JM, Cause and effect and karma seem to be in agreement with Edgar, but very much against Bill's 'just this'. However, if you use your normal stronger ending: 'I have not said a word', that will make you comply with Bill. Thank you for your sermon. Anthony
________________________________ From: Juemiao Jingming - 覺妙精明 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2011, 11:52 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Hi Siska, Not sure my post below helps or confuses the subject in discussion. In our school, we don't use words such as "illusion" or "reality". In place of it, we use "detachment" or "impermanence". In Buddhism, attachment is like illusion and all forms are impermanent and therefore like an illusion. Yet forms did exist in a particular duration of time. Bill seems to say everything is illusive, and only Just This is not. Yet the word "just this" is also made up of words, and therefore empty and impermanent and therefore illusive. Then what is reality? Besides, picking and choosing our journey with our mind is also not recommended as per Xin Xin Ming. The key in the Buddhist teaching is not about what is real or what is illusive. That's dualistic. Rather, Buddhists treat every moment as is, and not to be attached to it, because each form is caused by generation of invisible causes, nick named as karma. In short, the key really is to awaken from our mental notions instead of attachment to or discriminating in the formed world. Just my empty words with interpretive definitions for your reference. :-) jm On 11/21/2011 7:07 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: >Siska, > > >No, the causal world, contrary to what Bill believes, is part of reality. It >is the laws that govern the world of forms. The form world including dualisms >is not intrinsically illusion. It is only illusion when, as you suggest, it is >not seen for what it actually is and is misinterpreted. > > >A good example is the magician's trick. A spectator can be fooled by it. He >sees it as illusion and misses its reality. The magician, like the Zen person, >sees the reality of it and not the illusion. It's the same trick but only the >magician realizes its true nature. > > >To achieve realization one has to understand that the world is one big >magician's trick and to understand and experience how this works. It is >reality but it is not as it appears. The same trick is either experienced as >an illusion or as its true nature. The trick is part of reality, but its true >nature has to be realized to see that reality.... In other words the illusion >recognized as an illusion, as a magician's trick, is reality. > > >EDgar > > > > > > >On Nov 21, 2011, at 7:32 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > >>Edgar, >> >>Allow me to go back to your sentence: >> >>> When they are recognized as illusion rather than reality. >> >>Perhaps it's just a matter of wording, but I'd rather put it as: When they >>are recognised as they are rather than anything (be it illusion or reality). >> >>> The reality of an illusion is that it is an illusion. >> >>........ >> >>> Illusions recognized as illusions are reality. >> >>How is it that illusions turned into reality without an act of distinguishing >>between illusions and reality? When one distinguishes, he is still in duality. >> >>> It may appear so before Zen, but after Zen it doesn't... >> >>I guess I should wait until I'm 'after Zen' to understand this :-) >> >>Siska >> >>________________________________ >> >>From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >>Sender: [email protected] >>Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:21:42 -0500 >>To: <[email protected]> >>ReplyTo: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism >> >> >>Siska, >> >> >>No, it's not another duality. It may appear so before Zen, but after Zen it >>doesn't... Or more properly the illusory duality seen as illusion becomes >>part of the non duality of Buddha nature... >> >> >>Edgar >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:20 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >>>If achieving realisation is only as much as creating differences between >>>illusion and not illusion, then you are right, I have not achieved it on >>>this matter. >>> >>>But what is good about it, simply another duality ;-) >>> >>>Siska >>> >>>________________________________ >>> >>>From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >>>Sender: [email protected] >>>Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:01:55 -0500 >>>To: <[email protected]> >>>ReplyTo: [email protected] >>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism >>> >>> >>>Because you haven't achieved realization? >>>:-) >>> >>> >>>Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Nov 20, 2011, at 7:28 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hi Edgar, >>>> >>>>Why does this sound more like a duality of illusion and reality to me? >>>> >>>>Siska >>>> >>>>________________________________ >>>> >>>>From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >>>>Sender: [email protected] >>>>Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:09:24 -0500 >>>>To: <[email protected]> >>>>ReplyTo: [email