Find Out More About Zen Meditation: Can Anyone Recommend a Book?

[nameless]

Les, I can understand your reaction. Sorry if sometimes the 'truth' is a bit rough.
Please don't equate honesty and forthrightness with disrespect. You don't have to even read my words if you so choose. What I have related is just words. If you have no use for them, let it go. I'm sure that others reading this can understand that which you can/will not. I'm just sharing my perspective. My 'credentials' are completely irrelevant to anyone capable of applying independent thought to my words. If you have no use for the words that I offer, ignore them. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification. If you don't 'agree' with them, again, ask for clarification. At least understand what you don't agree with.
I 'pretend' to speak for no-one but myself. I am entrained to no group. I have nothing to prove.
Your defensive egoic namecalling and sarcasm will be ignored, and since your reply was without discussive or intellectual merit, I'll let it rest here. Good night.

Royce, thanks for the welcome. Let me sleep, and I'll respond to your post later.
Peace, Good night.

 

[Royce]

During the lull and to get back on topic, I personally prefer Dogen or Soto Zen and practice a form of ZaZen, sitting meditation. While there is no way that I can or will even attempt to get into a lotus position just sitting in a chair, even putting my feet up on an ottoman or in a recliner works just as well and without the pain. Below are some links to Zen and Dogen-Soto zen in particular and some book titles, out of print but you should be able to find them on Amazon.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/kasulis.htm

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/kasulis.htm

http://www.uoregon.edu/~munno/OregonCourses/REL1010004/R255_Pure_Land,_Dogen_Zen.html


The names of those books are:
1. Zen in Daily life.
2. Zen beyond Zen.
3. Soto Approach to Zen.

 

[nameless]

I am convinced that there are as many paths to Enlightenment and/or to God as there are individuals as we are all different and unique.

Hmmm, so it 'appears'.
I wouldn't know what it feels like to be 'convinced' about something. As soon as I am arrogant enough to think that I really 'know' something, really am 'sure', another 'perspective' will point out that arrogance in a hurry! Damned ego takes constant vigilance (for me, anyway) or its through the fence and down the block in a heartbeat! And it always causes trouble if let loose! Sneaky bastard, that ego!

We all experience different universes. All existing in Consciousness.

But, THERE IS NO QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANYTHING IN OUR 'DREAMLAND UNIVERSES'

Analyze and justify your above statements, the one I highlighted and the one you Capitalized. You have come this far. Take the next step and realize that they are both True and are both saying the same Truth.

I'll elaborate a bit, but I protest the formation of the question. I am infering from your question that you somehow 'know the 'Truth' and if I can just understand and see things from your perspective, then I too may 'have/be Truth'. The 'you have come this far. and 'take the next step and realize' has an unpleasantly pedantic flavor. I'll ignore it for the moment. We are each just sharing our 'perspective'. I'm not here to teach, and I cannot be taught.

"A true seeker could not accept any teachings, not if he sincerely wished to find something. But he who found, could give his approval to every path, every goal; nothing separated him from all the other thousands who lived in eternity, who breathed the Divine."
-Herman Hesse in Siddhartha

"If a teacher is indeed wise, he does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind." - Kahil Gibran

The only 'universe' that can 'exist' for us is that which 'exists' as concepts, as constructs within 'mind'. As we all appear as different, unique creatures, occupying different 'perspectives' (egos?), for all intents and purposes, everyone's (perceived) universe is absolutely subjective to that one 'ego' (perspective).
That speaks to the first part of my quote.

The second says that a) all is 'One', unless acted upon by 'ego' creating an artificial 'duality' from which springs the 'illusion' of a universe of 'things'. And, b) if all things exist as concept, as a hologramic dream, there is truly no 'difference' between anything, as every point of a hologram reflects all other points (has all the 'information' of every point). So, ultimately, a concept is a concept. A concept is not a 'rock', a concept is not a 'banana' other than as 'appearance'. A concept is just a concept. In that sense, in/as the hologramic dream within mind within Consciousness, all is One. In your dreams at night, it the 'table' 'real'? Is the 'chair'? Do they 'really exist'? Where do they go when you awaken? Where do they come from when you drift off? The same applies here.
"Nothing so much blinds us to the fact that we are still 'dreaming', as 'wakefulness."
This 'awakening' to the dream (especially the Oneness beyond 'Duality') often happens in 'meditation'.

Consciousness is the Ultimate reality. It is REALITY!

Consciousness is the 'deepest' 'reality' of which I have awareness. If there is anything beyond, I cannot say. What makes you so sure that there is nothing beyond? You certainly have not 'been there'... I tend to tentatively agree that it is Reality with a capitol 'R'! That I have 'found', anyway...

As it is real all within it is real

Is the 'mirage of water' real? Are you redefining 'real' (from the latin 'res' meaning 'thing'.) Is your 'daydream' before the schoolbell rings 'real'?

and all outside of it is unreal, is not.

I know of no-thing 'outside' of Consciousness. There is also no-'thing' within Consciousness that I have found beside hologramic dreaming egos. Like a bit of 'turbulence' in the Chaos?

If as you said;"THERE IS NO QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANYTHING IN OUR 'DREAMLAND UNIVERSES.'" then our dreamland universes is the same universe seen and experienced in different ways by different beings.

The no difference realted to everything being made of the same 'dreamstuff'...
Perhaps this quote can shed an alternative light on what I'm trying to say;

"The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.

The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

Reality is the original Rorschach."

There is one consciousness, one universe and one reality and they are all the same entity.

Perhaps that is how you see it, but not from my perspective. But, I haven't seen your definitions of 'exist' and 'real'... They are obviously different than mine.

We individuals at different places seeing and experiencing it from different viewpoints see it as different universes and as we cannot justify this with the One it must be dreamland, an illusion or delusion that is not real.

All you can 'know' (or be 'convinced' of) is your 'dreamland', you cannot ever know other unless bodily identification is transcended and union with/in Consciousness is 'realized'. Sometimes this too occurs within the context of 'meditation'.

Omniversal is redundant and unnecessary as there is One Universe seen and experience in as many different ways as there are entities.

This is an unsupported assertion, kind of like a 'belief', or a 'conviction'... You cannot logically posit that for which you cannot obtain/provide evidence. Since you can only know your subjective little personal universe, one among the many (hence Omniverse), it becomes a matter of a religious form of 'belief' beyond that, a matter of 'faith' in something for which there is no evidence.

There is nothing that is 'ever the same'. The universe, the Creator, you and I are ever changing and ever creating just as the river I alluded to earlier.

You stated that you were a 'Xtian'. Don't Xtians believe that 'God' (Consciousness?) is the "same yesterday, today and forever"? I would posit that Truth/Reality is in an omniversal state of perfect symmetry, unchanging and unchangeable. That which changes is 'temporal' (hologramic illusory 'dream') and unworthy of the capitol 'T' of Truth and the capitol 'R' of Reality.

I am merely a traveler on a long twisting path or better in the stream. I have come a long way and have miles to go before I can rest.

Journey well my friend...

In another thread I said that when God spoke to Abraham and sad; "I AM. I AM THAT I AM" he said all that was necessary to say, all that could be said.
I said here that I know, possibly the same way that I know that I am.

With all due respect, egoic balderdash! How do you KNOW that you are? Hence 'ass-umptions and beliefs'...
"I am that I am", although trimmed of most 'fat' is still within the world of words and hence duality. Consciousness, God, is 'beyond' 'duality'. At that level, Renee Guinon's quote of "To speak is to lie" makes sense. I Am referred to having no 'qualities or quantities', an 'unchanging state of universal permanence'.

My writing often contain far more truths an what the mere words say. When I reread it, I am often surprised and delighted at the Truths it contains if one looks beyond the words alone.

So, you are saying that you impress yourself? *__- I did once also, until I realized that there was no 'self'. A concept of 'self' is ego.

This is Zen at its best, a delight that often makes one laugh out loud

An innocent and true delight.
In this life, Zen 'is' when 'self' isn't.

when he learns that he knows more Truth than he knows that he knows.

The truths that I thought I 'knew' turned out to be tiny truths.
Then I became Truth.
Now, I haven't the foggiest 'concept' of what Truth might be.

Here I have to agree with Les, you are talking out you back side.
One cannot know delusion as delusion by definition is not real. One cannot know a lie one can believe a lie but cannot know one.

Again with the ass-ertions. First, though, could you please tell me what you mean by accusing me of speaking from my asss? Are you implying that my head is 'up my fundament'? That I am lying? Being dishonest? Seems kind of rude to me...

'Delusion', by definition, is believing (being 'convinced', 'convicted', 'faithful'...) 'illusion' to be 'reality'. Believing the 'evidence' of the senses and mind to be 'reality' is 'delusion'. So, knowing, in the sense of being 'convinced', 'convicted' etc... is 'delusion'. Hence, the only thing that we can 'really know', is delusion.
What is your distinction between 'knowing' and 'believing'? As far as I can see, they are both delusion.

