Re: [Zen] (unknown)
Also, I find it's really helpful as a parent to have other parents to complain about how unruly, disobedient and exasperating the children are - it lets out some of the emotional energy of the frustration of parenting in a safe way, so that when Im back in the room alone with the stubborn willful and beloved child I am much more likely to take the deep breath advice and much less likely to act in ways that aren't how I wish to parent. It's hard, but hitting rarely conveys the message one wishes to pass on as a parent, and doesn't really do much in the way of making good adults. But the past is past, kids are resilient once we parents get our act together. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Kristopher Grey k...@kgrey.com wrote: Perhaps you could buy the child a small parrot to care for and train... KG On 8/22/2013 10:19 AM, varam...@gmail.com wrote: Dear sirs, Today unfortunately I have beaten my younger child for not speaking. I become very emotional. He is 7 years old, until last month at least he used to parrot what we say and for his name, he will say his name. For last one month he has stopped talking and all his needs are by just indication or some sound. His schools and therapist complaint to us but can't do by them selves. He hit me first, that instigated my anger and I wanted to show my anger controlled expecting at least a word to say daddy stop, but he did not. I have holding for than 20 minutes, but all the time he cried but no word came out of his mouth. I am pained for not speaking and also pained because unnecessarily I have tortured him. I have asked forgiveness from him, but still he looks at me suspicious whether his father really changed or just another opportunity to beat him. I asked forgiveness to god, but still my pain not gone and hence this confession to this group. Pray god for my younger son to speak soon. I believe in prayers, and group prayer for one cause can do wonders. What ever I will achieve in any field will not give me satisfaction unless my children become normal. Especially elder son getting better, but only worried about younger son. Please pray. Suresh Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel 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
Re: [Zen] My book on Reality is now available on Amazon.com
Cool! I ordered it - should be here soon. I was surprised that there is no kindle edition - do you have a story to tell about that? Thanks, Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Dear All, After several years of work my book on the deep nature of reality is now published and available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Sweeping-Existence-Information-Consciousness/dp/0615869459/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8qid=1377032180sr=8-3keywords=edgar+l.+owen Edgar Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] My book on Reality is now available on Amazon.com
Hmm, still not an option on Amazon, but my physical copy is apparently in San José en route to my place. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Hi Chris and thanks for ordering my book. I have now got it available on Kindle but there are still a few formatting problems I'm trying to resolve that Kindle doesn't make easy... Edgar On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Cool! I ordered it - should be here soon. I was surprised that there is no kindle edition - do you have a story to tell about that? Thanks, Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Dear All, After several years of work my book on the deep nature of reality is now published and available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Sweeping-Existence-Information-Consciousness/dp/0615869459/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8qid=1377032180sr=8-3keywords=edgar+l.+owen Edgar Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Original Mind
Ahh, stiff meditation. Almost, each time I realize I wasn't paying attention, I feel my butt unsqueeze. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Studying texts and stiff meditation can make you lose your Original Mind. A solitary tune by a fisherman, though, can be an invaluable treasure. Dusk rain on the river, the moon peeking in and out of the clouds; Elegant beyond words, he chants his songs night after night. ~ Ikkyu ~
Re: [Zen] Return to Emptiness: from nervous nellie
