Re: [Zen] where's Joe?
Mike, Oh, then that's okay since Edgar is just a delusion...Bill! ;>) --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,No. Worse than that. Caught her agreeing with > Edgar.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] where's Joe?
Bill!,No. Worse than that. Caught her agreeing with Edgar.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] where's Joe?
Because she was messin' 'round with another man? --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > I heard he shot his woman down.Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: CASE STUDY - SACKING A STAFF
Suresh, I think HR should arrange for AAA, BBB, MMM, XXX, YYY, ZZZ, MD/Owner, GM and GDM to spend two weeks together at a meditative retreat before any of them make any more statements or take any more decisions. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, SURESH JAGADEESAN wrote: > > Dear all, > > I am going to present you a case study and I request to give me your > point of view and how a solution should be drawn. > > What Owner/MD should take decision, what HR has to do? > > > Case study consist of four letters. > > > From Branch Manager > - > Dear AAA / BBB, > > Mr.XXX has resigned from our office. From now onwards YYY and ZZZ will > handle our ship related works at Kandla. At Mundra MMM and ZZZ as > earlier. The load planning of coming ship has to be prepared from your > end and forward to vessel Master and Chief. > > We will give you the break of the containers 20 and 40 with weight. > From Cochin office also the same details will be forwarded to you. > > > Best Regards > Branch Manager > > From DGM (BBB) > --- > Dear Branch Manager, > > When he is getting relieved? > > Is today last day for him? > > Then why it was not informed us before? > > Do there is any policy of HR to give one month Notice? Is it followed? > > When any person gives notice of resignation it is the duty of HR to > decide whom it will hand over his responsibilities and ask the leaving > person to give proper training on the person who will take over his > responsibilities as identified by HR > > What HR has done for this? > > All of sudden one fine day if you say you do ship planning how can I do? > > I may be Master but not have ship load program, how can I do. I am not > a magician. > > Now also it is not late. Call XXX let him come down to Chennai with > his laptop and let him give me training on ship planning and then I > can do. > > At least this much you have to do to expect me to carry on his work. > > Best wishes > BBB > - > From MD/Owner > --- > Branch Manager > > Why do we have such a change without notice? > > From the (affected) staff > > > To: MD/Owner > CC: GM > CC: DGM > CC: DGM > CC: HR > > Respected Sir, > > This is Mr.XXX (Company - Gandhidham branch). I presume your good self > will be surprised that I am sending this message from my personal id, > due to the incidents that took place today. I was refrained to use my > desk by my superiors in Gandhidham. I am not sure what was the reason > behind the scenario, as no explanation of any sorts was given to me. I > was bluntly asked to stay away from my desk and that my tenure at > Company was over. > > I would like to present the events that took place chronologically: > > On Sunday, the 7th of July pm hours I had sent the load plan for ship > (Kandla) and after discussion with the master of the vessel, the plan > was approved. > > On the 8th morning I was feeling uneasy but still I went to the office > as we were expecting ship to berth at Kandla. Unfortunately our office > server was out of service that day and I still managed the > communication flow with the master/chief officer/terminal through my > mobile single handedly. After lunch Mr YYY (who was on half day leave) > arrived at the office and I requested him to handle the rest of the > job/email exchanges through his personal id, since I was not feeling > well and wanted to go home to rest. But to my surprise Mr. YYY left > the office and the same was conveyed to Branch Manager through sms, > since he was not in office at that time. After Branch manager arrived > he instructed me to manage all the work through personal id anyhow, > without considering my health conditions. After attending the urgent > job related to ship I informed Branch Manager that I was not in a > position to continue any more work due to my health condition (feeling > dizzy n having chest pain). > > The whole next day I was not in a condition to get up and was taken to > the hospital by my father in a semi conscious state. After taking the > medicines I had gone to sleep and woke up in the evening only. >
RE: [Zen] where's Joe?
I heard he shot his woman down.Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
[Zen] where's Joe?
and what's happening with the wildfires down in Arizona?