I know that I am because I experience, am conscious of self

Evidence of the senses and mind.
<spits in the (illusory!) dust!>
I learned a long time ago to believe nothing that I hear, nothing that I see, (and on through all the senses) and only half of what I think and I NEVER know which half!
*__-

just as I experience, am conscious of, I am a part of a greater consciousness that is part of me.

So you say...

If you do not know that you exist, that you are, then I posit that you do not exist,

Why? By what train of logic would you posit this?

except possibly in your imagination, that you are not.

Where have I seen this before? Hmmmm...

Please make up you mind. Are you or are you not?

Define 'are'? I guess that would tie in with your defining of 'exist'.

By the way I too am ego-less and take great delight in telling everybody and anybody who will listen that I am ego-less.

'Scuuuse me??
Where did I claim to be 'ego-less'? I got to have the most monstrously big ego on the block! That is why the constant vigilance is necessary. BUT, I do not believe the 'illusions' of the ego to be 'Reality'. I also detect 'humor'. Are you intending 'humor'? ---ooo--*U*--ooo---

I am however still working on my humbleness. It's so hard to be humble when your so great! Its like trying to soar with eagles when your surrounded by turkeys.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[Royce]

Hmmm, so it 'appears'.
I wouldn't know what it feels like to be 'convinced' about something. As soon as I am arrogant enough to think that I really 'know' something, really am 'sure', another 'perspective' will point out that arrogance in a hurry! Damned ego takes constant vigilance (for me, anyway) or its through the fence and down the block in a heartbeat! And it always causes trouble if let loose! Sneaky bastard, that ego!

That to me is the difference between knowing the truth and knowing the Truth. truth is relative to subject and individual at a given time. It may not be true concerning so another subject, individual or time; whereas, Truth is always true for all time for everybody.

I have the same trouble with my ego but most don't understand me when I talk of it that way. You are the only other person who I have encountered that talks of their ego in that way.

I'll elaborate a bit, but I protest the formation of the question. I am inferring from your question that you somehow 'know the 'Truth' and if I can just understand and see things from your perspective, then I too may 'have/be Truth'. The 'you have come this far. and 'take the next step and realize' has an unpleasantly pedantic flavor. I'll ignore it for the moment. We are each just sharing our 'perspective'. I'm not here to teach, and I cannot be taught.

You infer too much. I was just urging you to take the next logical step. I don't presume to teach but merely air my thoughts and observations. If this leads some one to see something from a different view point and improves their understanding or induces them to think beyond their present position then so much the better. I do this for my own benefit as it gives me a better understanding to attempt to but my thoughts into word that others can understand and I get to read other's thoughts and view points.

Consciousness is the 'deepest' 'reality' of which I have awareness. If there is anything beyond, I cannot say. What makes you so sure that there is nothing beyond? You certainly have not 'been there'... I tend to tentatively agree that it is Reality with a capitol 'R'! That I have 'found', anyway...

Universe is defined as all that is, that exists. There can be nothing beyond or out side the universe. If there was so meting outside any given universe then that universe would be a subset and the universal set would contain that universe and that which is outside of it. Both would be inside the Universal set which is the universe.

That which exists is real. that which is not real does not exist. If something exists, it is real and it is within the universe. As the universe contains all that exists the universe contains all that is real. As the universe is what it contains, the universe is real. There is and can be only one universe. If there would be multiple universes they would be subset universes of the universal set of the Universe.
If one accepts that there is a universal consciousness of which we are part and is part of us, and accepts that that consciousness is real it is contained within or is the universe. Either way there is that of the universe that is conscious and self aware. As I said before I any part of the universe is real then the universe too must be real. It follows then that if any part of the universe is conscious and self aware then the universe is conscious and self aware. Please note that I said 'it follows'. It is not proven nor do all accept this to be true.

I know that there is one consciousness of which we all are part and is part of all of us. I infer, to date, that this One universal consciousness is the same entity as is the One Universe and the One Reality.

Is the 'mirage of water' real? Are you redefining 'real' (from the latin 'res' meaning 'thing'.) Is your 'daydream' before the schoolbell rings 'real'?

Yes to all. The mirage is real, it exists. What our mind interpret the image of the mirage to be is not correct or accurate.

The dream is real. We all have dreams and experience dreams; therefore, dreams exist. The content of the dream may not be real, accurate or correct.

Art is real. Works of art such as paintings exist and are real but they are illusions.

I know of no-thing 'outside' of Consciousness. There is also no-'thing' within Consciousness that I have found beside hologramic dreaming egos. Like a bit of 'turbulence' in the Chaos?