Bore yourself with the dualistic productions, seems useful to me. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 30, 2013 3:28 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, Bore yourself into enlightenment? That's a new one! Edgar On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:02 AM, Bill! wrote: Mike and M, Counting breaths (and chanting, bowing, koans, etc...) are just techniques used to focus the mind on repetitive thoughts to the point where it shuts down (usually out of boredom) which allows the experience of Buddha Nature. Any way you can halt the creation of dualism (intellectualizations) and enter into samadhi (or what I call shikantaza) is fine. Do whatever works for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: M,br/br/I began practicing Zen 10 years, or so, ago. I discovered Vipassana meditation about 5 years ago. I have found that Vipassana explains things that Zen leaves empty (pun noted). My (Zen) practice has deepened considerably since discovering Vipassana and one of the factors is focusing on bodily sensations as the doorway into reality. The sutras talk about this a lot and Buddha himself said that within this fathom long body will you discover the truth. No where in the sutras does it say to observe thoughts or count the breath. Since dropping both my meditation has changed considerably. For me, when my mind wanders I just come back to the sensation of air on the entrance of my nostrils. Very grounding.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Movie trailer for Zorba the Greek
My dad read breakdown of the bicameral mind when I was a kid, but talked so much about it I always believed I had a sufficient grasp of the contents. I rather enjoyed Zen and the Art of Archery, tho I have also read this critique: http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/The_Myth_of_Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery.pdf I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, tho it rather is more in my category of books having to do with mental illness than books having to do with non-duality. But then I'm more of a Cheerio Road kind of reader - the dharma gate of parenting rather than the dharma gate of motorcycles. I get no hits on AYP.com Since my son aged out of Baby and Me yoga the only yoga I do is on sesshin, and merely for the comfort effects. Tho I'm tempted to sign up for a class every time I walk by a yoga studio, every one I've mentioned this to has pointed out I could just do yoga at home. I really enjoyed the Baby and Me yoga class tho - I felt very wholesomely good afterwards. My favorite sort of macho-Zen from the 60s book is the Three Pillars of Zen. Thanks, Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:43 PM, larry maher lcmahe...@gmail.com wrote: You have read the 'bible' of yoga haven't you? The Autobiography of a Yogi. Unbelievably good. Also Julien Jaynes' The Breakdown of Conciousness and the Bicameral Brain. Also Zen and the Art of Archery and Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and anything that Yogani from AYP.com has written. :) On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.netwrote: ** The book Zorba the Greek I believe is the origin of the phrase The Full Catastrophe of the Mindfullness-Based Stress Reduction book of that name. I never saw the movie or read the book, although I did enjoy the Kabat-Zinn book The Full Catastrophe. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:48 PM, larry maher lcmahe...@gmail.com wrote: I vaguely remember it. Guess people saw more in it than I did? Seven years in Tibet wasn't bad. Bunch of others I can't think of. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Eccentrics.R.UShttp://eccentrics.r.us/ halatmothers...@gmail.com wrote: ** have never seen the movie, having a hard time understanding his words, maybe i'll look up the book first... M On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM, larry maher lcmahe...@gmail.comwrote: I should watch Zorba again. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.comwrote: ** lest we forget... this in my books is the pure zen zen zen experience..merle *Subject: **Movie trailer for Zorba the Greek(1964) by Anna Oproiu 2o1o.avi - YouTube* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHz7d4i3xWA -- *Larry Maher* -- *Larry Maher* -- *Larry Maher*
Re: [Zen] Movie trailer for Zorba the Greek
The book Zorba the Greek I believe is the origin of the phrase The Full Catastrophe of the Mindfullness-Based Stress Reduction book of that name. I never saw the movie or read the book, although I did enjoy the Kabat-Zinn book The Full Catastrophe. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:48 PM, larry maher lcmahe...@gmail.com wrote: I vaguely remember it. Guess people saw more in it than I did? Seven years in Tibet wasn't bad. Bunch of others I can't think of. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Eccentrics.R.US halatmothers...@gmail.com wrote: ** have never seen the movie, having a hard time understanding his words, maybe i'll look up the book first... M On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM, larry maher lcmahe...@gmail.comwrote: I should watch Zorba again. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.comwrote: ** lest we forget... this in my books is the pure zen zen zen experience..merle *Subject: **Movie trailer for Zorba the Greek(1964) by Anna Oproiu 2o1o.avi - YouTube* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHz7d4i3xWA -- *Larry Maher* -- *Larry Maher*
Re: [Zen] Is not coconut a miracle?