protected] >>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism >>>> >>>> >>>>When they are recognized as illusion rather than reality. The reality of an >>>>illusion is that it is an illusion. Illusions recognized as illusions are >>>>reality.. >>>> >>>> >>>>Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Nov 20, 2011, at 8:53 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Edgar, >>>>> >>>>>I'm not sure I understand you perfectly when you said "When their nature >>>>>is realized". >>>>> >>>>>Objects being passing objects of consciousness is not the same with being >>>>>noted and then ignored. Borrowing your simile, one is without attachment, >>>>>the other is not attached to the attachment. >>>>> >>>>>Siska >>>>> >>>>>________________________________ >>>>> >>>>>From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >>>>>Sender: [email protected] >>>>>Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:51:20 -0500 >>>>>To: <[email protected]> >>>>>ReplyTo: [email protected] >>>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Bill and Siska, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>When their nature is realized such mental objects are usually still >>>>>present but generally fade rapidly because they are just noted and >>>>>ignored, not focused on like they used to be considered the self rather >>>>>than just passing contents of consciousness. Since focusing on them is >>>>>what perpetuates them they tend to gradually diminish. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's why I like to say 'I still have attachments but I'm not attached to >>>>>them.' >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Bill! wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Siska, >>>>>> >>>>>>I had to re-read the post below to re-orient myself to this discussion. I >>>>>>might not have brought myself completely up-to-date so please excuse any >>>>>>misunderstandings. >>>>>> >>>>>>I copied the terms 'feelings, perceptons and volitions' from the text >>>>>>below. These are supposed to be the 'mental objects' that are supposed to >>>>>>comprise the '6th sense' that is the subject of the discussion. I replied >>>>>>that it is these very illusions that obscure Buddha Nature, and I still >>>>>>stand by that statement. >>>>>> >>>>>>You asked a very good question: "From a zen perspective, whether it is >>>>>>the zen you practise or other zen practices, does it mean that these >>>>>>feelings, perceptions and volitions, aka illusions, are not present in >>>>>>the presence Buddha Nature or are they present and yet the 'Buddha Nature >>>>>>consciousness' is not affected by it?" >>>>>> >>>>>>First of all I can only answer from the zen I practice. I never claim to >>>>>>represent 'standard Zen Buddhism' although I think in this case there is >>>>>>not a great divergence. >>>>>> >>>>>>Buddha Nature is the pure awareness of raw sensory input, and nothing >>>>>>more. All creations of the descriminating mind (the mind that >>>>>>intellectualizes, rationalizes, categorizes, judges, etc..., are >>>>>>illusions. When the discriminating mind is fully engaged it's activites >>>>>>censor, augment, interpret, categorize, etc..., sensory input; and >>>>>>creates pure illusions (fantasies) that don't even have a basis of >>>>>>current sensory input. >>>>>> >>>>>>These activities (thoughts) obscure Buddha Nature. >>>>>> >>>>>>Early in my practice I could not maintain Buddha Nature AND create >>>>>>thoughts at the same time. It was one or the other. Through futher >>>>>>practice I was better able to maintain Buddha Nature and allow thoughts >>>>>>to form and dissipate without loosing awareness of Buddha Nature. The >>>>>>ability to to this came gradually. I call this 'integrating Buddha Nature >>>>>>into my daily life', and that in fact IS my practice - the practice of >>>>>>integrating Buddha Nature into my daily life by holding awareness of >>>>>>Buddha Nature while still being able to operate in the world of illusions >>>>>>- WITHOUT loosing the awareness that all the intellection are indeed >>>>>>illusions. >>>>>> >>>>>>...Bill! >>>>>> >>>>>>--- In [email protected], siska_cen@... wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Bill, All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm still behind with my emails. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > From a zen perspective `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are in >>>>>>> > fact the very ILLUSIONS that are created by your discriminating mind >>>>>>> > that prevent you from experiencing your sensory input directly ˆ in a >>>>>>> > raw, unfiltered, uncategorized, un-judged manner. In other words >>>>>>> > `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are the very illusions which >>>>>>> > obscure Buddha Nature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From a zen perspective, whether it is the zen you practise or other zen >>>>>>> practices, does it mean that these feelings, perceptions and volitions, >>>>>>> aka illusions, are not present in the presence Buddha Nature or are >>>>>>> they present and yet the 'Buddha Nature consciousness' is not affected >>>>>>> by it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Siska >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> >>>>>>> Sender: [email protected] >>>>>>> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:50:27 >>>>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ED, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for this reference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I obviously don't agree with what is presented here ˆ not that I >>>>>>> disagree that this is a faithful representation of Buddhist thought, >>>>>>> but I disagree that it is a correct view. It might be okay from a >>>>>>> Buddhist religious perspective, but it doesn't speak to me from a zen >>>>>>> perspective at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all and although I can understand and even sympathize with >>>>>>> Buddhist and Western thought that leads to the separation and >>>>>>> categorization of sentient quality in 5 (or 6) categories: external >>>>>>> objects (transmitters) and `internal' sense organs (receptors) ˆ ex., >>>>>>> visible object/eye. That is the logical thing to do: create a >>>>>>> dualistic, structured framework which our rational, discriminating mind >>>>>>> can grasp and feel comfortable with. >>>>>>> From my experience when Buddha Nature is manifest there is not a >>>>>>> separation. There is not a dualistic separation such as `external' and >>>>>>> `internal' such as `sound' and `ear', nor is there a separation between >>>>>>> `internal organs' such as ear and eye. Sound and sight is not separate >>>>>>> from nor distinct pieces of Buddha Nature. When `you hear a sound', >>>>>>> there is no `you', there is no `hear', there is no `sound'. There is >>>>>>> Just THIS! When `you hear a sound and see a sight', there is no `you', >>>>>>> no separation between `hear' or `see' or `sound' or `sight'. It is all >>>>>>> just one thing: Buddha Nature ˆ Just THIS! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, as to how Buddhist thought adds in the paired, external/internal >>>>>>> category of `feelings, perceptions and volitions'/mind is really beyond >>>>>>> me. When I'm operating in a nice cozy, logical, dualistic mode I could >>>>>>> understand the grouping of the first 5 `external objects' since the >>>>>>> source of all of them are vibrations ˆ something physical. However my >>>>>>> logic tells me that `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are NOT the >>>>>>> same as external physical objects transmitting vibrations which are >>>>>>> picked up by my paired `internal' 5 sense organs. `Feelings, >>>>>>> perceptions and violations' are NOT something physical nor external at >>>>>>> all. They are in fact internal creations of my mind (unless you want to >>>>>>> assign their origin to something supernatural ˆ like a god. The >>>>>>> proceeding as I said was an argument and perspective using logic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From a zen perspective `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are in >>>>>>> fact the very ILLUSIONS that are created by your discriminating mind >>>>>>> that prevent you from experiencing your sensory input directly ˆ in a >>>>>>> raw, unfiltered, uncategorized, un-judged manner. In other words >>>>>>> `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are the very illusions which >>>>>>> obscure Buddha Nature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This mismatch of the two perspectives described above concerning >>>>>>> sentient qualities (aka as the 5 senses) and mind (aka in Buddhism as >>>>>>> the 6th sense) is in fact the difference I see/sense/experience between >>>>>>> Buddhism proper and the zen I practice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ∑Bill! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Five or six? See below. --ED >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > "Ayatana (Pali; Sanskrit) is a Buddhist term that has been translated >>>>>>> > as >>>>>>> > "sense base", "sense-media" or "sense sphere." In Buddhism, there are >>>>>>> > six internal sense bases (Pali: ajjhattikani ayatanani; also known as, >>>>>>> > "organs", "gates", "doors", "powers" or "roots") and six external >>>>>>> > sense >>>>>>> > bases (bÄ™hirÄ™ni Ä™yatanÄ™ni or "sense objects"; also >>>>>>> > known as vishaya or "domains"). Thus, there are six internal-external >>>>>>> > (organ-object) pairs of sense bases: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > * eye and visible objects >>>>>>> > * ear and sound >>>>>>> > * nose and odor >>>>>>> > * tongue and taste >>>>>>> > * body and touch >>>>>>> > * mind and mental objects >>>>>>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Buddhism and other Indian epistemologies identify six "senses" as >>>>>>> > opposed to the Western identification of five. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > In Buddhism, "mind" denotes an internal sense organ which interacts >>>>>>> > with >>>>>>> > sense objects that include sense impressions >>>>>>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phassa> , feelings >>>>>>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedana> , perceptions >>>>>>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%C3%B1%C3%B1a> and volition >>>>>>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra> ." >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana >>>>>>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Chris, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Truthfully I haven't thought about that a lot. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Just off-the-cuff I'd say I would object to saying that the awareness >>>>>>> > of >>>>>>> > mentation was a sixth sense. All your other senses bring you awareness >>>>>>> > of real >>>>>>> > things. Mentation is not a real thing, it is a collection of >>>>>>> > illusions, >>>>>>> > so I >>>>>>> > believe it is not in the same category as the other senses. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > This answer was arrived at without much thought so don't hold me to it >>>>>>> > to >>>>>>> > closely in the future... >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ...BIll! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > Do you disagree that the awareness of mentation is a sixth sense? >>>>>>> > > (as >>>>>>> > I have >>>>>>> > considered the heart sutra et alia to imply? And which I personally >>>>>>> > find >>>>>>> > to be >>>>>>> > a very freeing bit of Buddhist insight). >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Thanks, >>>>>>> > > Chris Austin-Lane >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > > ED, >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > I'll answer your questions below in the reverse order that you >>>>>>> > > > asked >>>>>>> > them: >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > [ED] By 'senses' I assume you refer to the five senses: ... >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > I do mean what we call the five senses. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > From an illusory dualistic and discriminating >>>>>>> > > > (categorizing/judging) >>>>>>> > perspective there is a 'me/I' (self) so 'I have 5 senses. I see >>>>>>> > something blue >>>>>>> > and it is pretty.' >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > Contrast this with a non-dualistic, non-discriminating perspective >>>>>>> > which >>>>>>> > would be: 'Just THIS!' - just awareness. That is no distinction >>>>>>> > between >>>>>>> > 'self' >>>>>>> > and 'sight', no catagorization of the awareness as 'blue' and no >>>>>>> > judgement made >>>>>>> > that it is 'pretty'. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > Just THIS! That is Buddha Nature. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > [ED] Was it the position of your Zen teachers? >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > I've never discussed Buddha Nature in this manner with my Zen >>>>>>> > Buddhist >>>>>>> > teachers. If I had they would have probably told me to 'empty my >>>>>>> > bowls' >>>>>>> > - >>>>>>> > meaning 'don't try to intellectualize Buddha Nature'. But to directly >>>>>>> > answer >>>>>>> > your question, no - none of my teachers ever told me this. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > [ED] Is this position traditional in Zen? >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > I don't know if there's anyone or any organization that could >>>>>>> > officially >>>>>>> > speak for Zen Buddhism. I think it is the 'traditional position' >>>>>>> > because >>>>>>> > most >>>>>>> > of the traditional koans and stories (mondos) of historical zen adepts >>>>>>> > that I've >>>>>>> > read or heard about support this position - at least it seems that way >>>>>>> > to me. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > In the end however I don't need any validation from traditional >>>>>>> > > > zen >>>>>>> > or from >>>>>>> > living Zen Buddhist teachers. I have experienced it myself. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > ...Bill! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > >> Bill, >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> I consider the 'root of zen' to be our senses ... >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> Is this position traditional in Zen? >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> Was it the position of your Zen teachers? >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> Thanks, ED >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> PS: By 'senses' I assume you refer to the five senses: seeing, >>>>>>> > hearing, >>>>>>> > > >> touch, tasting, smelling. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> ED, >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> I consider the 'root of Buddhism' to be the sutras, and >>>>>>> > > >>> especially >>>>>>> > > >> those that are presented as a first-hand account of the teachings >>>>>>> > of >>>>>>> > > >> Siddartha Buddha. >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> I consider the 'root of Zen Buddhism' to be the account of >>>>>>> > Siddartha >>>>>>> > > >> Buddha's 'Flower Sermon' on Vulture Peak when he is reported to >>>>>>> > have >>>>>>> > > >> wordlessly trasmited the Dharma to Mahakasyapa. >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> I consider the 'root of zen' to be our senses: Just THIS! >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> ...Bill! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >
