Edgar, Thanks for the long exegesis, but you're only proving my point. Discussing Mu is not relevant.
My point all along is Mu is not something you discuss or can understand. Mu can only be experienced and demonstrated. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > We've discussed this before. Mu is the nothingness of all things. What that > means is that the materiality and apparent self substances and qualities of > all things are illusions generated by mind. All the things of the world are > just information forms. They have none of their apparent material substances. > All they are is a logical computational structure and much but not all of > that is also an illusion of particular observer minds as well. > > Reality consists of pure existence, Tao, Buddha Nature - what I call > ontological energy, in which purely logical forms arise and continually self > compute their state of existence of the universe. These are interpreted by > mind as material things which are actually just more information forms > of/encoding the interactions of mind and external reality (there is actually > no division between 'mind' and 'external' reality but just to make the point. > How and why that is true requires another understanding). > > Since all forms are pure computational information in ontological energy they > have no self substances and thus are called empty = Mu. So mu is exactly the > same as Tao, Buddha nature etc. just a term that emphasizes that the apparent > substance of reality is actually just pure information forms rather than > material substances. > > > If one wants a God the only consistent definition of God would be the > universe (reality) itself. That is the best definition because then there can > be no doubt but that God does exist since the universe exists. And the age > old arguments over the nature and characteristics of God becomes solvable > because it is just what science and reason tells us about the nature of > reality. (Merle will howl here but this definition does not deny a spiritual > awe and appreciation towards God and nature in the slightest, in fact by > revealing God and reality's true nature it better reveal its wonders and > makes it easier to appreciate spiritually!) > > In this definition of God the forms, the computational information structure > of reality, becomes analogous to thoughts in the mind of God by which the > universe continually creates itself by self computing its current form state > of being..... These thoughts manifest as the physical reality of the universe > in the minds of observers or organisms of all species. Sticking with the God > analogy one could say that the thoughts of God continually create the > universe... > > > > Bill's error is that he denies the computational information structure of > reality. Bill misunderstands illusion to mean that the forms do not exist. > The correct understanding is that the forms DO exist but they are empty of > material self substances. > > No master I'm aware of ever claimed the forms do not exist. They all say the > forms are empty, which implies they do exist, but are pure form without their > apparent substances. It is the apparent substances of forms, not the forms > themselves, which do not exist. > > > But then when that is understood the next level of understanding is that the > illusion of materiality DOES exist, but it exists as illusion, not reality. > Illusion understood as illusion IS reality. It is only illusion understood as > reality that is illusion. > > Reality includes everything without exception but only as it is in its true > nature. Illusion does exist, but only as illusion. Thus illusion is part and > parcel of reality. > > Thus realization excludes nothing because everything is part of reality. > Everything remains exactly the same as it was before. It is just experienced > as it actually is, not as illusion masquerading as reality, but as the > illusory nature of reality. That reality consists of illusion... > > Reality consists of illusion. Realization is the direct experience of this... > > Edgar > > > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > Kris, > > > > Absolutely! I don't understand Mu! either...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote: > > > > > > On 8/28/2012 4:19 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > I have heard it said that 'all sentient beings have Buddha Nature'. > > > > That doesn't exclude non-sentient beings/items from also having Buddha > > > > Nature, but I cannot understand how they could. > > > > > > It's this business of having, of this having that, that creates such > > > misunderstanding. > > > > > > MU! > > > > > > KG > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
