what is reality and what is illusion ?

[TaoMaster]

for the advanced Taoists

 

 

if a tree falls in the forest and you are miles away , does it make a sound?

 

the tree never fell.

 

But you say you see the tree laying on the ground so it must have fallen down.

 

did you see it fall or do you just see its down ?

 

the tree never fell.

 

if you find a 100 dollar bill on the ground , did it fall out of someones walet ?

 

there is no walet and there is no someoene.

 

there is just the money on the ground.

 

how did the tree get on its side and how did the money get on the ground.

 

you put them there the instant you noticed them.

 

the truth comes first and the lie always comes after .

 

it was you and only you and is you who puts everything and everyone where they are when you first notice them . The story you tell yourself as to how and why and when things happened prior to the actual event of noticing is a lie if its anything other than , it was you who put them there the instant you noticed them , wheather you "know" it or not .

 

any explanation other than that, is a lie, as a lie always comes after the truth .

 

reality ( truth ) is your doing and only your doing. illusions ( lies ) are your doing and only your doing.

 

enjoy !!

 

Taomaster+

Edited July 20, 2014 by TaoMaster

[Marblehead]

You and I will have many disagreements in this thread.

 

The tree exists. Once it was alive and growing upright. Now it has fallen. It still exists, it's just that its life (chi) has left it. NO, I didn't see it fall but the last time I saw it it was upright and now it is laying on the grown. It either fell on its own accord or someone cut it down. No, I didn't hear it fall because I was too far away for the sound wave to vibrate my ear drums. But there was the virbation of it falling and if anyone was close enough they would have heard the noise.

 

And don't be telling me that you don't exist because someone was using your log-in to make the above post by typing on a keyboard connected to a computer that was on-line and connected to the TaoBums forum.

 

The manifest aspect of Tao is physical reality. Yes, there are other aspects of Tao. We shouldn't confuse "yo" with "wu".

Edited July 19, 2014 by Marblehead

[Daeluin]

A large consciousness is idle and spacey; a small consciousness is cramped and circumspect. Big talk is bland and flavorless; petty talk is detailed and fragmented. We sleep and our spirits converge; we awake and our bodies open outward. We give, we receive, we act, we construct: all day long we apply our minds to struggles against one thing or another - struggles unadorned or struggles concealed, but in either case tightly packed one after another without gap. The small fears leave us nervous and depleted; the large fears leave us stunned and blank. Shooting forth like an arrow from a bowstring: such is our presumption when we arbitrate right and wrong. Holding fast as if to sworn oaths: such is out defense of our victories. Worn away as if by autumn and winter: such is our daily dwindling, drowning us in our own activities, unable to turn back. Held fast as if bound by cords, we continue along the same ruts. The mind is left on the verge of death, and nothing can restore its vitality.

 

Joy and anger, sorrow and happiness, plans and regrets, transformations and stagnations, unguarded abandonment and deliberate posturing - music flowing out of hollows mushrooms of billowing steam! Day and night they alternate before us, but no one knows whence they sprout. That is enough! That is enough! Is it from all of this, presented ceaselessly day and night, that we come to exist? Without that there would be no me, to be sure, but then again without me there would be nothing selected out from it all. This is certainly something close to hand, and yet we do not know what makes it so. If there is some controller behind it all, it is peculiarly devoid of any manifest sign. Its ability to flow and to stop makes its presence plausible, but even then it shows no definite form. That would make it a reality with no definite form.

 

The hundred bones, the nine openings, the six internal organs are all present here as my body. Which one is most dear to me? Do you delight in all equally, or do you have some favorite among them? Or are they all mere servants and concubines? Are these servants and concubines unable to govern each other? Or do they take turns as master and servant? If there exists a genuine ruler among them, then whether we could find out the facts about him or not would neither add to nor subtract from that genuineness.

 

If you regard what you have received as fully formed one and for all, unable to forget it, all the time it survives is just a vigil spent waiting for its end. In the process, you grind and lacerate yourself against all the things around you. Its activities will be over as quickly as a horse galloping by, unstoppable - is it not sad? All your life you labor, and nothing is achieved. Worn and exhausted to the point of collapse, never knowing what it all amounts to - how can you not lament this? What good does it do if others say, "To us he is not dead"? The body has decayed and the mind went with it. Can this be called anything but an enormous sorrow? Is human life always this bewildering, or am I the only bewildered one? Is there actually any man, or anything in a man, that is not bewildered?

