Date sent: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:45:54 -0400 From: Robert Owen <rowen@technologist.com> Subject: TO: Joe Dees - Mu-shin To: extropiansextropycom <extropians@extropy.com> Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> J. The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind asserts that the belief that
> one possesses a self is a delusion; that the self is, in
> reality, nothing.
>
> B. Let me rephrase this for the sake of illustration: No-Mind
> asserts that the dreamer is the dream, the dancer is the
> dance, the hearer is the sound, the perceiver is the
> perception.
>
I have yet to see a waltz without a waltzer. If you have a reference
for such a thing, please send it ASAP. The perceiver is NOT the
perception! Perceiver, perceiving and perceived are inseparable but
distinguishable components of perception. One may perceive
many different perceiveds and still be perceiving, and one may
perceive a specific perceived in many different ways; they thus
cannot be conflated without error.
>
> There is nothing in the stream of consciousness except a
> fleeting succession of images and feelings; there is that
> which is seen, but no seeing of seeing, there is that
> which is felt, but no feeling of feeling.
>
Explain how such phenomena as a seen bereft of a seer, or a
feeling without a feeler, can possibly obtain.
>
> Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" means simply "there is the
> thought of thinking" then "the thought of a thinker" and
> finally the thought "if thought then thinker" and that is all.
> "Believer" can be directly substituted for "thinker" and
> "belief" for "thought". Thought if and only if thought.
>
Directly translated, it says "I think, therefore I am." Your
interpretation is your interpretation of Descarte's statement, but not
the statement itself. "I think, therefore I am" obviously means that
the presence of thought logically entails the existence of a self who
thinks (the thinker of the thought).
>
> J. However, if one does indeed possess a self, then there
> is no delusion involved in believing that one does.
>
> B.But the Zen position denies the substantiality of any
> temporally self-identical entity within the stream of
> consciousness. There is no dreamer and the dream
> of a dreamer is a dream. What happens to the dreamer
> when awakening is precisely what happens to the lap
> when standing up.
>
If there is no dreamer, there cannot be a dream. If there is a
dream, there must be a dreamer. Likewise, awakening can occur
only when someone is awakened.
>
> J. On the other hand, if one does not possess a self, then no
> delusion can occur, either, for delusion requires a self in
> order to have a subject to delude - a deludee, if you will.
>
> B. But, once again, although there is no dreamer there is
> still dreaming; dreaming that the dream-state is reality
> requires only the dream just as the dance requires only
> dancing.
>
Dreaming requires a dreamer just as dancing requires a dancer;
Neither I nor anyone I know has ever seen one in the absence of
the other.
>
> J. There must be a believer for a belief to occur, and a
> nonexistent belief cannot be deluded
>
> B There must be a believer for a belief to occur to a believer,
> is tautological, like "Snow is white if and only if snow is
> white."
>
And tautologies are by necessity true.
>
> J. In addition, delusion in the absence of one who is indeed
> deluded makes no sense whatsoever, since such a concept
> cannot meet the sine qua non test.
>
> B. Delusion is a property of consciousness that mistakes its
> reflexivity for a subject-object duality. Delusion is then
> simply a state of the unawareness of consciousness of its
> own "true nature".
>
Perhaps the truly deluded self-consciousness is the one which is
infected with the "I do not really exist" maya meme.
>
>
> J. So, whether or not there is such an entity as a self in
> existence, there can be no delusion, and there is no
> room between the twin horns of this dilemma, since the
> either-or alternatives encompass all the possible situational
> alternatives. Q.E.D.,
>
> B. There is a disintegrated state of consciousness that can
> be called "delusion" or "ignorance", but there is no one
> who is deluded or ignorant. The eye cannot see itself
> seeing because there is nothing to see.
>
The eye cannot see itself, but its seeing refers necessarily to a
seer as surely as it refers to a seen.
>
> J. The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind, which asserts that such a
> belief is necessarily deluded, when in fact it cannot be,
> must be false. There is a way around this argument.
>
> B. You can continue dualistically thinking that the doctrine
> of No-Mind is false, as long as you continue to think
> dualistically.
>
The epithet of "dualistic" is a common Zen ploy with which its
practitioners attempt to dismiss what they cannot refute. In this
case, the dismissal fails also.
>
> J. Have fun, Joe
>
> B. All fun is Zen, Joe, because it makes you laugh!
>
> One monk said to the other, "The fish has
> flopped out of the net! How will it live?"
> The other said, "When you have gotten
> out of the net, I'll tell you."
>
There is a way around the conundrum, but you ain't found it yet. I'll
give you another chance; if you don't find it then, I'll go ahead and
tell you.
>
> Lux et Veritas,
>
And also to you.
>
> Bob
>
> =======================
> Robert M. Owen
> Director
> The Orion Institute
> 57 W. Morgan Street
> Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
> =======================
>
>
>
>