reality

The Middle Path? Tao and Zen


#># Do we find Tao or does Tao find us? 

#> look at my thumb

# "To learn the way of the Buddha is to learn about oneself.
#  To learn about oneself is to forget oneself. To forget oneself
#  is to be enlightened by everything in the world. To be 
#  enlightened by everything is to let fall one's own body and mind."

#	Eihei Dogen Zenji - founder of Soto Zen

# To understand the words you must understand the context. 
# Enlightenment comes in many Ways. Zen is but one.

#># The reality is Tao is always with us; within and without. 
#> 
#> there is no reality

# Reality is everywhere.

	Of those who misunderstand the Twofold Truth {Common/Higher Truth}
	there are, in all, three kinds of men.  First are the Abhidharmists,
	who insist upon the existence of a definite substance, who err in
	{taking as ultimate what is in fact no more than} dependent
	existence {that is, a thing coming into existence depending on
	causes and conditions}, and who therefore lose {the true meaning
	of} Common Truth.  They also do not know that dependent existence,
	just as it is, has no existence, and thus they also lose {the true
	meaning of} the One True Emptiness.  Second are those who learn the
	Great Vehicle and who are called the Men of the Extensive and Broad
	Way.  They adhere to a belief in Emptiness and fail to know 
	dependent existence, hence they lose the {true meaning of} Common
	Truth.  Having adhered to the misunderstood Emptiness, they err
	with regard to the true Emptiness, and thus also lose the {true
	meaning of} Higher Truth.  Third are those in this very age
	[549-623] who, though knowing of the Two-fold Truth, in some cases
	say that it is two substances.  The theories are both untenable,
	hence they lose the {true meaning of both} Higher and Common Truth.

	Chi-Tsang, "The Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises",
	 quoted from _Sources of Chinese Tradition_, Vol. 1, ed.
	 by Wm. Theodore de Bary, Columbia University Press, 1969;
	 pp. 298-9.  editor's commentary/addition in {set braces},
	 my addition in [brackets] -- !.
	_________________________________________________________________

comment: 
 nothing finds tao and tao finds nothing, yet through tao all things are found.
 reality does not partake of either of the Two-fold Truths
  
#>  tao is not comparable to us
# We are Tao.

	THE TAO DOES NOT TALK

	That's another reason I like the Tao so much; it doesn't talk!
	I hate people who talk too much.  When I'm in company, *I* like
	to be the one to talk; others should just respectfully listen!

	Is it not marvelous that I can talk to the Tao to my heart's
	content, and the Tao never contradicts me or answers back?
	The Tao never criticizes me for being egocentric or talking
	too much.

	When I talk about talking to the Tao, the more sophisticated
	and psychoanalytically oriented reader will say that I am not
	really talking to the Tao, I am really talking to myself.
	But this is not so!  Since all words come from the Tao, my
	talking to the Tao is not really me talking to myself but
	the Tao talking to *itself*!  Yet the Tao does not talk, it
	is silent!  Is this not a remarkable paradox?

	_The Tao is Silent_, by Raymond Smullyan, Harper and Row,
	 1977; p. 28.
	____________________________________________________________

comment:
 tao is silent
 by speaking, we exhibit our difference from tao
 
#>  within and without are meaningless

# Everything has meaning.

listen to this post


Reality and The Physical

|#> Can you imagine his saying in a job interview "I don't believe there's
|#> an objective reality: I believe the postulated "real" is nothing but a
|#> convention.")

| That's why I tell you his [driving] license should be revoked, dammit!

operating from ordinary perspective is sufficient to use heavy machines.
 belief in nonordinary truths may contradict personal experience 
 (because intellect has apprehended what is not yet directly experienced)

|# ...my actual view, the one that causes me to wake up in the morning, 
|# etc., is that all of this is real --

| ...if Namdrool just said, "of course there is a real physical world, 
| but I use my make-believe fantasies as visualizations or spiritual 
| exercises that help expose conditioned concepts in me", then that 
| would be fine. Instead, he is inauthentic about the whole thing, 
| spewing outright lies while knowing very well that he lives and 
| breathes in the real world....

'real' in persistent sense of form yields no physical correlate.
 'real' in ontological sense of substance yields physicality.
 neither are conceptually clear except to those who have
 transcended conventions as described by Namdrol; compare
 experiments with humans wearing mirror-glasses and miraculous
 adjustments eyes and brain make to facilitate behaviour