat: Bill would be a better person to expound on this issue. > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > > > The way I understand it is as follows: 'Non-dualism' is a conception. > > > > [siska] don't really get why it is a conception > > > > > > > > The non-dual and the dualistic states are mind-states in which we > > > experience reality non-dually or dualistically respectively.[siska] > > > agree with you > > > > > > > > Most humans experience reality dualistically, > > > > [siska] agree with you > > > > > > > > until they succeed in making the switch (which of course is not > > > necessarily or usually ongoing.) > > > > [siska] the way I see it, this happens when it happens. Nobody is > > > making the switch. We can try to make the switch, but it won't happen > > > until it happens. And when it happens, nobody can switch it back. > > > > > > > > siska > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi siska, > > > > > > > > The way I understand it is as follows: 'Non-dualism' is a conception. > > > > > > > > The non-dual and the dualistic states are mind-states in which we > > > > experience reality non-dually or dualistically respectively. > > > > > > > > Most humans experience reality dualistically, until they succeed in > > > > making the switch (which of course is not necessarily or usually > > > > ongoing.) > > > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > > > > > I was about to ask your views on non-dualism, but I am guessing your > > > > view is represented by the article here and in your other post. And I > > > > agree with what is being said here. > > > > > > > > > > The other article was fine too, in terms of putting non-dualism and > > > > zen into words. My view is that non-dualism is here and now (as in > > > > Hakuin's song), instead of some destination point, which you seemed to > > > > imply in your previous post. > > > > > > > > > > siska > > > > > > > > > > > Hi siska, > > > > > > > > > > You may want to ask Bill, Mike, Steve and Mayka their views on Zen > > > and > > > > > non-dualism. > > > > > > > > > > --ED > > > > > >