 

If we follow whatever has so far taken shape, fully formed, in our minds, making that our teacher, who could ever be without a teacher? The mind comes to be what it is by taking possession of whatever it selects out of the process of alternation - but does that mean it has to truly understand that process? The fool takes something up from it too. But to claim that there are any such things as "right" and "wrong" before they come to be fully formed in someone's mind is this way - that is like saying you left for Yue today and arrived there yesterday. This is to regard the nonexistent as existent. The existence of the nonexistent is beyond the understanding of even the divine sage-king Yu - so what possible sense could it make to someone like me?

 

"But human speech is not just a blowing of air. Speech has something of which it speaks, something it refers to." Yes, but what it refers to is peculiarly unfixed. So is there really anything it refers to? Or has nothing ever been referred to? You take it to be different from the chirping of baby birds. But is there really any difference between them? Or is there no difference? Is there any dispute, or is there no dispute? Anything demonstrated, or nothing demonstrated?

 

How could courses be so obscured that there could be any question of genuine or fake among them? How could words be so obscured that there could be any question of right or wrong among them? Where can you go without it being a course? What can you say without it being affirmable? Courses are obscured by the small accomplishments already formed and completed by them. Words are obscured by the ostentatious blossoms of reputation that come with them. Hence we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and Mohists, each affirming what the other negates and negating what the other affirms. But if you want to affirm what they negate and negate what they affirm, nothing compares to the Illumination of the Obvious:

 

There is no being that is not "that." There is no being that is not "this." But one cannot be seeing these from the perspective of "that": one knows them only from "this" [i.e., from one's own perspective]. Thus, we can say: "That" emerges from "this," and "this" follows from "that." This is the theory of the simultaneous generation of "this" and "that." But by the same token, their simultaneous generation is their simultaneous destruction, and vice versa. Simultaneous affirmability is simultaneous negatability, and vice versa. What is circumstantially right is also circumstantially wrong, and vice versa. Thus, the Sage does not proceed from any one of them alone but instead lets them all bask in the broad daylight of Heaven. And that too is only a case of going by the rightness of the present "this."

 

"This" is also a "that." "That" is also a "this." "THAT" posits a "this and a "that - a right and a wrong - of its own. But "THIS" also posits a "this and a "that" - a right and a wrong - of its own. So is there really any "that" versus "this," any right versus wrong? Or is there really no "that" versus "this"? When "this" and "that" - right and wrong - are no longer coupled as opposites that is called the Course as Axis, the axis of all courses. When this axis finds its place in the center, it responds to all the endless things it confronts, thwarted by none. For it has an endless supply of "rights," and an endless supply of "wrongs." Thus, I say, nothing compares to the Illumination of the Obvious.

 

To use this finger to show how a finger is not a finger is no match for using not-this-finger to show how a finger is not a finger. To use this horse to show that a horse is not a horse is no match for using not-this-horse to show that a horse is not a horse. Heaven and earth are one finger. All things are one horse.

 

Something is affirmative because someone affirms it. Something is negative because someone negates it. Courses are formed by someone walking them. Things are so by being called so. Whence thus and so? From thus and so being affirmed of them. Whence not thus and so? From thus and so being negated of them. Each thing necessarily has some place from which it can be affirmed as thus and so, and some place from which it can be affirmed as acceptable.

 

So no thing is not right, no thing is not acceptable. For whatever we may define as a beam as opposed to a pillar, as a leper as opposed the great beauty Xishi, or whatever might be [from some perspective] strange, grotesque, uncanny, or deceptive, there is some course that opens them into one another, connecting them to form a oneness. Whenever fragmentation is going on, formation, completion, is also going on. Whenever formation is going on, destruction is also going on.

 

Hence, all things are neither formed nor destroyed, for these two also open into each other, connecting to form a oneness. It is only someone who really gets all the way through them that can see how the two sides open into each other to form a oneness. Such a person would not define rightness in any one particular way but would instead entrust it to the everyday function [of each being]. Their everyday function is what works for them, and "working" just means this opening up into each other, their way of connecting. Opening to form a connection just means getting what you get: go as far as whatever you happen to get to, and leave it at that. It is all just a matter of going by the rightness of the present "this." To be doing this without knowing it, and not because you have defined it as right, is called "the Course."

 

But to labor your spirit trying to make all things one, without realizing that it is all the same [whether you do so or not], is called "Three in the Morning."