When I visited Chennai, I enjoyed many cocunuts from the street vendors - what a marvelous way to sustain oneself in the heat, drinking the water and eating the meat. I am planning to go back this fall, will there be fresh coconuts then also? Ob Zen Ref: chewing, the coconut and I become one. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 24, 2013 4:11 AM, SURESH JAGADEESAN varam...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, Probably people who are atheist or even theist may like to see a miracle happening. But what is miracle An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God. Yesterday after lunch from 6th floor I was watching a coconut tree, which has grown up to 6th floor probably 20 mtrs in height. I could see flowers and seeds, and small coconuts, medium sized coconuts and real size coconuts. I was wondering what we do for this coconut tree. It is in the premises of Hare Krishna Radha swami sangh building, I see hardly any people come there, so probably only rain water for this coconut tree. The plain water has to climb against gravitational force for a 20 meters height and start growing flowers, then make small form of coconut and keep infusing the water into it. And at the end when we open a coconut you see white kernel, and water. Who created this kernel,? we only gave water. The outer shell is very hard, if it is dropped on head as it is available in shop, it will damage our head, but when it is falls from tree, it wouldn’t hurt that much since it has coir outside make it less harmful. Who thought to produce like this? Is not coconut a miracle? In Sanskrit, it is kalpa vriksha (the tree which provides all the necessities of life). In the Malay language, it is pokok seribu guna (the tree of a thousand uses). In the Philippines, the coconut is commonly called the tree of life. The oldest fossils known of the modern coconut dating from the Eocene period from around 37 to 55 million years ago were found in Australia and India. ( I think both continent were together those time, and most probably it will be present Kerala and Tamilnadu) More than 101 reasons to use coconut as a home remedy to improve your health naturally Green coconut water uses: --Natural, healthy source for hydration, energy and endurance, making it the perfect sports drink. --Restores electrolytes after exercise, vomiting, diarrhea. --Antiseptic properties provide antibacterial, anti-viral and anti-fungal agents to purify blood -- killing measles, herpes, influenza, AIDS, SARS, hepatitis C... --Useful for emergency transfusions due to being close in composition to human plasma. --Used to prevent vomiting, nausea and replace lost fluids in cases of malaria, typhoid, influenza... --Dissolves kidney stones alkalizing urine pH. --Used as a natural cleanse, coconut water mixed with olive oil eliminates intestinal parasites. Coconut oil medicinal uses: Virgin coconut oil tastes and smells like coconut. Expeller pressed oil has no scent or taste and both types can be used medicinally. --Kills bacteria causing urinary tract infections, gonorrhea, gum disease, staphylococcus, MRSA... --Destroys fungus causing candida. --Kills viruses causing flu, infectious disease, typhoid, HIV... --Inhibits parasite growth such as tapeworm, liver flukes, giardia... --Eases acid reflux, relieves gallbladder disease. --Enhances proper bowel function and lowers incidence of hemorrhoids when oil is consumed. --Relieves and heals intestinal disorders, ulcers, colitis, IBS, and Crohn's disease. --Stabilizes blood sugar and insulin production. --Eases neuropathies and itching from diabetes. --Protects against osteoporosis and reduces problems from cystic fibrosis. --Enhances pancreatic function, enzyme production and reduces pancreatitis. --Improves magnesium and calcium absorption, promoting stronger bones. --Reduces joint and muscle inflammation, supporting repair of tissues. --Regulates thyroid function. --Protects against cancers of colon, breast, and digestive tract. --Medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) protect against development of Alzheimer's disease. --MCFA strengthen heart and circulatory system protecting against artherosclerosis and heart disease. --Prevents oxidation of fatty acids. --Provides antioxidants to fight free radicals slowing aging and degenerative diseases such as arthritis. --Relieves symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome. --Reduces incidence and intensity of epileptic seizures. --Stabilizes female hormones reducing hot flashes and vaginal dryness during menopause. --Lessens symptoms associated with prostate enlargement. --Strengthens the liver and protects against degeneration. --Soothes earaches when mixed with garlic and olive oil. Topical uses for coconut oil: --Forms a chemical barrier on skin to protect and heal infections. --Topical applications relieve pain and swelling from hemorrhoids.
Re: [Zen] Re: Fools!