Nor do I; however, with consciousness there are things, not physical things, but subjective things such as memories, thoughts, ideas, intent, purpose, will, mathematics, logic, sciences, philosophies. They may or not may be true or True. They may or may not be accurate, correct or complete, but they are there. they exist and are real.

Perhaps that is how you see it, but not from my perspective. But, I haven't seen your definitions of 'exist' and 'real'... They are obviously different than mine.

exist - to be, is
real - that which exists, is.

All you can 'know' (or be 'convinced' of) is your 'dreamland', you cannot ever know other unless bodily identification is transcended and union with/in Consciousness is 'realized'. Sometimes this too occurs within the context of 'meditation'.

Agreed

This is an unsupported assertion...

No, this is an observation, one you have yourself made but drew a different conclusion.

You stated that you were a 'Xtian'. Don't Xtians believe that 'God' (Consciousness?) is the "same yesterday, today and forever"? I would posit that Truth/Reality is in an omniversal state of perfect symmetry, unchanging and unchangeable. That which changes is 'temporal' (hologramic illusory 'dream') and unworthy of the capitol 'T' of Truth and the capitol 'R' of Reality.

I never have nor never will say that I am an Xtian. I sauniversalid I was a chriChristianstian and the lower case c was and is intentional. As to what Christians believe or don't believe I can't really say other than no two Christian ever believe exactly the same same thing despite what the dogma is of their particular sect.

Journey well my friend...

Thank you. You too. We will meet at the end of our journeys.

With all due respect, egoic balderdash! How do you KNOW that you are? Hence 'ass-umptions and beliefs'...
"I am that I am", although trimmed of most 'fat' is still within the world of words and hence duality. Consciousness, God, is 'beyond' 'duality'. At that level, Renee Guinon's quote of "To speak is to lie" makes sense. I Am referred to having no 'qualities or quantities', an 'unchanging state of universal permanence'.

One of the few things that I do know is that I exist, that I am. I am conscious and self aware. I experience my existence. That things and entities exist outside of myself that I have not experienced and personally observed is all supposition and inference, deduction and induction. I know very little but I do know this.

So, you are saying that you impress yourself? *__- I did once also, until I realized that there was no 'self'. A concept of 'self' is ego.

I am disappointed in you for saying that unless it was intended as humor. My following sentence , I thought made it clear that it was a surprise and unintentional. How or why should I be impressed by something that was an accident or unintended.

There is no independent and exclusive 'self.' Only the ego demands that that be true, that there is nothing greater than itself. Yet the ego is necessary for individual character development, to become an individual. The ego must then be integrated into the entire being and made to realize that it is not the end all and be all even within that being. The spirit or soul within then becomes the ruling force within and and grows toward enlightenment and becoming one with the One.

Again with the ass-ertions. First, though, could you please tell me what you mean by accusing me of speaking from my asss? Are you implying that my head is 'up my fundament'? That I am lying? Being dishonest? Seems kind of rude to me...

No, I'm saying that you are wrong, your statement is wrong, incorrect, false.
If the truth is offensive and rude so be it.

QUOTE]'Delusion', by definition, is believing

That's what I said. You said; "I posit that the only thing that can be truly 'known' is delusion." Knowing is not believing. One cannot know a delusion one can only believe a delusion. One can know that it is a delusion but that implies that one does not believe the delusion.

...Hence, the only thing that we can 'really know', is delusion.

That statement has no meaning. If the only thing that we can really know is delusion then knowing that is a delusion. Once we learn that most of what we have accepted as true during our lives is delusion, we then begin to learn and know the Truth. The thing that makes a truth a Truth is that we know that it is True.

What is your distinction between 'knowing' and 'believing'?

Knowing is experiencing the Truth, knowing it is true. Believing is accepting something that one reads, learns, hears or thinks to be true without experiencing or observing it oneself, without proof, without knowing it to be True.

Why? By what train of logic would you posit this?

Where have I seen this before? Hmmmm...

Define 'are'? I guess that would tie in with your defining of 'exist'.

'Scuuuse me??
Where did I claim to be 'ego-less'? I got to have the most monstrously big ego on the block! That is why the constant vigilance is necessary. BUT, I do not believe the 'illusions' of the ego to be 'Reality'. I also detect 'humor'. Are you intending 'humor'? ---ooo--*U*--ooo---

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz...

Yes, humor.

 

[Dr.Yes]

The Zen of yakity yak.

 

[nameless]

That to me is the difference between knowing the truth and knowing the Truth. truth is relative to subject and individual at a given time. It may not be true concerning so another subject, individual or time; whereas, Truth is always true for all time for everybody.