 

What is this Three in the Morning? A monkey trainer was distributing chestnuts. He said, "I'll give you three in the morning and four in the evening." The monkeys were furious. "Well then," he said, "I'll give you four in the morning and three in the evening." The monkeys were delighted. This change of description and arrangement caused no loss, but in one case it brought anger and in another delight. He just went by the rightness of their present "this." Thus the Sage uses various rights and wrongs to harmonize with others and yet remains at rest in the middle of Heaven the Potter's Wheel. This is called "Walking Two Roads."

 

The understanding of the ancients really got all the way there. Where had it arrived? To the point where, for some, there had never existed so called things. This is really getting there, as far as you can go. When no things are there, nothing more can be - added!

 

Next there were those for whom things existed but never any definite boundaries between them. Next there were those for whom there were boundaries but never any rights and wrongs. When rights and wrongs waxed bright, the Course began to wane. What set the Course to waning was exactly what brought the cherishing of one thing over another to its fullness.

 

But is there really any waning verses fullness? Or is there really no such thing as waning versus fullness? In a certain sense, there exists waning versus fullness. In that sense, we can say that the Zhao family are zither players. But in a certain sense, there is no such thing as waning versus fullness. In that sense we can say, on the contrary, that the Zhao family are no zither players.

 

Zhao Wen's zither playing, Master Kuang's baton waving, Huizi's desk slumping - the understanding these three had of their arts flourished richly. This was what they flourished in, and thus they pursued these ares to the end of their days. They delighted in them, and observing that this delight of theirs was not shared, they wanted to make it obvious to others. So they tried to make others understand as obvious what was not obvious to them, and thus some ended their days debating about the obscurities of "hardness" and "whiteness," and Zhao Wen's son ended his days still grappling with his father's zither strings. Can this be called success, being fully accomplished at something? In that case, even I am fully accomplished. Can this be called failure, lacking the full accomplishment of something? If so, neither I nor anything else can be considered fully accomplished.

 

Thus, the Radiance of Drift and Doubt is the sage's only map. He makes no definition of what is right but instead entrusts it to the everyday function of each thing. This is what I call the Illumination of the Obvious.

 

 

 

Now I will try some words here about "this." But I don't know if it belongs in the same category as "this" or not. For belonging in a category and not belonging in that category themselves form a single category! Being similar is so similar to being dissimilar! So there is finally no way to keep it different from "That."

 

Nevertheless, let me try to say it. There is a beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-a-beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-not-yet-begin-to-be-a-beginning. There is existence. There is nonexistence. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-nonexistence. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-not-yet-beginning-to-be-nonexistence. Suddenly there is nonexistence. But I do not-yet know whether "the existence of nonexistence" is ultimately existence or nonexistence.

 

Now I have said something. But I do not-yet know: has what I have said really said anything? Or has it not really said anything?

 

Nothing in the world is larger than the tip of a hair in autumn, and Mt. Tai is small. No one lives longer than a dead child, and old Pengzu died an early death. Heaven and earth are born together with me, and the ten thousand things and I are one.

 

But if we are all one, can there be any words? But since I have already declared that we are "one," can there be no words? The one and the word are already two, and the two and the original unnamed one are three. Going on like this, even a skilled chronicler could not keep up with it, not to mention a lesser man. So even moving from nonexistence to existence we already arrive at three - how much more when we move from existence to existence! Rather than moving from anywhere to anywhere, then, let us just go by the rightness of whatever is before us as the present "this."

 

Now, courses have never had any sealed borders between them, and words have never had any constant sustainability. It is by establishing definitions of what is "this," what is "right," that boundaries are made. Let me explain what I mean by boundaries: There are right and left, then there are classes of things and ideas of the proper responses to them, then there are roles and disputes, then there are competitions and struggles. Let's call these the Eight Virtues! As for the sage, he may admit that something exists beyond the six limits of the known world, but he does not further discuss it. As for what is within the known world, he will discuss it but not express an opinion on it. As for historical events, he will give an opinion but not debate it. For wherever a division is made, something is left undivided. Wherever debate shows one of two alternatives to be right, something remains undistinguished and unshown. What is it? The sage hides it in his embrace, while the masses of people debate it, trying to demonstrate it to one another. Thus I say that demonstration by debate always leaves something unseen.

 

The Great Course is unproclaimed. Great demonstration uses no words. Great humanity is not humane. Great rectitude is not fastidious. Great courage is not invasive. For when the Course becomes explicit, it ceases to be the Course. When words demonstrate by debate, they fail to communicate. When Humanity is constantly sustained, it cannot reach its maturity. When rectitude is pure, it cannot extend itself to others. When courage is invasive, it cannot succeed. These five are originally round, but they are forced toward squareness.