I fall asleep nearly as often as I catch myself having been asleep. Depending on the moment, it may be a matter of N and N+1 or N-1 --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Simon buddha...@yahoo.com.au wrote: Yes, it is true that we are all Enlightened we just may not realise it and we all have Buddha-Nature. Not everyone realises these things, that is why we have Zen. I feel that if anyone can become Enlightened (or realise they are enlightened) it is through zen. Unfortunately most people even after they become awake, fall back to sleep, willfully being unvigilant and therefore mindful of what they have realised. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Simon, Welcome! I haven't seen you post before. I'm glad you decided to chime in. The story goes that we are all enlightened but most of us just don't realize it yet. That's what the term 'awakening' refers to: waking up to the fact that we are all Buddha - all enlightened. Anyway if you disagree with the quote you'll have to take it up with Shunryu Suzuki. It's his quote, not mine. I'm just the messenger... ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Worried Sick..illusions
So you know enough of his history to know he is not just writing stuff he has read? You may find his language inaccurate or unreflective of what his intent is, but I, again a sensitive soul, find your use of the comic book zen trope to be a sign of attributing ill will. Whatever, the question you ask is if your report of Bill's statement that I am not real offends me. My answer is to 'Chris' is not real. Of course that is not offensive! I have no real self, never have, couldn't possibly have one. Nor could Bill nor any of the waves typing into computers be cut off from one another. We are all in this together. Joe, Mike, dervish, Merle, you, the other ED, we are just transitory waves that can be sketched for a moment but are all temporary configurations of life, flowing thru, flowing onward, just flowing so interestingly. If you are asking some rarified question about are we 'real' as opposed to 'unreal', or some such proposition I can't quite put together, then I am afraid you are out of my depth. Conveniently labeled for your enjoyment, --Chris 301-270-6524
Re: [Zen] Re: Experience
Attentive witnessing does not require thought - it is an attempt to capture
mere presence, bare awareness, that sort of thing.
I'm still a bit sceptical that all these words aren't just trying to draw
lines in the dust :)
Thanks,
--Chris
ch...@austin-lane.net
+1-301-270-6524
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote:
Chris,
I think perceptions certainly could be seen as 'doing', if you as I do
consider 'thinking' as doing something. So to follow it there is no doing
there would be no perceptions.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'attentive witnessing' but if it
involves thinking it would not be monisitc experience. For example if it
involves it involves a subject/relationship/object scenario
(dualism/pluralism) such as a witness/observing/something then it would not
be a monistic experience and would in my book involve thinking and
perceiving.
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote:
Arg, this just shows to me the futility of words. I was all fine but
then
your clarification of precedes etc. leaves me all wanting to argue.
Oh well. How about this for another question:
Is perception something that is related to doing? If no doing is
present, can perception be present? Does mere attentive witnessing
already
cross your line of experience?
Thanks,
--Chris
chris@...
+1-301-270-6524
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote:
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 chris@ 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! BillSmart@ 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 chris@
wrote:
Bill,
One more question on this:
Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in
the
brains
normal functioning
Re: [Zen] Re: Experience
Arg, this just shows to me the futility of words. I was all fine but then
your clarification of precedes etc. leaves me all wanting to argue.
Oh well. How about this for another question:
Is perception something that is related to doing? If no doing is
present, can perception be present? Does mere attentive witnessing already
cross your line of experience?
Thanks,
--Chris
ch...@austin-lane.net
+1-301-270-6524
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote:
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 chris@... 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! BillSmart@... 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 chris@ 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
Re: [Zen] where's Joe?
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 10, 2013 11:46 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill!, No. Worse than that. Caught her agreeing with Edgar. Laughingly I drop my opposition to the silliness of the Zen Forum banter. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] where's Joe? Sent: Thu, Jul 11, 2013 6:37:49 AM Because she was messin' 'round with another man? --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: I heard he shot his woman down.br/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
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! billsm...@hhs1963.org 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 chris@... 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] I wanted to have her!...
