Quote:<hr>I've never said forms don't exist, only their boundaries.
The form of an eddy continues to appear to our senses even after we perceive the truth that it has no boundaries.<hr>
Well, an eddy is certainly an interesting example. At first it seems a poor one, as water is so fluid, no one thinks it has any real boundaries, unless frozen. The beauty and usefulness of water flows from its unboundedness. It was a good choice for comparison with the Tao. But, given large enough stretches of time, the mountain ranges and continents themselves would flow like ripples and waves. As does glass.
At the same time, to deny boundaries is to deny the world of forms. It even denies that A equals A, (excepting the one A of the totality.) A form exists because of everything that it is not. How can we way "that is a pencil" if the pencil never ends? Now, I understand that if all forms are really delusion, leaving only one A, that it means all is empty. Form is empty. Well and good, but it is only one way of looking at reality, and forms are another.
Despite that when you look too closely, boundaries cannot be totally pinned down, that is merely a temporal problem. You cannot be both a form and eternal, you see.
No one knows better than the student of alchemy that forms are chimerical. At bottom, according to alchemy and string theory, there is only one "substance." And from it are all forms, all pretending to be the ten thousand things, and all are actually the one thing.
Yet still I insist, forms are real, and boundaries, while not the end of the story, are real and functional enough, and without them there would be no evolution, no experiences.
Quote:<hr>I dispute the idea that mysticism is a direct experience of God. Mystics might say it is, but they are mistaken. What they actually experience are egotistical heavens, which seem profound and timeless to their gullible and all-too-ready-to-believe minds.<hr>
Well, if you dispute that then your arguments make sense. As to whether you are right, that is another question. There is not any fault in experiencing a heaven, and its truths are much higher than the mundane ones. Truth is vast and it is a never-ending ascent, or at least, the end is nowhere in sight. One can only get and assimilate more and more and more of it. There is only one fault, and that is loss of appetite.
Quote:<hr>This is because the person entering true enlightenment really does give all of himself, such that there is no longer any room for emotion to arise. The contrast between self and other disappears, and he literally becomes the All.<hr>
This I'd say is true.
I was thinking yesterday about my craving to know absolutely everything, and I realized that the only way to accomplish that is to BE everything, which makes it rather difficult to keep a self at the same time...yet what is the satisfaction of being everything if one then knows not that one knows...nor can I ever be satisfied until I know everything...I've no idea how to pull it off, but I have every confidence that Reality has some trick up its sleeve.
Quote:<hr>The mystic, on the other hand, doesn't fully sacrifice himself. He hangs back a bit. He preserves a part of himself.<hr>
Quote:<hr>This is because what he really wants is, not God, but the experience of an egotistical heaven, together with the blissful emotions it arouses. <hr>
No, mainly it's because she doesn't want to die!
Quote:<hr>Nor can I understand why agreeing or seeing that all items are appearances to mind is so crucial to enlightenment.
This is something you'll have to work out for yourself. It goes to the heart of the nature of existence.<hr>
Hmm, well your example of the leaf didn't do much for me. I can see how the leaf and its leafness will vary tremendously on who the observer is. What I don't see is that nothing exists unless it appears to some consciousness, or that it doesn't exist just because of the fact that it is utterly transormed *in appearance* (but not in its molecules.) Logistically. And you say its crucial to enlightenment but what the nature of consciousness might be so as to bring about these forms or appearances is not important to enlightenment.
Quote:<hr>On a deeper level, there is ultimately no observer, just as there are ultimately no appearances.<hr>
Can you explain that a little more?
Quote:<hr>That's why I stated in my book that the word "appearance" is just a term of convenience, that appearances are not really appearances at all but direct manifestations of Reality.<hr>
Everything is a direct manifestationof Reality! What else could it be?