 

Hence, when the understanding consciousness comes to rest in what it does not know, it has reached its utmost. The demonstration that uses no words, the Course that is not a course - who "understands" these things? If there is something able to "understand" them [in this sense], it can be called the Heavenly Reservoir - poured into without ever getting full, ladled out of without ever running out, ever not-knowing its own source.

 

This is called the Shadowy Splendor.

 

 

Zhuangzi

Chapter 2: Equalizing Assessments of Things

tl Brook Ziporyn

[Marblehead]

I've never seen that translation before. But it does speak well to the section based on the translations I have read.

 

Yes, Chuang Tzu was a bit of a mystic. However, he never got physical reality confused with non-physical reality. When he spoke of the two together he never suggested he knew the answers to the non-physical questions. But he did express himself well regarding 'his' physical reality.

 

While reading I was again reminded of the states of 'wu' and 'yo', the mystery and the manifest. We can speak of the manifest definitively because it is the expression of Tao, even though it is constantly changing, that we can consciously observe. We cannot speak of the mystery definitively because it has not yet expressed itself, it is potential, potential being nothing and anything at the same time but yet not expressed.

[idiot_stimpy]

There is no difference between reality and illusion.

[Marblehead]

There is no difference between reality and illusion.

This applies to only the person who is inflicted with illusion. No one else will see their illusion. But everyone will see the tree.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

One may or may not see the tree, but all with their eyes closed ,will trip over it.

[Silent Answers]

Even before there were physical senses, the stars still shone, the planet still span and things were very real.

[Stosh]

Illusions can and do happen in the minds of men , therefore they have a sort of existance and a sort of reality , its just that the illusions of men must be translated into objective reality,, for the thing to become objectively real.

[GrandmasterP]

Most everyone gets that koan wrong.

In the original Japanese it goes........

Q:

" If a tree falls in the forest.

And there is no one there to witness it.

Do all the other trees giggle?"

 

A: " Mu."

Edited July 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[nestentrie]

I only read the OP here (so did the rest of the thread actually happen? there were at least 5 posts i skipped)... but I have to say: what is truth without WHY? You say here that a tree falls: so what? A slip of money is on the ground: why?

 

I could theorise about HOW it happened, (and that's what I think you WANT people to twist and contort themselves about), but dude, you have no wisdom here. WHY would this matter?

 

EDIT:

9

It is better to leave a vessel unfilled, than to attempt to
carry it when it is full. If you keep feeling a point that has been
sharpened, the point cannot long preserve its sharpness.

When gold and jade fill the hall, their possessor cannot keep them
safe. When wealth and honours lead to arrogancy, this brings its evil
on itself. When the work is done, and one's name is becoming
distinguished, to withdraw into obscurity is the way of Heaven.

 

Second EDIT:

And now I will read everyone's replies (and probably NOT comment). Sheesh.

Edited July 20, 2014 by nestentrie

[GrandmasterP]

"Reify" is maybe more useful than 'Reality'.

We each 'make meaning' in our several and separate ways.

No two peoples' reifications are ever quite the same.

Edited July 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

I only read the OP here (so did the rest of the thread actually happen? there were at least 5 posts i skipped)... but I have to say: what is truth without WHY?

Would you agree that sometimes the "Why?" doesn't even matter?

[Marblehead]

"Reify" is maybe more useful than 'Reality'.

 

I got totally filled up with "reifying" when I first joined this board.

[GrandmasterP]

A TV interviewer once quizzed Harold Wilson ( former PM)...

"Why do you always respond to a question with one of your own - Prime Minister?"

To which the wily PM replied...

" What makes you say that?"

Edited July 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[nestentrie]

Would you agree that sometimes the "Why?" doesn't even matter?

 

If I want to answer the dude's question, then yeah it probably should. But do I care about it (and the knowledge it might/would reveal?) Probably not.

[nestentrie]

[TaoMaster]

A large consciousness is idle and spacey; a small consciousness is cramped and circumspect. Big talk is bland and flavorless; petty talk is detailed and fragmented. We sleep and our spirits converge; we awake and our bodies open outward. We give, we receive, we act, we construct: all day long we apply our minds to struggles against one thing or another - struggles unadorned or struggles concealed, but in either case tightly packed one after another without gap. The small fears leave us nervous and depleted; the large fears leave us stunned and blank. Shooting forth like an arrow from a bowstring: such is our presumption when we arbitrate right and wrong. Holding fast as if to sworn oaths: such is out defense of our victories. Worn away as if by autumn and winter: such is our daily dwindling, drowning us in our own activities, unable to turn back. Held fast as if bound by cords, we continue along the same ruts. The mind is left on the verge of death, and nothing can restore its vitality.