Yes, it is interesting how poorly humans do with more and how well we do with less, as long as it's enough and we know we are loved. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:09 AM, SURESH JAGADEESAN varam...@gmail.comwrote: Dear All, Yesterday I saw a beautiful girl, her name is Abin Nakshtra, she talks so lovely and sweetly. I wanted to have her!... ..as my daughter. She is around 6 years old, when my younger son finished playing glide, then I saw swirling chair getting emptied, I rushed with my younger son to grab a seat for him. (At Chemmozhi Poonga, there used to be always crowd especially on Sundays. So every one rushes to get opportunity for their children) Soon after reaching that swirling Chairs, one family left, but a (this) girl was seating on a chair and I placed my son on the opposite chair. I thought that girl was belonged to that couples just left with another boy. That girl told me ‘uncle swing it fast’. So I started swinging, and noticed that the couples never returned, then realized that this girl does not belong to them. So I asked her what is her name. She said “Abin Nakshtra”. I kept asking for more times to get it properly. Since it looks strange for her, because she does not look like a north Indian, she is a black beauty. (I hope I heard her name correctly, may be it could also be wrong). And asked her where is her mother, she told after I play I go to my mother, she may be around. Mean time my younger son was uttering ABC, she also started saying ABC, and then I asked her which school she is studying. For that she replied “I don’t go to school, for me every day is Holiday”, then I asked her how did she learn ABC. She said “I learned at my home. I study at my home.” Mean time she said, pointing at my elder son “he can also sit with me, there is enough space for two here, since I don’t go to school, I have lot of time at my home, and I get bored so I come to park every day. So let him also play with me now.” So I told my elder son to sit along with her, my elder son being so fat almost crushing her, but she smilingly accommodating him and even coming forward to give him more space. Then I asked her whether she likes any cine star, since she was humming some song, then she told I like Surya. Then I asked her have you seen Singam, she said no, then I asked her do you watch TV, she said no.” I always like to play in park” Then I asked where she is from? She is said she is from Thiruvanmiyur. I asked her “isn’t far off from here?”. She said “Yes we come by bus everyday”. So I understood she may be the daughter of a worker in the park. Then I asked her whether she has any brother and sisters. She said “ I am only one”, then she said “No I have one younger brother and one elder sister”. Then I asked them where do they live? She said they live in Kanchepuram. She said “my elder sister is smaller then me but she go to school”, my younger brother is very small. I hug him and play with him. Soon my children got over of swinging in the chair, especially my elder son did not like any more. But she loved to be played in it and also fast. My younger son was so afraid when I swung fast, but she had all smiles. I said bye to her and took my younger son to another individual swing. But I keep watching her from far. She talks like this to all strangers and ask them to swing fast. What a pretty girl, so talkative born to poor parents and have big heart to share!!!. On Saturday I went to Haddows park in Nungambakkam. There my younger son after his usual play in glide, swing chairs, swing etc., saw a very young (3 years)very fair girl playing in sand with sand play equipment. He immediately went and sat next to her and grabbed one spoon and started digging the sand. Looking at this she can’t control her emotions that someone has grabbed her belonging and hence sobbed uncontrollably, her mother try to console her, but nothing doing, I immediately rushed and took away my son from there. She is saying to her mother,” that dirty boy taking my things mom”. See the difference between rich upbringing and poor upbringing. How when people are poor have big heart to share, but (the same poor become) rich have no heart to share. Best wishes Suresh -- Thanks and best regards J.Suresh New No.3, Old No.7, Chamiers road - 1st Lane, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600018 Ph: 044 42030947 Mobile: 91 9884071738
Re: [Zen] Re: Experience
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] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
So to encounter the monistic is not yet enlightenment? The monistic and the pluralistic fit together like a box and lid? Sometimes you write like you are trying to separate pieces of the brain into stages of neural processing, and sometimes it sounds like one of your stages is not really a stage but some uncreated, not starting, not ending, slipping into a list of conditioned aggregates. It seems like by experience you mean awareness, orthogonal to the whole business of sensing, not step 1 in the chain of sensing. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 7, 2013 12:57 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, From a pluralistic POV everything is relative. Form a monisitc POV there is just One and it is absolute - Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I missed this earlier. Isn't every thing relative? Even the absolute is relative, (I cheated once and listened rather than just chanted.) Still, among humans, beauty is a good word, useful. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 6:26 PM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Chris, You wrote: You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty that applies to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this gathering, that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other night? What you've correctly stated above is why I say the judgement of beauty is relative and not absolute. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 3:24 AM, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Merle, All experiences are first-hand. They are sensual. Perceptions come from your intellect. The way they are constructed is learned. For example some Western subcultures perceive the wearing of the skin and head of a dead fox around your neck as beautiful. Some subcultures would perceive that as grotesque. It's all learned behavior. You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty that applies to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this gathering, that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other night? Psssh. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  bill..are you saying you are happy to accept second hand experiences?...merle  Merle, My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was probably something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe things as beautiful. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ bill..how do you know they were beautiful? clarification please..merle I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. But have also experienced Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ bill..is that so?...is that what you have realised or have been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a beautiful sunset ?...merle ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Merle, Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into thinking we understand the truth. Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
I appreciate your going out on a limb here. I like your explanation and find it quite clear. My question tho was more like, if your body/mind is calm and balanced, how can that mental state not enter the sensual experience of sight/sound/tasting/etc.? If you have sensory experience on a day that you are jet lagged and a loved one has been disappointed by you, or whatever it is that might nudge you from calm and balanced (death of a favorite student), that sensory experience will reflect the sensory experience of your 'inner' equilibrium as clearly as it reflects the sensory experience of heat or cold or a still wall and solid cushion. How can a line be drawn between sensed experiencing via introspective sense and sensed experiencing via 'external' sense? Still wondering how, I can certainly appreciate the utility of such a fundamental dualism to thought, especially in helping people allow their minds to uncrinkle. Please forgive my pedantic and persistent questoning. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 10:45 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, I really think getting down to this level of discussion of such things on a zen forum is uncalled for and probably leads to more confusion than clarification, but I will answer your question - only because you're one of my favorites... [image: :x] First of all your phrase 'states of the brain' is problematic. It's taken our discourse out of the realm of functions (software) into physicality (hardware). I'll try to explain my understanding of all this using the terms you've used which will require me to use subject/object language, so don't hold be too tightly to what I say here. I don't claim to be an expert in this area (physiology) so I'm just explaining this the way I think of it. The brain has many functions. The brain's functions don't have to be either all on or all off. Thought is one function; registering sensual experience is one function and awareness is one function. Some functions are autonomous and continue whether you are aware of them or not. Using this skeleton outline I would say: - Buddha Nature = sensual experience - Intellection = Human Nature - Realizing Buddha Nature = sensual experience + awareness - thought - Human Nature = thought + awareness - sensual experience - Enlightenment = sensual awareness + thought + awareness Is that mathematical enough for you? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: So you are claiming that states of the brain and non thought are mutually exclusive? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 6:44 PM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Chris, Non-thought is no intellectual activity - no creating pluralism which is the foundation of delusion and attachment. Later you can reincorporate thought without attachment by realizing it as delusive. It doesn't mean all your bodily functions shut down. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: Non-thought is not no mental activity, sitting errect fully present in a moment takes more lively brains/more energetic bodies than sleep. Or are you suggesting that skimming thru life without really inhabiting each moment is the key? Or just falling prey to that Zen temptation of word play, since I wrote of people moved by beauty? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 10:53 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Chris, Mind moves mind. Yours truely, Peebles You: Over and over, I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. -- On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 12:31 PM EDT Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Are you kidding? Your intellect is where your sense of beauty come from? That could not be further away from my experience. Over and over, I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. Really also I find listening/seeing/tasting/touching/smelling/introspecting in general rewards attentive attending ;) with a suuden pleasurable deepening appreciation for how things are, for the specific thing at hand a routine occurance. For beauty, there is a saying, when nothing is special, then everything can be special. But our brain will be responding to beauty in any case. Spontaneously. Not because of intellectual something, but our full response to life clearly seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 2:35 AM, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Merle, My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was probably something I learned to mimic from hearing other