The trouble with this, is that as soon as you 'define' a Truth that is, "always true for all time for everybody." someone will jump up and tell you in no uncertain terms that you are 'wrong', speaking from your 'nether regions' (humor?), evil, lying, etc... Trying to 'define' anything in 'universal' terms will run up against this problem. Have you ever heard of 'e-prime' language? It removes these invitations for emotional responses. You can read a bit about it HERE.
I think that I understand what you are trying to say, if what I think that I understand is what you are actually are trying to say... You are using terms with different meanings for each person and yet you are offerring no 'definitions so I can know if what I understand is what you are offering.

I have the same trouble with my ego but most don't understand me when I talk of it that way. You are the only other person who I have encountered that talks of their ego in that way.

One either surrenders to the ego and lives evermore asleep in delusion, or the battle against ego and its illusions is endless. Anyone who says different has 'surrendered' already.

You infer too much. I was just urging you to take the next logical step. I don't presume to teach but merely air my thoughts and observations. If this leads some one to see something from a different view point and improves their understanding or induces them to think beyond their present position then so much the better. I do this for my own benefit as it gives me a better understanding to attempt to but my thoughts into word that others can understand and I get to read other's thoughts and view points.

Acceptable. Me too.

Universe is defined as all that is, that exists. There can be nothing beyond or out side the universe. If there was so meting outside any given universe then that universe would be a subset and the universal set would contain that universe and that which is outside of it. Both would be inside the Universal set which is the universe.

Your age is showing. (humor)
Just Google 'multiverse', 'omniverse', 'metaverse' and find what the latest thinking on the subject is. It's not 'that' new.. Here is a good start.

That which exists is real. that which is not real does not exist.

You use these terms often. You tie the definitions of 'real' and 'exist' together. Will you please define your meanings for these words? Do you mean 'real' as in 'thing'? Something must be a 'thing' to 'exist? If something is a 'thing' then it 'exists'? If it is not a 'thing' then it does not 'exist'?

If something exists, it is real and it is within the universe. As the universe contains all that exists the universe contains all that is real. As the universe is what it contains, the universe is real.

Leaving your 'personal' definition of 'universe' alone, for the moment, so, again, if something is a 'thing' it is real. Your universe consists of 'things' making it 'real' and 'exist'?

There is and can be only one universe. If there would be multiple universes they would be subset universes of the universal set of the Universe.

Nope. See above. Your premise appears faulty.

If one accepts that there is a universal consciousness of which we are part and is part of us,

I do not, according to experience, accept that Consciousness is 'part of me'. This appears as egoic delusion. That which is in a 'universal' state of unchanging permanence, Consciousness, is 'part of ME'? Nope. I find that calling it 'universal Consciousness' is a poor term as Consciousness 'predates' and 'encompasses' 'omniverse'.

and accepts that that consciousness is real it is contained within or is the universe.

Consciousness is a 'thing'? With attributes and changes in time?? Even you referred to Consciousness as an ultimate 'Truth', capitol 'T'. If so, it must 'exist' outside of the 'illusion' of time and change. 'Truth' doesn't change. So, I cannot accept your premise here..

Either way there is that of the universe that is conscious and self aware.

You? Me? Do you think that the other person in your dream last night was 'conscious and 'self aware'?

As I said before I any part of the universe is real then the universe too must be real.

Accordind to the temporary definition above of 'real' (until you give me yours, if different than the above...) the universe is not a 'thing', it is a hologramic 'thought', a 'concept'. Is a thought a 'thing' in your lexicon? If 'thought' is considered a 'thing' then I can understand where you are comming from here.

It follows then that if any part of the universe is conscious and self aware then the universe is conscious and self aware.

That is a mighty big 'if'! It is still a great philosophical discussion, and always
will be, whether or not there really is a 'self' to be 'aware of'. That is what we are talking about. If you take your-'self' as a given (unscientific) then you can posit the above. I cannot accept this as a 'given' just simply on the 'authority' of my senses and mind...

I know that there is one consciousness of which we all are part

How? 'Know' for certain? Absolutely 'sure'?

I infer, to date, that this One universal consciousness is the same entity as is the One Universe and the One Reality.

Perhaps One Reality, perhaps, but I still can't hang with your 'universe' fetish..

Yes to all. The mirage is real, it exists. What our mind interpret the image of the mirage to be is not correct or accurate.

HUH? The 'mirage' is an image in our mind, interperted correctly or not, it is still hallucination. So you attribute 'reality', 'thingness' to thoughts.. Ok, I am beginning to see what you are on about.. We seem to have a semantic variance, as our concepts of 'reality' are semantically based, we seem to have different 'realities'.