 

Joy and anger, sorrow and happiness, plans and regrets, transformations and stagnations, unguarded abandonment and deliberate posturing - music flowing out of hollows mushrooms of billowing steam! Day and night they alternate before us, but no one knows whence they sprout. That is enough! That is enough! Is it from all of this, presented ceaselessly day and night, that we come to exist? Without that there would be no me, to be sure, but then again without me there would be nothing selected out from it all. This is certainly something close to hand, and yet we do not know what makes it so. If there is some controller behind it all, it is peculiarly devoid of any manifest sign. Its ability to flow and to stop makes its presence plausible, but even then it shows no definite form. That would make it a reality with no definite form.

 

The hundred bones, the nine openings, the six internal organs are all present here as my body. Which one is most dear to me? Do you delight in all equally, or do you have some favorite among them? Or are they all mere servants and concubines? Are these servants and concubines unable to govern each other? Or do they take turns as master and servant? If there exists a genuine ruler among them, then whether we could find out the facts about him or not would neither add to nor subtract from that genuineness.

 

If you regard what you have received as fully formed one and for all, unable to forget it, all the time it survives is just a vigil spent waiting for its end. In the process, you grind and lacerate yourself against all the things around you. Its activities will be over as quickly as a horse galloping by, unstoppable - is it not sad? All your life you labor, and nothing is achieved. Worn and exhausted to the point of collapse, never knowing what it all amounts to - how can you not lament this? What good does it do if others say, "To us he is not dead"? The body has decayed and the mind went with it. Can this be called anything but an enormous sorrow? Is human life always this bewildering, or am I the only bewildered one? Is there actually any man, or anything in a man, that is not bewildered?

 

If we follow whatever has so far taken shape, fully formed, in our minds, making that our teacher, who could ever be without a teacher? The mind comes to be what it is by taking possession of whatever it selects out of the process of alternation - but does that mean it has to truly understand that process? The fool takes something up from it too. But to claim that there are any such things as "right" and "wrong" before they come to be fully formed in someone's mind is this way - that is like saying you left for Yue today and arrived there yesterday. This is to regard the nonexistent as existent. The existence of the nonexistent is beyond the understanding of even the divine sage-king Yu - so what possible sense could it make to someone like me?

 

"But human speech is not just a blowing of air. Speech has something of which it speaks, something it refers to." Yes, but what it refers to is peculiarly unfixed. So is there really anything it refers to? Or has nothing ever been referred to? You take it to be different from the chirping of baby birds. But is there really any difference between them? Or is there no difference? Is there any dispute, or is there no dispute? Anything demonstrated, or nothing demonstrated?

 

How could courses be so obscured that there could be any question of genuine or fake among them? How could words be so obscured that there could be any question of right or wrong among them? Where can you go without it being a course? What can you say without it being affirmable? Courses are obscured by the small accomplishments already formed and completed by them. Words are obscured by the ostentatious blossoms of reputation that come with them. Hence we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and Mohists, each affirming what the other negates and negating what the other affirms. But if you want to affirm what they negate and negate what they affirm, nothing compares to the Illumination of the Obvious:

 

There is no being that is not "that." There is no being that is not "this." But one cannot be seeing these from the perspective of "that": one knows them only from "this" [i.e., from one's own perspective]. Thus, we can say: "That" emerges from "this," and "this" follows from "that." This is the theory of the simultaneous generation of "this" and "that." But by the same token, their simultaneous generation is their simultaneous destruction, and vice versa. Simultaneous affirmability is simultaneous negatability, and vice versa. What is circumstantially right is also circumstantially wrong, and vice versa. Thus, the Sage does not proceed from any one of them alone but instead lets them all bask in the broad daylight of Heaven. And that too is only a case of going by the rightness of the present "this."

 

"This" is also a "that." "That" is also a "this." "THAT" posits a "this and a "that - a right and a wrong - of its own. But "THIS" also posits a "this and a "that" - a right and a wrong - of its own. So is there really any "that" versus "this," any right versus wrong? Or is there really no "that" versus "this"? When "this" and "that" - right and wrong - are no longer coupled as opposites that is called the Course as Axis, the axis of all courses. When this axis finds its place in the center, it responds to all the endless things it confronts, thwarted by none. For it has an endless supply of "rights," and an endless supply of "wrongs." Thus, I say, nothing compares to the Illumination of the Obvious.