Re: [Zen] Huang Po on Thinking and Seeing
It sounds like the forum is not an entertaining pass time for you? Personally I occasionally find gems of language like the toilet bowl of samsara. This phrase particularly resonates with me as I live in a place with my two kids and only one toilet and last night i had to break out the plunger and the full suite of household towels during dinner preparation with guests. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 11:36 PM, pandabananas...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, I would say our perceptions are analogies... IMO they are only analogies of each other, all circular-like and what-have-you. This is why they are delusions, to use your term -- right there, an example; terminology: just as all of our perceptions are only analogies of each other, all of our words are only defined words that are defined by words, ad infinitum. From the fractal nature of the universe, all the way to the senses themselves being analogies of each other. If Zen was listed on your Religions Explained post, I'd write in Same shit, new flies. and so what, we turn to posting more analogies online about pointing to moons, and beggars, and birds, and frogs, and math, and mountains, and clapping hand(s)... We contemplate, debate, and masturbate, and I suppose this is a the part where I make a hungry ghost analogy. Samara, enlightenment, illusion, experience, awakening, reality, and zen are all just analogies too. We make analogies about Buddha nature, as if a check to see if we have it or if we do not have it. Great. Here's another analogy: a turd swirling the toilet bowl of samsara. Bah, humbug! ;-) On Fri, 7/5/13, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Huang Po on Thinking and Seeing To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, July 5, 2013, 9:08 PM PBS, In fact you could say that most of our perceptions are like analogies themselves...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!, It takes one to know one! ~PeeBeeEss -- On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 10:30 AM EDT Bill! wrote: PBS, Good analogy! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Perception, delusion, thought... these are all based on each other. Experience just IS. You can't think of anything you don't already know -- thoughts that feel new are just new combinations of pieces of old knowledge. When we do experience experience, mind is aware of it, and does what it does best, which is to 'realize' it (VERY quickly, too). At this point, it is no longer 'experience'. It's like going bird-watching; you quietly sneak upon a beautiful specimen. As you slowly reach for your binoculars, your dumb-ass buddy shouts, HEY!! THERE'S ONE UP THERE!!! HURRY, IT'S FLYING AWAY FOR SOME REASON!! WHY IS IT THAT EVERY TIME I SEE A BIRD IT FLIES AWAY?!?! Your buddy really believes the bird is flying away because it was seen; he is confusing his identifying shouts for the act of seeing the bird. You'd have a much easier time (effortless, in fact) if you went to the woods by yourself, but your buddy is the one with the car! -- On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 9:48 AM EDT Bill! wrote: Merle, First of all perceptions are neither good or bad, they're just delusional. There only 'bad' if you form attachments to them (believe they are real). In the quote my interpretations is 'seeing' is experience and 'thinking' is perception and other intellectual activities. The quote is: The foolish reject what they see and not what they think;... This to me a caution about placing more importance in thinking than experience. ..the wise reject what they think and not what they see. This to me is an encouragement to put less importance on what you think and more on what you experience. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   seeing is good  thinking is bad... is this the correct perception ?.. merle  This is mainly for Merle. I thought it might help if I enlisted a little help from one of my buddies... ...Bill! 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
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, you used an example of some cultures finding fox fur beautiful and some cultures finding fox fur (on people) to be barbaric. I was trying to point to a conception (yes) of beauty that wouldn't be as abstract as this type of thing has the character of beauty but would confine itself to, oh, wow. Personally, I find the beauty in living, at what ever stage of the nervous system's processing work you put it (again you cut your life up into little pieces), to be a wow type action, not a seeking of essences or permanence characters. I can't honestly think different people really find that the beauty they run into is reflected by a dusty meaning like fox stoles are beautiful. It is a spontaneous action of thanks and recognition. Svaha! A similar thing could be made for some word with traditional negative connotations, pain or dissatisfaction, but then you get foggy days (of subtle delight) and cranky children (accepting one another as they are) and Munch's scream (giving a shiver) and bad things turning out ok (broken leg) and even the