The dream is real. We all have dreams and experience dreams; therefore, dreams exist. The content of the dream may not be real, accurate or correct.

I quote, "As I said before I any part of the universe is real then the universe too must be real." Then by the same logic, if the dream is accepted as 'real' then the 'contents' of the dream must be real. Your 'universal' logic must be logic for 'dreams' also as dreams are a subset of universe.

Art is real. Works of art such as paintings exist and are real but they are illusions.

So you are saying that 'illusions' have 'real' existence? That, my friend, is the definition of 'delusion'.

I know of no-thing 'outside' of Consciousness. There is also no-'thing' within Consciousness that I have found beside hologramic dreaming egos. Like a bit of 'turbulence' in the Chaos?

Nor do I; however, with consciousness there are things, not physical things, but subjective things such as memories, thoughts, ideas, intent, purpose, will, mathematics, logic, sciences, philosophies. They may or not may be true or True. They may or may not be accurate, correct or complete, but they are there. they exist and are real.

In Consciousness there are only 'apparent' things, whether horses or mathematics. All the same dreamstuff. All illusion. NOT REAL. You seem to accept everything at all as 'real', mirages, hallucinations, delusions, illusions.. So if something 'appears' real to you, you assume it's reality in 'fact'? Based on what?

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."

exist - to be, is
real - that which exists, is.

Define 'is' and 'to be'.

You said; "I posit that the only thing that can be truly 'known' is delusion."

Knowing is not believing. One cannot know a delusion one can only believe a delusion. One can know that it is a delusion but that implies that one does not believe the delusion.

One can 'know/believe' (one and the same!) that 'illusion' is 'reality'. That is the definition of delusion, hence, the only thing that we can 'know/believe' is 'delusion'. Youll have to SHOW me how 'belief' differs from 'knowing'.

If the only thing that we can really know is delusion then knowing that is a delusion.

Ego cannot (ordinarilly) accept that which it 'knows/believes', creates, is illusion. Once ego can understand that it 'believed' that 'illusion' was 'reality', and accepts 'illusion' as illusion, one is no longer deluded, but awakened to the dream.

Once we learn that most of what we have accepted as true during our lives is delusion, we then begin to learn and know the Truth.

Replacing one 'knowing/belief' with another is still 'delusion'. If there IS a 'Truth', it is not a 'knowledge or a belief'.

The thing that makes a truth a Truth is that we know that it is True.

"The more we learn, the less we KNOW!"
Only ego 'KNOWS/BELIEVES', and the only thing that the ego can KNOW/BELIEVE is 'delusion'.

Knowing is experiencing the Truth, knowing it is true. Believing is accepting something that one reads, learns, hears or thinks to be true without experiencing or observing it oneself, without proof, without knowing it to be True.

So you don't believe that you know anything? You don't know that you have beliefs? You 'think' that you know. You believe that you know because you believe your 'experience' to be 'real'. You appear to be disingenuous here. You cannot honestly separate one from the other. If you were honest, you would say thet "I believe what/that I know..." "I know that/what I believe..."

If the truth is offensive and rude so be it.

Hahahahaha, where have I heard that before??
What a lousy excuse for rudeness.
You dishonor 'truth'. If YOUR 'truth' is 'offensive and rude', perhaps you aughtn't share it? Calling me an 'ass' (should you be tempted), no matter how true you believe/know it to be, is not too useful in a friendly discussion.
'Truth' is not a whip, my friend.

I am disappointed in you for saying that unless it was intended as humor.

If you relinquished 'expectations', 'hopes', 'beliefs', 'illusions', etc... you would never be 'disappointed' or 'disillusioned' again.

Birds of humor carry 'truth' the farthest for the most.

*__-

 

[Royce]

From my understanding of what you have written your position is that of a dualist who thinks all is delusion and thoughts are not real.

This is the very contradiction and paradox that started me on my journey to what I call Realism, though I doubt that it is Classical Realism. It was through meditation that I encountered the One and have come to know it as the Universal consciousness. I conclude that there is one universe, one consciousness and one reality. I infer that they are the same entity that I think of as God the Creator and Master of the Universe, the universe itself.
Others have suggested that the term 'god head' may be more applicable.

Thoughts, mentality exist and are real. They effect and change physical matter. If we accept that matter exists and is real we must accept that thought exists and is real because it is absurd to believe that the unreal and nonexistent can effect or change the state of physical matter.

If as you say all is delusion then who or what holds the delusion. Would that which is being deluded not also be a delusion. Where then is Truth and where is there any reality.