[Zen] CASE STUDY - SACKING A STAFF
Dear all, I am going to present you a case study and I request to give me your point of view and how a solution should be drawn. What Owner/MD should take decision, what HR has to do? Case study consist of four letters. >From Branch Manager - Dear AAA / BBB, Mr.XXX has resigned from our office. From now onwards YYY and ZZZ will handle our ship related works at Kandla. At Mundra MMM and ZZZ as earlier. The load planning of coming ship has to be prepared from your end and forward to vessel Master and Chief. We will give you the break of the containers 20 and 40 with weight. >From Cochin office also the same details will be forwarded to you. Best Regards Branch Manager >From DGM (BBB) --- Dear Branch Manager, When he is getting relieved? Is today last day for him? Then why it was not informed us before? Do there is any policy of HR to give one month Notice? Is it followed? When any person gives notice of resignation it is the duty of HR to decide whom it will hand over his responsibilities and ask the leaving person to give proper training on the person who will take over his responsibilities as identified by HR What HR has done for this? All of sudden one fine day if you say you do ship planning how can I do? I may be Master but not have ship load program, how can I do. I am not a magician. Now also it is not late. Call XXX let him come down to Chennai with his laptop and let him give me training on ship planning and then I can do. At least this much you have to do to expect me to carry on his work. Best wishes BBB - >From MD/Owner --- Branch Manager Why do we have such a change without notice? >From the (affected) staff To: MD/Owner CC: GM CC: DGM CC: DGM CC: HR Respected Sir, This is Mr.XXX (Company - Gandhidham branch). I presume your good self will be surprised that I am sending this message from my personal id, due to the incidents that took place today. I was refrained to use my desk by my superiors in Gandhidham. I am not sure what was the reason behind the scenario, as no explanation of any sorts was given to me. I was bluntly asked to stay away from my desk and that my tenure at Company was over. I would like to present the events that took place chronologically: On Sunday, the 7th of July pm hours I had sent the load plan for ship (Kandla) and after discussion with the master of the vessel, the plan was approved. On the 8th morning I was feeling uneasy but still I went to the office as we were expecting ship to berth at Kandla. Unfortunately our office server was out of service that day and I still managed the communication flow with the master/chief officer/terminal through my mobile single handedly. After lunch Mr YYY (who was on half day leave) arrived at the office and I requested him to handle the rest of the job/email exchanges through his personal id, since I was not feeling well and wanted to go home to rest. But to my surprise Mr. YYY left the office and the same was conveyed to Branch Manager through sms, since he was not in office at that time. After Branch manager arrived he instructed me to manage all the work through personal id anyhow, without considering my health conditions. After attending the urgent job related to ship I informed Branch Manager that I was not in a position to continue any more work due to my health condition (feeling dizzy n having chest pain). The whole next day I was not in a condition to get up and was taken to the hospital by my father in a semi conscious state. After taking the medicines I had gone to sleep and woke up in the evening only. Immediately I realized and accordingly sent an sms to Branch Manager, updating him the reason for my absence and that I would join the office on 10.07.2013. But I received a reply saying "Now not possible, your time is over". I was confused so I tried to call him but he did not respond and so I called up GM sir / HR head sir to guide me. In turn they advised me to wait till the next day. The next day I reached office as per official timing, but surprisingly was asked to sit in the visitors lounge by
[Zen] Re: Experience
Chris,
I'm not locked-in to the "preceding" aspect. As I've said on this thread I am
not so concerned with the 'how' all this happens. I just know it happens.
Monistic experience and pluralistic perceptions may indeed take place at the
same time. In fact that does make some sense because these perceptions many
times obscure monistic experience.
I do believe monistic experience can occur without the arising of perception
(samadhi/shikantaza); and perceptions (delusions) can arise that completely
obscure monistic experience ('normal' human condition); and I do believe that
even when perceptions arise monistic experience (Buddha Nature) is still
present even though obscured.
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>
> I'm with you 100% except for "preceding." To me it seems to be different
> categories - what you are calling experiencing is not a step in the
> process. I can't say what I think it is.
>
> Anyways, thanks for your patience.
>
> And Edgar, there's no self, never has, regardless of whatever level of zen
> training one has undertaken. It's all just computational substrate, right?
> You can't cut bits out from the whole.
>
> --Chris
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Chris
> chris@...
> +1-301-270-6524
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Bill! wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > Again, using your language below which talks about the brain's functions
> > which would not be my choice of analogy...so please don't quote me on this
> > outside of this thread.
> >
> > The way I see it experience is one of the most basic and fundamental
> > functions of the brain of a sentient being. In zen literature it has been
> > called such names as 'Original Mind' and 'Your Face Before Your Mother Was
> > Born'. I am saying experience precedes the processing of any experience by
> > the intellect which in zen literature has been called such names as 'Small
> > Mind' and 'Monkey Mind'. When the intellect arises it creates the delusion
> > of dualism/pluralism. This is the key. The delusion of a separate, unique
> > 'self' is probably one of the first delusions that arises, but is quickly
> > followed by all the other subject/object delusions that Edgar calls 'forms'
> > and some Buddhist sects refer to as 'dharma' (small 'd' - phenomena).
> >
> > I don't see experience as "slightly at an angle to..." the arising of
> > duality and perception, but just preceding it. Experience is
> > "not-beginning and not-ending", sometimes referred to as 'in the moment' or
> > 'only now'. I do associate experience with what you call "the wonder of
> > presence" which I think I would just call 'awareness' which is monisitic -
> > as contrasted with 'consciousness' which is dualistic.
> >
> > Perceiving only is the normal human condition.