 

To use this finger to show how a finger is not a finger is no match for using not-this-finger to show how a finger is not a finger. To use this horse to show that a horse is not a horse is no match for using not-this-horse to show that a horse is not a horse. Heaven and earth are one finger. All things are one horse.

 

Something is affirmative because someone affirms it. Something is negative because someone negates it. Courses are formed by someone walking them. Things are so by being called so. Whence thus and so? From thus and so being affirmed of them. Whence not thus and so? From thus and so being negated of them. Each thing necessarily has some place from which it can be affirmed as thus and so, and some place from which it can be affirmed as acceptable.

 

So no thing is not right, no thing is not acceptable. For whatever we may define as a beam as opposed to a pillar, as a leper as opposed the great beauty Xishi, or whatever might be [from some perspective] strange, grotesque, uncanny, or deceptive, there is some course that opens them into one another, connecting them to form a oneness. Whenever fragmentation is going on, formation, completion, is also going on. Whenever formation is going on, destruction is also going on.

 

Hence, all things are neither formed nor destroyed, for these two also open into each other, connecting to form a oneness. It is only someone who really gets all the way through them that can see how the two sides open into each other to form a oneness. Such a person would not define rightness in any one particular way but would instead entrust it to the everyday function [of each being]. Their everyday function is what works for them, and "working" just means this opening up into each other, their way of connecting. Opening to form a connection just means getting what you get: go as far as whatever you happen to get to, and leave it at that. It is all just a matter of going by the rightness of the present "this." To be doing this without knowing it, and not because you have defined it as right, is called "the Course."

 

But to labor your spirit trying to make all things one, without realizing that it is all the same [whether you do so or not], is called "Three in the Morning."

 

What is this Three in the Morning? A monkey trainer was distributing chestnuts. He said, "I'll give you three in the morning and four in the evening." The monkeys were furious. "Well then," he said, "I'll give you four in the morning and three in the evening." The monkeys were delighted. This change of description and arrangement caused no loss, but in one case it brought anger and in another delight. He just went by the rightness of their present "this." Thus the Sage uses various rights and wrongs to harmonize with others and yet remains at rest in the middle of Heaven the Potter's Wheel. This is called "Walking Two Roads."

 

The understanding of the ancients really got all the way there. Where had it arrived? To the point where, for some, there had never existed so called things. This is really getting there, as far as you can go. When no things are there, nothing more can be - added!

 

Next there were those for whom things existed but never any definite boundaries between them. Next there were those for whom there were boundaries but never any rights and wrongs. When rights and wrongs waxed bright, the Course began to wane. What set the Course to waning was exactly what brought the cherishing of one thing over another to its fullness.

 

But is there really any waning verses fullness? Or is there really no such thing as waning versus fullness? In a certain sense, there exists waning versus fullness. In that sense, we can say that the Zhao family are zither players. But in a certain sense, there is no such thing as waning versus fullness. In that sense we can say, on the contrary, that the Zhao family are no zither players.

 

Zhao Wen's zither playing, Master Kuang's baton waving, Huizi's desk slumping - the understanding these three had of their arts flourished richly. This was what they flourished in, and thus they pursued these ares to the end of their days. They delighted in them, and observing that this delight of theirs was not shared, they wanted to make it obvious to others. So they tried to make others understand as obvious what was not obvious to them, and thus some ended their days debating about the obscurities of "hardness" and "whiteness," and Zhao Wen's son ended his days still grappling with his father's zither strings. Can this be called success, being fully accomplished at something? In that case, even I am fully accomplished. Can this be called failure, lacking the full accomplishment of something? If so, neither I nor anything else can be considered fully accomplished.

 

Thus, the Radiance of Drift and Doubt is the sage's only map. He makes no definition of what is right but instead entrusts it to the everyday function of each thing. This is what I call the Illumination of the Obvious.

 

 

 

Now I will try some words here about "this." But I don't know if it belongs in the same category as "this" or not. For belonging in a category and not belonging in that category themselves form a single category! Being similar is so similar to being dissimilar! So there is finally no way to keep it different from "That."

