...but if you want to discuss the ILLUSORY concepts of forms, structure,
illusions, reality AGAIN - I'm available...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