> >
> > Experiencing only is Buddha Nature.
> >
> > Perceiving and experiencing is what I believe many refer to as 'awakening'
> > or 'enlightenment'. What you 'awaken' to is the realization that
> > perceptions are delusions and only experience is real.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > One more question on this:
> > >
> > > Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in the
> > brains
> > > normal functioning of responding to the environment in whatever way that
> > > the brain does that, or something slightly at an angle to the work of
> > > transforming sensory stimulation into mental stimulation? Something of
> > > which it could be said to be not-beginning and not-ending? Something to
> > > akin to what some people talk about as the wonder of presence? This very
> > > moment. That sort of thing. Right here, right now.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps some third thing I'm not seeing, a step in the subjective side
> > > of the brains functioning - something which is not from an eternal
> > > perspective but is also not intended to be a description of the body/mind
> > > functioning but a description of the way the human notices the absolute
> > > along side the perception?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
> > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http:
Re: [Zen] Re: Experience
I'm with you 100% except for "preceding." To me it seems to be different categories - what you are calling experiencing is not a step in the process. I can't say what I think it is. Anyways, thanks for your patience. And Edgar, there's no self, never has, regardless of whatever level of zen training one has undertaken. It's all just computational substrate, right? You can't cut bits out from the whole. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Bill! wrote: > Chris, > > Again, using your language below which talks about the brain's functions > which would not be my choice of analogy...so please don't quote me on this > outside of this thread. > > The way I see it experience is one of the most basic and fundamental > functions of the brain of a sentient being. In zen literature it has been > called such names as 'Original Mind' and 'Your Face Before Your Mother Was > Born'. I am saying experience precedes the processing of any experience by > the intellect which in zen literature has been called such names as 'Small > Mind' and 'Monkey Mind'. When the intellect arises it creates the delusion > of dualism/pluralism. This is the key. The delusion of a separate, unique > 'self' is probably one of the first delusions that arises, but is quickly > followed by all the other subject/object delusions that Edgar calls 'forms' > and some Buddhist sects refer to as 'dharma' (small 'd' - phenomena). > > I don't see experience as "slightly at an angle to..." the arising of > duality and perception, but just preceding it. Experience is > "not-beginning and not-ending", sometimes referred to as 'in the moment' or > 'only now'. I do associate experience with what you call "the wonder of > presence" which I think I would just call 'awareness' which is monisitic - > as contrasted with 'consciousness' which is dualistic. > > Perceiving only is the normal human condition. > > Experiencing only is Buddha Nature. > > Perceiving and experiencing is what I believe many refer to as 'awakening' > or 'enlightenment'. What you 'awaken' to is the realization that > perceptions are delusions and only experience is real. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > One more question on this: > > > > Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in the > brains > > normal functioning of responding to the environment in whatever way that > > the brain does that, or something slightly at an angle to the work of > > transforming sensory stimulation into mental stimulation? Something of > > which it could be said to be not-beginning and not-ending? Something to > > akin to what some people talk about as the wonder of presence? This very > > moment. That sort of thing. Right here, right now. > > > > Or perhaps some third thing I'm not seeing, a step in the subjective side > > of the brains functioning - something which is not from an eternal > > perspective but is also not intended to be a description of the body/mind > > functioning but a description of the way the human notices the absolute > > along side the perception? > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Merle,That's exactly right! When you're mindful of the body-mind - *that's* where you'll find and know reality. Only then can practice begin.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Bill, That doesn't cut it. Where does the human intellect come from if all is monistic experience? Edgar On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > To answer you question the delusion of self arises in the intellect. > > The human intellect (and you can assume that resides in the brain if you > want) creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism. That's it's job. I can > speculate 'why' it does this but have no idea 'how' and I don't see 'how' as > important. > > Once the delusion of dualism/pluralism arises a plethora of delusions quickly > follow the most problematic of which (IMO)is the delusion of a separate self. > > These delusions often obscure experience. > > Zen practice first assists you in suspending the creation of delusions by > halting the activity of the intellect. When that happens you have an > opportunity to experience (Buddha Nature). After that zen practice helps you > to reintroduce the activities of your intellect (delusions) and balance them > with experience (Buddha Nature). > > That's it. That's all it is. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > How can perception of a self in a brain even arise is there is really just > > pure experience absent any experiencer? > > > > Obviously it can't > > > > For perception and illusion to arise there must be something for it to > > arise IN. > > > > Again your view is inconsistent... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > Good question! > > > > > > Experience (as I define it - monistic) is just experience - Just THIS! > > > Since it is monistic there is not a pluralism of me, you, the dog, the > > > rabbit, etc... > > > > > > Perception is dualistic/pluralistic. Each intellect that creates the > > > delusion of dualism/pluralism creates its own perception. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises > > > > in "your" mind if not your self's? > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV > > > > > also) is 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you > > > > > are ignoring. > > > > > > > > > > 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a > > > > > belief in a 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is > > > > > just one example: > > > > > > > > > > "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own > > > > > modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also: > > > > > extreme ." - Merriam-Webster Online > > > > > > > > > > My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the > > > > > 'self' is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it > > > > > is the only existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, > > > > > monisitic) and denies the existence of a 'self' - except as a > > > > > delusion. > > > > > > > > > > I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your > > > > > own definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been > > > > > saying is an example of 'solipsism'. > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > PS, I agree it is the "Buddhist line" that I've been defending > > > > > > against Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my > > > > > > > stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been > > > > > > > here and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever > > > > > > > said (or just got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > > > > > > To: ; > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... > > > > > > > but how plain is that? > > > > > > > Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you "completely > > > > > > > disagreeing with me"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve > > > > > > > itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > >
[Zen] Re: Experience
Edgar, There is not ONLY monistic experience. Monistic experience is Buddha Nature. I am human. I also have Human Nature. Human Nature is characterized by having an intellect which generates dualism/pluralism - delusions. You shouldn't be asking ME where I think YOU come from. YOU should be asking YOUR SELF where YOU think I come from - that is if you want to practice zen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill, > > If there is only monistic experience, then where do all the dualistic > delusions that arise IN YOUR MIND come from? > > Where do I come from since you think I'm only a "delusion" in your mind? And > where does the delusion of "your mind" come from if there is only monistic > experience? > > Something just isn't kosher here > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > When I wrote about the brain and these concepts below I said this was not > > my choice of analogy. It is inconsistent but was not my choice of > > analogies. I would never equate 'brain' and 'mind' or 'brain' and > > 'sentient'. > > > > For all I know there are sentient beings that don't have eyes, ears, noses, > > tongues or skin. And there may be intellectual beings that don't have > > brains. > > > > BUT...your question below is puzzling. You're jumbling up 'brain' and > > 'sentient being' and 'delusions' (self). > > > > Please rephrase your question and I'll try to answer it. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > How can there be "the brain of a sentient being" if there is no self? > > > > > > You keep trapping yourself in inconsistencies because your basic belief > > > is inconsistent... > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > > > Again, using your language below which talks about the brain's > > > > functions which would not be my choice of analogy...so please don't > > > > quote me on this outside of this thread. > > > > > > > > The way I see it experience is one of the most basic and fundamental > > > > functions of the brain of a sentient being. In zen literature it has > > > > been called such names as 'Original Mind' and 'Your Face Before Your > > > > Mother Was Born'. I am saying experience precedes the processing of any > > > > experience by the intellect which in zen literature has been called > > > > such names as 'Small Mind' and 'Monkey Mind'. When the intellect arises > > > > it creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism. This is the key. The > > > > delusion of a separate, unique 'self' is probably one of the first > > > > delusions that arises, but is quickly followed by all the other > > > > subject/object delusions that Edgar calls 'forms' and some Buddhist > > > > sects refer to as 'dharma' (small 'd' - phenomena). > > > > > > > > I don't see experience as "slightly at an angle to..." the arising of > > > > duality and perception, but just preceding it. Experience is > > > > "not-beginning and not-ending", sometimes referred to as 'in the > > > > moment' or 'only now'. I do associate experience with what you call > > > > "the wonder of presence" which I think I would just call 'awareness' > > > > which is monisitic - as contrasted with 'consciousness' which is > > > > dualistic. > > > > > > > > Perceiving only is the normal human condition. > > > > > > > > Experiencing only is Buddha Nature. > > > > > > > > Perceiving and experiencing is what I believe many refer to as > > > > 'awakening' or 'enlightenment'. What you 'awaken' to is the realization > > > > that perceptions are delusions and only experience is real. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > One more question on this: > > > > > > > > > > Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in the > > > > > brains > > > > > normal functioning of responding to the environment in whatever way > > > > > that > > > > > the brain does that, or something slightly at an angle to the work of > > > > > transforming sensory stimulation into mental stimulation? Something of > > > > > which it could be said to be not-beginning and not-ending? Something > > > > > to > > > > > akin to what some people talk about as the wonder of presence? This > > > > > very > > > > > moment. That sort of thing. Right here, right now. > > > > > > > > > > Or perhaps some third thing I'm not seeing, a step in the subjective > > > > > side > > > > > of the brains functioning - something which is not from an eternal > > > > > perspective but is also not intended to be a description of the > > > > > body/mind > > > > > functioning but a description of the way the human notices the > > > > > absolute > > > > > along side the perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar, To answer you question the delusion of self arises in the intellect. The human intellect (and you can assume that resides in the brain if you want) creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism. That's it's job. I can speculate 'why' it does this but have no idea 'how' and I don't see 'how' as important. Once the delusion of dualism/pluralism arises a plethora of delusions quickly follow the most problematic of which (IMO)is the delusion of a separate self. These delusions often obscure experience. Zen practice first assists you in suspending the creation of delusions by halting the activity of the intellect. When that happens you have an opportunity to experience (Buddha Nature). After that zen practice helps you to reintroduce the activities of your intellect (delusions) and balance them with experience (Buddha Nature). That's it. That's all it is. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill, > > How can perception of a self in a brain even arise is there is really just > pure experience absent any experiencer? > > Obviously it can't > > For perception and illusion to arise there must be something for it to arise > IN. > > Again your view is inconsistent... > > Edgar > > > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > Good question! > > > > Experience (as I define it - monistic) is just experience - Just THIS! > > Since it is monistic there is not a pluralism of me, you, the dog, the > > rabbit, etc... > > > > Perception is dualistic/pluralistic. Each intellect that creates the > > delusion of dualism/pluralism creates its own perception. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises in > > > "your" mind if not your self's? > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV also) > > > > is 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you are > > > > ignoring. > > > > > > > > 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a belief > > > > in a 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is just one > > > > example: > > > > > > > > "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own > > > > modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also: > > > > extreme ." - Merriam-Webster Online > > > > > > > > My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the > > > > 'self' is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it is > > > > the only existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, > > > > monisitic) and denies the existence of a 'self' - except as a delusion. > > > > > > > > I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your > > > > own definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been > > > > saying is an example of 'solipsism'. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > PS, I agree it is the "Buddhist line" that I've been defending > > > > > against Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > > > When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my > > > > > > stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been > > > > > > here and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever said > > > > > > (or just got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > > > > > To: ; > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but > > > > > > how plain is that? > > > > > > Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you "completely > > > > > > disagreeing with me"? > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Edgar, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that "just THIS!" > > > > > >> isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree > > > > > >> with you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can > > > > > >> only be known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations > > > > > >> for me, but absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught > > >
Re: [Zen] Re: Experience
Bill, If there is only monistic experience, then where do all the dualistic delusions that arise IN YOUR MIND come from? Where do I come from since you think I'm only a "delusion" in your mind? And where does the delusion of "your mind" come from if there is only monistic experience? Something just isn't kosher here Edgar On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > When I wrote about the brain and these concepts below I said this was not my > choice of analogy. It is inconsistent but was not my choice of analogies. I > would never equate 'brain' and 'mind' or 'brain' and 'sentient'. > > For all I know there are sentient beings that don't have eyes, ears, noses, > tongues or skin. And there may be intellectual beings that don't have brains. > > BUT...your question below is puzzling. You're jumbling up 'brain' and > 'sentient being' and 'delusions' (self). > > Please rephrase your question and I'll try to answer it. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > How can there be "the brain of a sentient being" if there is no self? > > > > You keep trapping yourself in inconsistencies because your basic belief is > > inconsistent... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > Again, using your language below which talks about the brain's functions > > > which would not be my choice of analogy...so please don't quote me on > > > this outside of this thread. > > > > > > The way I see it experience is one of the most basic and fundamental > > > functions of the brain of a sentient being. In zen literature it has been > > > called such names as 'Original Mind' and 'Your Face Before Your Mother > > > Was Born'. I am saying experience precedes the processing of any > > > experience by the intellect which in zen literature has been called such > > > names as 'Small Mind' and 'Monkey Mind'. When the intellect arises it > > > creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism. This is the key. The delusion > > > of a separate, unique 'self' is probably one of the first delusions that > > > arises, but is quickly followed by all the other subject/object delusions > > > that Edgar calls 'forms' and some Buddhist sects refer to as 'dharma' > > > (small 'd' - phenomena). > > > > > > I don't see experience as "slightly at an angle to..." the arising of > > > duality and perception, but just preceding it. Experience is > > > "not-beginning and not-ending", sometimes referred to as 'in the moment' > > > or 'only now'. I do associate experience with what you call "the wonder > > > of presence" which I think I would just call 'awareness' which is > > > monisitic - as contrasted with 'consciousness' which is dualistic. > > > > > > Perceiving only is the normal human condition. > > > > > > Experiencing only is Buddha Nature. > > > > > > Perceiving and experiencing is what I believe many refer to as > > > 'awakening' or 'enlightenment'. What you 'awaken' to is the realization > > > that perceptions are delusions and only experience is real. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > One more question on this: > > > > > > > > Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in the > > > > brains > > > > normal functioning of responding to the environment in whatever way that > > > > the brain does that, or something slightly at an angle to the work of > > > > transforming sensory stimulation into mental stimulation? Something of > > > > which it could be said to be not-beginning and not-ending? Something to > > > > akin to what some people talk about as the wonder of presence? This very > > > > moment. That sort of thing. Right here, right now. > > > > > > > > Or perhaps some third thing I'm not seeing, a step in the subjective > > > > side > > > > of the brains functioning - something which is not from an eternal > > > > perspective but is also not intended to be a description of the > > > > body/mind > > > > functioning but a description of the way the human notices the absolute > > > > along side the perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Bill, How can perception of a self in a brain even arise is there is really just pure experience absent any experiencer? Obviously it can't For perception and illusion to arise there must be something for it to arise IN. Again your view is inconsistent... Edgar On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > Good question! > > Experience (as I define it - monistic) is just experience - Just THIS! Since > it is monistic there is not a pluralism of me, you, the dog, the rabbit, > etc... > > Perception is dualistic/pluralistic. Each intellect that creates the delusion > of dualism/pluralism creates its own perception. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises in > > "your" mind if not your self's? > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV also) > > > is 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you are > > > ignoring. > > > > > > 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a belief in > > > a 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is just one example: > > > > > > "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own > > > modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also: extreme > > > ." - Merriam-Webster Online > > > > > > My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the > > > 'self' is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it is > > > the only existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, > > > monisitic) and denies the existence of a 'self' - except as a delusion. > > > > > > I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your own > > > definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been saying is > > > an example of 'solipsism'. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > PS, I agree it is the "Buddhist line" that I've been defending against > > > > Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my > > > > > stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here > > > > > and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or > > > > > just got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > > > > To: ; > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but > > > > > how plain is that? > > > > > Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you "completely > > > > > disagreeing with me"? > > > > > > > > > > I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Edgar, > > > > >> > > > > >> I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that "just THIS!" > > > > >> isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree > > > > >> with you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can > > > > >> only be known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations > > > > >> for me, but absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that > > > > >> reality can only be known within "this fathom long body". If someone > > > > >> shows Dave and John a picture of a nude woman they will both have > > > > >> totally different reactions to it depending on a multitude of > > > > >> personal factors. The photo stays the same, but the reactions are > > > > >> what counts. > > > > >> > > > > >> Mike > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > >> > > > > >> From: Edgar Owen ; > > > > >> To: ; > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but > > > > >> how plain is that? > > > > >> Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Mike, > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I > > > > >> perceive reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we > > > > >> both perceive > > > > >> > > > > >> You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of > > > > >> inconsistencies and delusions... > > > > >> > > > > >> That's another reason that Bill and your "just this" just doesn't > > > > >> cut it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's > > > > >> i
[Zen] Re: Experience
Edgar, When I wrote about the brain and these concepts below I said this was not my choice of analogy. It is inconsistent but was not my choice of analogies. I would never equate 'brain' and 'mind' or 'brain' and 'sentient'. For all I know there are sentient beings that don't have eyes, ears, noses, tongues or skin. And there may be intellectual beings that don't have brains. BUT...your question below is puzzling. You're jumbling up 'brain' and 'sentient being' and 'delusions' (self). Please rephrase your question and I'll try to answer it. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill, > > How can there be "the brain of a sentient being" if there is no self? > > You keep trapping yourself in inconsistencies because your basic belief is > inconsistent... > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > Again, using your language below which talks about the brain's functions > > which would not be my choice of analogy...so please don't quote me on this > > outside of this thread. > > > > The way I see it experience is one of the most basic and fundamental > > functions of the brain of a sentient being. In zen literature it has been > > called such names as 'Original Mind' and 'Your Face Before Your Mother Was > > Born'. I am saying experience precedes the processing of any experience by > > the intellect which in zen literature has been called such names as 'Small > > Mind' and 'Monkey Mind'. When the intellect arises it creates the delusion > > of dualism/pluralism. This is the key. The delusion of a separate, unique > > 'self' is probably one of the first delusions that arises, but is quickly > > followed by all the other subject/object delusions that Edgar calls 'forms' > > and some Buddhist sects refer to as 'dharma' (small 'd' - phenomena). > > > > I don't see experience as "slightly at an angle to..." the arising of > > duality and perception, but just preceding it. Experience is "not-beginning > > and not-ending", sometimes referred to as 'in the moment' or 'only now'. I > > do associate experience with what you call "the wonder of presence" which I > > think I would just call 'awareness' which is monisitic - as contrasted with > > 'consciousness' which is dualistic. > > > > Perceiving only is the normal human condition. > > > > Experiencing only is Buddha Nature. > > > > Perceiving and experiencing is what I believe many refer to as 'awakening' > > or 'enlightenment'. What you 'awaken' to is the realization that > > perceptions are delusions and only experience is real. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > One more question on this: > > > > > > Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in the brains > > > normal functioning of responding to the environment in whatever way that > > > the brain does that, or something slightly at an angle to the work of > > > transforming sensory stimulation into mental stimulation? Something of > > > which it could be said to be not-beginning and not-ending? Something to > > > akin to what some people talk about as the wonder of presence? This very > > > moment. That sort of thing. Right here, right now. > > > > > > Or perhaps some third thing I'm not seeing, a step in the subjective side > > > of the brains functioning - something which is not from an eternal > > > perspective but is also not intended to be a description of the body/mind > > > functioning but a description of the way the human notices the absolute > > > along side the perception? > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Edgar, Good question! Experience (as I define it - monistic) is just experience - Just THIS! Since it is monistic there is not a pluralism of me, you, the dog, the rabbit, etc... Perception is dualistic/pluralistic. Each intellect that creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism creates its own perception. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill, > > Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises in > "your" mind if not your self's? > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV also) is > > 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you are ignoring. > > > > 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a belief in a > > 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is just one example: > > > > "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications > > and that the self is the only existent thing; also: extreme ." - > > Merriam-Webster Online > > > > My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the > > 'self' is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it is the > > only existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, monisitic) and > > denies the existence of a 'self' - except as a delusion. > > > > I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your own > > definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been saying is an > > example of 'solipsism'. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > PS, I agree it is the "Buddhist line" that I've been defending against > > > Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my > > > > stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here > > > > and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just > > > > got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > > > To: ; > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how > > > > plain is that? > > > > Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you "completely > > > > disagreeing with me"? > > > > > > > > I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Edgar, > > > >> > > > >> I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that "just THIS!" > > > >> isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with > > > >> you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be > > > >> known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but > > > >> absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can > > > >> only be known within "this fathom long body". If someone shows Dave > > > >> and John a picture of a nude woman they will both have totally > > > >> different reactions to it depending on a multitude of personal > > > >> factors. The photo stays the same, but the reactions are what counts. > > > >> > > > >> Mike > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > >> > > > >> From: Edgar Owen ; > > > >> To: ; > > > >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but > > > >> how plain is that? > > > >> Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Mike, > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive > > > >> reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both > > > >> perceive > > > >> > > > >> You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of > > > >> inconsistencies and delusions... > > > >> > > > >> That's another reason that Bill and your "just this" just doesn't cut > > > >> it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal > > > >> biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that "just this" is > > > >> somehow direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. > > > >> That's exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't > > > >> matter how enlightened you may or may not be... > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Edgar > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> Edgar, > > > >>> > > > >>> How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. > > > >>> This iPad in front of me creates many sensations and per
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Bill, Thanks for denying my existence! That's the height of delusion... The test of true knowledge is internal consistency across its entire scope. Your view leads to numerous inconsistencies... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > Again you misinterpret what I say presumably to support your charge of > 'solipsism'. > > In the picture you paint below (2 people and one dog seeing a rabbit) you > have already imposed a dualistic/pluralistc POV. So it follows that as you > have suggested each of these delusive individuals may indeed have different > perceptions. > > In a monisitc POV there are not two separate people, a separate dog and a > separate rabbit. There is Just THIS! > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Merle, (and Bill) > > > > Of course reality changes all the time and people change reality, but it's > > always the real reality that is being changed not just some arbitrary > > imagined view of what reality is... > > > > Take two people standing side by side and a dog also. Each sees a rabbit > > but each sees it differently. Does that mean the rabbit is actually 3 > > different things? No. The rabbit is still the rabbit is the reality. It's > > just interpreted differently by the 3 observers. Each imposes his own > > interpretation of the rabbit on the actual real rabbit. > > > > So contrary to Bill's solipsism there is a real rabbit out there or the 3 > > observers wouldn't even be able to come up with their 3 different > > interpretations of it. > > > > The rabbit does not exist in Bill's mind as an illusion. It exists as a > > real rabbit out there in the world of forms > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > really edgar..is that so > > > many a human has changed the course of reality by imposing their will on > > > others..e.g hitler, stalin... george w bush...etc... > > > so how can you come up with that assumption edgar that there is only one > > > reality.. > > > so what is it?... > > > you will have to define it...and it comes from your mind so it will be > > > your interpretation of reality... > > > are you the master of reality? > > > are you the game changer?.. > > > have you by chance read the seven story mountain by thomas merton? > > > > > > who is the master? > > > buddha, christ? > > > you need to give concrete examples > > > reality too is a mind game that often in the "wrong hands"..gets all > > > wound up and hit's folk right between the eyes when they least suspect > > > > > > some things are very very real and other things are unreal > > > > > > if there was only ONE reality > > > human life would be heaps heaps simpler..though saying that of course > > > life is simple..we humans make it far to complicated > > > > > > the question is how can we make life simpler.. > > > how can we live with a kind and loving heart? > > > gracious and filled with light? > > > in this world of chaos and confusion? > > > where is that reality? > > > i see..it's as plain as the nose on my face? > > > i knew a boy who was born without a nose..no kidding > > > so how does that figure in this "nose essay"? > > > merle > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > There is no "our reality". There is only one reality. You can't define > > > reality as YOU like. It is self defining... > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > The point is that Bill's "just this" is something produced by complex > > sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality > > as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex > > sequence of processes. > > > > That's why Bill's just this is actually "just this ILLUSION mistaken > > for reality" > > > > True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT > > EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] Re: Experience
