Bill, That doesn't cut it. Where does the human intellect come from if all is monistic experience?
Edgar On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > To answer you question the delusion of self arises in the intellect. > > The human intellect (and you can assume that resides in the brain if you > want) creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism. That's it's job. I can > speculate 'why' it does this but have no idea 'how' and I don't see 'how' as > important. > > Once the delusion of dualism/pluralism arises a plethora of delusions quickly > follow the most problematic of which (IMO)is the delusion of a separate self. > > These delusions often obscure experience. > > Zen practice first assists you in suspending the creation of delusions by > halting the activity of the intellect. When that happens you have an > opportunity to experience (Buddha Nature). After that zen practice helps you > to reintroduce the activities of your intellect (delusions) and balance them > with experience (Buddha Nature). > > That's it. That's all it is. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > How can perception of a self in a brain even arise is there is really just > > pure experience absent any experiencer? > > > > Obviously it can't.... > > > > For perception and illusion to arise there must be something for it to > > arise IN. > > > > Again your view is inconsistent... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > Good question! > > > > > > Experience (as I define it - monistic) is just experience - Just THIS! > > > Since it is monistic there is not a pluralism of me, you, the dog, the > > > rabbit, etc... > > > > > > Perception is dualistic/pluralistic. Each intellect that creates the > > > delusion of dualism/pluralism creates its own perception. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises > > > > in "your" mind if not your self's? > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV > > > > > also) is 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you > > > > > are ignoring. > > > > > > > > > > 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a > > > > > belief in a 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is > > > > > just one example: > > > > > > > > > > "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own > > > > > modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also: > > > > > extreme ." - Merriam-Webster Online > > > > > > > > > > My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the > > > > > 'self' is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it > > > > > is the only existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, > > > > > monisitic) and denies the existence of a 'self' - except as a > > > > > delusion. > > > > > > > > > > I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your > > > > > own definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been > > > > > saying is an example of 'solipsism'. > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > PS, I agree it is the "Buddhist line" that I've been defending > > > > > > against Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 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: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > > 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: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > >> 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: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > >>> 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 <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > >>>> 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: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > >>>> 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: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > >>>>> 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: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > >>>>>> 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: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > >>>>>>> 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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? > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