If nothing is real and nothing is true then nothing exists not even consciousness as that too is part of the all and therefore delusional.

This is semantics just as your continual demands for definitions and then definitions of the definitions. I will not play games of semantics with you or anybody.

I have said over and over again all that I have to say on this subject. Even I am bored with this as must be other readers and it is clearly off the subject of this thread which we have high jacked far too long. I am ending this discussion right now.

 

[nameless]

From my understanding of what you have written your position is that of a dualist who thinks all is delusion and thoughts are not real.

First you label me. You don't give me the respect of dealing with what I think and say, but drop me in a category that yoyu can easily 'deal with'. First comes that labelling, and then comes the ...

I have said over and over again all that I have to say on this subject. Even I am bored with this as must be other readers and it is clearly off the subject of this thread which we have high jacked far too long. I am ending this discussion right now.

...dismissal.
That is the problem with most 'believers'. You seem incapable of having an intelligent logical philosophical discussion. A mutual understanding of basic terms requires consensus definition before these terms can be used in intelligent conversation.. Considering the sloppy way that you use your words and seem incapable of effective definition of the words that YOU use, this tells me much about your 'understanding' of even your own words. But, hey, what need for a logical structure of understanding and communication when you are 'convinced', are 'convicted', have 'beliefs and faiths'... all anti-intellectual. I'm sorry we have hit the end of your intellectual capacity to finish our conversation. Evidenced by your dismissal. Why is it, do you think, that you asked me questions and finished by blowing me off? Can't stand the heat? Sheesh. Pathetic. I might have expected more of one of your age. I guess that years mean nothing but years. Oh well...
Sweet dreams...

 

[Royce]

If you want to continue this or any other discussion then open another thread.

Saying repeatedly the all is delusion without support or reason and asking repeated to define my terms and then define my definitions is hardly an
"intelligent logical philosophical discussion." You are the one who repeatedly referred to dualism. I did not label you but referred to the position that you seemed to have taken. You then accuse me of doing exactly what you are now doing.

You have again and again resorted to name calling and belittling and misquoted me and Les. Is it any wonder why I dismissed the discussion (not you). The wonder is why it has gone on as long as it had.

Well, Les has alway had more sense than I and quicker to pick up on such things. Sweet Dreams.

 

[nameless]

How special, a daisy chain of two. Good night, Gracie.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Perhaps this would be more helpful in finding out if there is any Zen out there:

Definitions of Zen on the Web:

* A school of Mahayana Buddhism that asserts that enlightenment can be attained through meditation, self-contemplation, and the use of topographic maps from Map Express.
mapexp.com/glossary.htm
* A Japanese sect of Mahayana Buddhism that aims at enlightenment by direct intuition through meditation.
www.hikoudo.com/asstd/glossary.html[/URL]
* A Japanese school of Buddhism which has become popular in North America. It is similar to the Chinese school of Buddhism known as Chan.
[url]www.religioustolerance.org/gl_xyz.htm[/url]
* a branch of Mahayana Buddhism that first appeared in China in the sixth and seventh centuries and later spread to Japan.
[url]www.japanvisitor.com/jc/glossary.html[/url]
* (see Ch'an Buddhism)
[url]www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm[/url]
* A school or division of Buddhism characterized by techniques designed to produce enlightenment. In particular, Zen emphasizes various sorts of meditative practices, which are supposed to lead the practitioner to a direct insight into the fundamental character of reality (see KU and MOKUSO).
[PLAIN]www.advdojo.org/vocab.html[/URL]
* A major school of Mahayana Buddhism, with several branches. One of its most popular techniques is meditation on koans, which leads to the generation of the Great Doubt. According to this method:
[url]www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/mindseal/glossary.html[/url]
* (Japanese) Meditation. Derived from the Chinese ‘Ch’an’ and the Sanskrit ‘dhyana’. A school of Mahayana Buddhism that developed in China and Japan.
[PLAIN]www.thebuddhistsociety.org/resources/Glossary.html[/URL]
* As the traditional, four-phrase summary of Zen puts it:
[PLAIN]www.hyattcarter.com/coming_to_terms.htm[/URL]
* What is the sound of one s__t happening?
[PLAIN]www.dogchurch.org/restroom/feces.html[/URL]
* a meditative sect of Buddhism, introduced into Japan from China in the 13th Century.
[PLAIN]www.castlefinearts.com/main_glossary.htm[/URL]
* (Japanese): Originally Chan (Chinese), a form of Buddhist philosophy. Literally, "silence" or "meditation".
[PLAIN]www.boabom.org/dictionary.htm[/URL]
* Japanese, "seated meditation;" the tradition of Buddhism that emphasizes enlightenment, or satori, as the immediate and subjective experience of one's own Buddha nature.
staff.jccc.net/thoare/gl%20q%20to%20z.htm
* This is one school of the Mahayana branch of Buddhism. It developed in China (where it was known as Chan Buddhism), and spread into Japan and Korea. It has incorporated several ideas from Taoism.
[url]www.siamese-dream.com/reference/buddhist_glossary.html[/url]
* (Japanese) Buddhist school or sect favouring meditation and intuition rather than scripture as a means to enlightenment, which passed from China to Japan in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
[url]www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/glossary_tz.htm[/url]
* The Japanese meditative sect of Mahayana Buddhism. (Japanese)
members.tripod.com/hungahungas/glossary.htm
* (J) Although there are many meanings for this word, including an organization, an energy, and a style of meditation, it is often associated with a mental state where the intellectual word-brain is quiet. This can be during empty-mind meditation or meditation focused on an experience, feeling, or sense that exists apart from words.
[PLAIN]www.questkagami.com/glossary.html[/URL]
* Japanese; Ch'an (Chinese); a branch of Mahayana Buddhism which developed in China during the sixth and seventh centuries after Bodhidharma arrived; it later divided into the Soto and Rinzai schools; Zen stresses the importance of the enlightenment experience and the futility of rational thought, intellectual study and religious ritual in attaining this; a central element of Zen is zazen, a meditative practice which seeks to free the mind of all thought and conceptualization.
[url]www.geocities.com/mokuraibozu/buddhist_glossary.html[/url]
* A sect of Mahayanan Buddhism that teaches enlightenment through meditation on a non-rational koan that results in direct intuition. Zen greatly influenced social and political life in Japan after the 14th century, especially the work of Matsuo Basho, the 15th century artist considered Japan's foremost practitioner of haiku. It has grown popular in the West largely through the writings of DT Suzuki.
[url]www.rodsmith.org.uk/philosopy%20glossary/philosophy%20glossaryU-Z.htm[/url]
* From the Japanese word meaning "meditation". It is the form of Buddhism which developed in Japan.
[url]www.fitzwimarc.org.uk/glossary/x.htm[/url]
* Meditation Buddhist sect. Religious meditation.
goju.batcave.net/GLOSSARY.htm
* (Japanese; in Chinese, Ch'an) A style of Buddhism that evolved from the teachings of Bodhidharma, who came to China in the 6th century. Although meditation (zazen) is an important part of the practice of Zen, Zen itself includes every possible form of activity, from martial arts to flower arranging; from landscape gardening to the tea ceremony.
[PLAIN]www.friendsoftheheart.com/meditation_resources/left/glossary.shtml[/URL]
* school of Mahayana Buddhism asserting that enlightenment can come through meditation and intuition rather than faith; China and Japan
* a Buddhist doctrine that enlightenment can be attained through direct intuitive insight
* acid: street name for lysergic acid diethylamide
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Zen is the Japanese name of a well known branch of Maha¯ya¯na Buddhism, practiced originally in China as Chan, and subsequently in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. Zen emphasizes the role of meditation (zazen) in pursuing enlightenment. Zen can be considered a religion, a philosophy, or simply a practice depending on one's perspective. Besides this, it has been described as a way of life, work, and an art form.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
*acid-jazz: a musical sub-category; relates to jazz being played as if on acid with no faith in structure or pre-conceptual arrangements.
licideespleef.ithica.cornell.orß

 

[nameless]

There is a definite difference between a dictionary 'intellectual understanding' of the WORD, and the actual 'experiential understanding' of the 'state of Being'. I think that it was the 'experiential' that was being questioned.

Zen; a 'street name' for LSD?... hmmmm... who'da thunk?
@__@

 

[jimmie]

but seriously, pattiecake,

speaking from ONLY my personal experience, I discerned that there "was" the thought i thought which was the particular thing i referred to, and then there "is" the whole point i "am" referring from while i was thinking the thought i thought;

its about where i placed attention; when i placed attention on doing any thing (either mentally thinking or physically moving), i was not building my awareness that i am, or rather, "I" am;

so i intended to morph into I by making a constant conscious concentrated effort to not do any thing;

after i let go of all that "was", here I am;

so, if "I" could be so bold as to make "one" suggestion to you, I suggest you accept that it was not possible for i to be I while i was physically moving; be prepared to do a lot of being still, and do not "try" to do anything;

and for the record, I have not read any book at any point;