Bill, How can there be "the brain of a sentient being" if there is no self? You keep trapping yourself in inconsistencies because your basic belief is inconsistent... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Bill! wrote: > Chris, > > Again, using your language below which talks about the brain's functions > which would not be my choice of analogy...so please don't quote me on this > outside of this thread. > > The way I see it experience is one of the most basic and fundamental > functions of the brain of a sentient being. In zen literature it has been > called such names as 'Original Mind' and 'Your Face Before Your Mother Was > Born'. I am saying experience precedes the processing of any experience by > the intellect which in zen literature has been called such names as 'Small > Mind' and 'Monkey Mind'. When the intellect arises it creates the delusion of > dualism/pluralism. This is the key. The delusion of a separate, unique > 'self' is probably one of the first delusions that arises, but is quickly > followed by all the other subject/object delusions that Edgar calls 'forms' > and some Buddhist sects refer to as 'dharma' (small 'd' - phenomena). > > I don't see experience as "slightly at an angle to..." the arising of duality > and perception, but just preceding it. Experience is "not-beginning and > not-ending", sometimes referred to as 'in the moment' or 'only now'. I do > associate experience with what you call "the wonder of presence" which I > think I would just call 'awareness' which is monisitic - as contrasted with > 'consciousness' which is dualistic. > > Perceiving only is the normal human condition. > > Experiencing only is Buddha Nature. > > Perceiving and experiencing is what I believe many refer to as 'awakening' or > 'enlightenment'. What you 'awaken' to is the realization that perceptions are > delusions and only experience is real. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > One more question on this: > > > > Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in the brains > > normal functioning of responding to the environment in whatever way that > > the brain does that, or something slightly at an angle to the work of > > transforming sensory stimulation into mental stimulation? Something of > > which it could be said to be not-beginning and not-ending? Something to > > akin to what some people talk about as the wonder of presence? This very > > moment. That sort of thing. Right here, right now. > > > > Or perhaps some third thing I'm not seeing, a step in the subjective side > > of the brains functioning - something which is not from an eternal > > perspective but is also not intended to be a description of the body/mind > > functioning but a description of the way the human notices the absolute > > along side the perception? > > > >
Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain is that?
Bill, Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises in "your" mind if not your self's? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV also) is > 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you are ignoring. > > 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a belief in a > 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is just one example: > > "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications > and that the self is the only existent thing; also: extreme ." - > Merriam-Webster Online > > My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the 'self' > is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it is the only > existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, monisitic) and denies > the existence of a 'self' - except as a delusion. > > I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your own > definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been saying is an > example of 'solipsism'. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > PS, I agree it is the "Buddhist line" that I've been defending against > > Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my stance. > > > I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here and you've > > > just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just got basic > > > Buddhist principles plain wrong). > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > > To: ; > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how > > > plain is that? > > > Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you "completely disagreeing > > > with me"? > > > > > > I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Edgar, > > >> > > >> I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that "just THIS!" isn't > > >> really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. > > >> Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known > > >> subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but > > >> absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only > > >> be known within "this fathom long body". If someone shows Dave and John > > >> a picture of a nude woman they will both have totally different > > >> reactions to it depending on a multitude of personal factors. The photo > > >> stays the same, but the reactions are what counts. > > >> > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > >> > > >> From: Edgar Owen ; > > >> To: ; > > >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how > > >> plain is that? > > >> Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM > > >> > > >> > > >> Mike, > > >> > > >> > > >> That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive > > >> reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive > > >> > > >> You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of > > >> inconsistencies and delusions... > > >> > > >> That's another reason that Bill and your "just this" just doesn't cut > > >> it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal > > >> biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that "just this" is somehow > > >> direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's > > >> exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how > > >> enlightened you may or may not be... > > >> > > >> > > >> Edgar > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Edgar, > > >>> > > >>> How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This > > >>> iPad in front of me creates many sensations and perceptions, yet for > > >>> you it doesn't exist. But my previous point is that you can't know if > > >>> something is what you perceive it to be. The perception is more crucial > > >>> than the apparent reality of what it is (eg the snake and rope). > > >>> > > >>> Mike > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > >>> > > >>> From: Edgar Owen ; > > >>> To: ; > > >>> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how > > >>> plain is that? > > >>> Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:35:42 AM > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Mike, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> There is no "our reality". There is only one reality. You