 

Nevertheless, let me try to say it. There is a beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-a-beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-not-yet-begin-to-be-a-beginning. There is existence. There is nonexistence. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-nonexistence. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-not-yet-beginning-to-be-nonexistence. Suddenly there is nonexistence. But I do not-yet know whether "the existence of nonexistence" is ultimately existence or nonexistence.

 

Now I have said something. But I do not-yet know: has what I have said really said anything? Or has it not really said anything?

 

Nothing in the world is larger than the tip of a hair in autumn, and Mt. Tai is small. No one lives longer than a dead child, and old Pengzu died an early death. Heaven and earth are born together with me, and the ten thousand things and I are one.

 

But if we are all one, can there be any words? But since I have already declared that we are "one," can there be no words? The one and the word are already two, and the two and the original unnamed one are three. Going on like this, even a skilled chronicler could not keep up with it, not to mention a lesser man. So even moving from nonexistence to existence we already arrive at three - how much more when we move from existence to existence! Rather than moving from anywhere to anywhere, then, let us just go by the rightness of whatever is before us as the present "this."

 

Now, courses have never had any sealed borders between them, and words have never had any constant sustainability. It is by establishing definitions of what is "this," what is "right," that boundaries are made. Let me explain what I mean by boundaries: There are right and left, then there are classes of things and ideas of the proper responses to them, then there are roles and disputes, then there are competitions and struggles. Let's call these the Eight Virtues! As for the sage, he may admit that something exists beyond the six limits of the known world, but he does not further discuss it. As for what is within the known world, he will discuss it but not express an opinion on it. As for historical events, he will give an opinion but not debate it. For wherever a division is made, something is left undivided. Wherever debate shows one of two alternatives to be right, something remains undistinguished and unshown. What is it? The sage hides it in his embrace, while the masses of people debate it, trying to demonstrate it to one another. Thus I say that demonstration by debate always leaves something unseen.

 

The Great Course is unproclaimed. Great demonstration uses no words. Great humanity is not humane. Great rectitude is not fastidious. Great courage is not invasive. For when the Course becomes explicit, it ceases to be the Course. When words demonstrate by debate, they fail to communicate. When Humanity is constantly sustained, it cannot reach its maturity. When rectitude is pure, it cannot extend itself to others. When courage is invasive, it cannot succeed. These five are originally round, but they are forced toward squareness.

 

Hence, when the understanding consciousness comes to rest in what it does not know, it has reached its utmost. The demonstration that uses no words, the Course that is not a course - who "understands" these things? If there is something able to "understand" them [in this sense], it can be called the Heavenly Reservoir - poured into without ever getting full, ladled out of without ever running out, ever not-knowing its own source.

 

This is called the Shadowy Splendor.

 

 

Zhuangzi

Chapter 2: Equalizing Assessments of Things

tl Brook Ziporyn

Daeluin and Marblehead, thanks for your replies , heres a message for you

 

[TaoMaster]

There is no difference between reality and illusion.

, correct........ master

 

the law of duality states and dictates that :

 

if

 

life only knows those things that exist ( physical or mental )

 

then

 

things you do not know do not exist ( physical or mental )

 

its the law of duality

 

fighting against the law will not change it or eliminate it , it will just make your life miserable

 

and ipso facto

 

harmonization with the LOD will make your life pleasurable.

 

if a thing must exist in order to be knowable. ( physical or mental )

 

Then things that are not known do not exist. ( physical or mental )

 

The reason WHY for a creation ALWAYS without exception comes after the creation.

 

The reason WHY can be an infinite number of reasons. Take your pick

 

Physical and mental are two ends or poles of the same spectrum.

 

They are in fact one item that make the yang yin complete.

 

When you consider physical and mental as two different things you are simply looking at the yang and yin of what is.

 

on the physical side of the spectrum you have YIN- soildidty

 

on the mental side you have YANG+ transparency

 

how do you know whcih is which?

 

yang come first always , no exceptions to this universal parameter. it applies to every particle in the universe. Even the illusinary single particals that apear to be single but are alawys made of two parts. Yang and Yin.

 

You will not find this parameter in any books you read or will read , if you do please let me know. Its probally a book i wrote in a past life or a post Ive made on the internet in this life

 

We can easily make the mental partical vanish but the solid particals will take some doing as you progress.

 

the only thing that prevents you is you and your considerations that it can not be done.

 

thanks everyone for your generous replys

 

Taomaster

 

[Daeluin]

Your logic is confusing to me and hurts my brain. Thus, from my perspective you are wrong and I am moving on.

[deci belle]

Illusion is not affliction: would the resident philosophers make a note of that, please? Affliction is not knowing you are afflicted.

 

 

mr stimpy said:

There is no difference between reality and illusion.

 

This is correct. I wasn't going to post, but…

 

In terms of the OP, Reality is not absolute, nor is it conditions: certainly it is not a matter of distinctions based on an habitual consciousness afflicted with the illusion of separate personal selfish views constituting reality.

 

Illusion is the affliction of self-reflective views. Reality is not being afflicted by self-reflective views.

 

The literalists may not be able to distinguish the subtlety, as it is not a matter of intellectual reasoning. It's just real… no one knows why it is so. Reality is flux inherently fused with potential. Seeing potential is seeing reality in every created cycle without going along with creation. Go along with flux and yer dead meat~ over and over and over again. It's the meaning of birth and death. It's thoughts unawares.

 

Reality is noticing thoughts as they arise and not following them; apply this to situations by analogy and cease birth and death by yourself in the microcosm in order to arrive at beginningless in the macrocosm. That's reality inside and out.

 

It is not that the absolute is empty or the world is illusory— if you can see nothingness in the midst of ordinary affairs while adapting fully engaged in response to situations, this is reality. Buddhism calls this the Supreme Vehicle. Taoism refers to this as entering the Tao in reality.

 

Seeing as how a few of the philosophers are present, I just hate to use the word selfless in this context— not because it isn't the identity of one's natural function in terms of the expression of one's enlightening being, and whose purpose is carrying out the quality of response absorbed of the real (neither absolute nor conditional), but because the word selfless scares the bejesus out of these people. They just can't wrap their li'l heads around the term. They think it refers to the individual identity. No one can understand this— it's inconceivable. That's reality. But being afflicted by delusion, they simply don't know you can't understand inconceivability. It's not words. Fortunately, only the most intelligent ones are afflicted thusly. 'Tis a pity.❤

 

Reality is the real self expressing unity. It is Mind. Seeing this unity is seeing reality~ miniskirts and bikinis included.

 

The real self is naturally void of the coming and going (birth and death) of self-conditioned views. Views come and go, but real people do not follow birth and death. They rest in the highest good, the incipience of potential reality, which has no coming or going. The pivot of awareness is the causeless result in perpetuity. This is reality and it has never looked different than illusion.

 

Karma is created process and reality is its potential essence. If you see this in ordinary affairs, this is the highest good, reality as is: thigh-highs and garters too. Throw in a few ice-ages and human-caused regional and global conflicts, epic migrations and your favorite Hollywood thriller. It's real. All of it— if you can see the real by virtue of the false.

 

If you cannot see reality, your affliction is not due to illusion, it is due to selfish views and stubborn ignorance of the nature of reality, which by nature is inherently selfless.

 

Reality is naturally void of self, so reality is spontaneously apparent to those who see without dependence on the self-reflective habitually discriminatory psychological consciousness. Reality is naturally so for those who do not cling to appearances. There is no other reality other than the one on both sides of your pointed nose. Inside and outside is one complete reality as is without deliberations.

 

The question should be "Who is reality and illusion?" This gets back to there being no separate nature, but that can't be deliberated so it is beyond the recreational pursuit of philosophical discussion. There is nothing to agree (or disagree) on in words, because it is wordless. Philosophy can only deliberate illusory objects accessible by intellectual conceptualization.

 

I have long considered this disadvantage of the fact of immediate impersonal knowledge in terms of why philosophers not only can not, but will not suspend their habitual reasoning apparatus for the instant it is necessary for the sudden realization of nonorigination to occur. The affliction (pastime) of recreational existential TALKING is too concretized to see the underlying (in broad daylight) reality.

 

Besides, reality and illusion is the nature of selflessness. BOO!! hahahhahaa!!❤

[GrandmasterP]

Illusion can be the nature of selfishness too.

[deci belle]

Ya, even as reality is the nature of illusion.

 

 

ps: Honestly, my original intention instead of my biG post was to just say that Alice Cooper's guitarista is Reality!!! hahaha! I only plopped that thing down cuz one of the philosophers actually warned someone they would be in constant disagreement. tRaSh-TalKin' sports-philosophers~ whatta pastime that is!!!

 

 

 

 

ed note: softened up the one-liner.❤

Edited July 20, 2014 by deci belle

[Marblehead]

Daeluin and Marblehead, thanks for your replies , heres a message for you

But that's her problem, not mine, isn't it?

[Marblehead]

, correct........ master

Error Warning!