pensive reality of a thinker (cast in marble) and the good/bad labels do indeed seem a profound waste of effort in a way that living open to the sublime majesty of each moment, if you must avoid the word beauty and yet use words, does not seem wasteful. I don't find moments of non thinking to be fundamentally distinct from any other teaching thing. Seeing how my thoughts are so intrusive and repetitive, seeing how carelessly sitting on the cushion leads to soreness, seeing how thoughts can disappear and still this remains, seeing how there is no boundary anywhere but just this, none of these seeing matter of themselves. They prepare the ground to meet the next moment. That's all. It's enough, but I just don't see this magic line between sensory experience part of the body mind and some delusion part often body mind. Other than as a temporary training aid, maybe. A linear first order approximation as they say in math. Unless of course you become a mad zennist welcoming delusion as the very same as nirvana, but that doesn't seem line your shtick. Responding to the below post more directly, you are again putting abstract lines into your body/mind with this perceive/experience dualism I think the heaps we are composed of are a bit more intimate, a bit less abstract than your division between perception and experience. The heaps are big abstract things like cognition, maybe but also more concrete things such as being this sort of human that was yelled at in this way, encouraged in that way, and is now sitting, laying down, or walking about with a personal, unique, world honored bundle of nerves. Furthermore, classically, I would have put experiencing and awareness into the category of not beginning, not ending. Perception, cognition, labeling, that's all, you know, to do with eyes and brains and neuronal excitation and what not. If you want to divide this arrow into pieces you are as well to follow neuroscience as zen. But simple awareness, that's not going to be a part of neuroscience I suspect. Even when we build things which share our awareness, awareness is not born, does not decay, and does not end. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 10:54 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, To respond to the part of your post below I assume is directed to me... I don't EXPERIENCE 'beauty' or 'ugly' or 'red' or 'pleasing' or 'rocks', etc...; I PERCEIVE these. Perception is a function of what I call my intellect - the origin of plurality. If it would sound better I could break up 'intellect' into 'logic' and 'emotion', or I could say there are two things: intellect (logic) and emotion (maybe call this 'heart'?). Whether they are all one thing or two things they are what make up Human Nature. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: And additionally are you really claiming that you don't experience beauty as a thing of the moment but only as something to make rules or reason about? And PBS, was there some non-rhetorical point about mind moves? Other than the joke about mouths flapping? Do you also have some concept of monistic experience which excludes what may post hoc be called an appreciation for the richness the trip? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 9:42 PM, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: So you are claiming that states of the brain and non thought are mutually exclusive? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 6:44 PM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Chris, Non-thought is no intellectual activity - no creating pluralism which is the foundation of delusion and attachment. Later you can reincorporate thought without attachment by realizing it as delusive. It doesn't mean all your bodily functions shut down. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote
Re: [Zen] Huang Po on Thinking and Seeing
Please forgive me for my misunderstanding. I get annoyed when people complain about some optional part of their life that they choose to partake in. I very much enjoy your postings, so if you are enjoying the puppets, please do post. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane, currently enjoying the bathtub of samsara. On Jul 6, 2013 11:19 AM, pandabananas...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, Your accusation of my practice of to-hell-with-it-all Zen is warranted by my last post, but not accurate. Put it this way: talking about direct experience is more difficult than trying to convey the entire Bible only through the use of shadow-puppets. All the questions and answers on this forum are like this, I suppose. That doesn't mean making shadow-puppets isn't fun for me, but it does mean that I don't mistake them for what they represent. First, shadow-puppets, then meaningless silhouettes, then shadow-puppets again. Here's a shadow-puppet: let the present moment be your teacher, and don't learn a damn thing from it! How DARE you accuse me of talking smack about my beloved forum?!? ;-) -PBS -- On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 11:40 AM EDT Chris Austin-Lane wrote: It sounds like the forum is not an entertaining pass time for you? Personally I occasionally find gems of language like the toilet bowl of samsara. This phrase particularly resonates with me as I live in a place with my two kids and only one toilet and last night i had to break out the plunger and the full suite of household towels during dinner preparation with guests. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 11:36 PM, pandabananas...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, I would say our perceptions are analogies... IMO they are only analogies of each other, all circular-like and what-have-you. This is why they are delusions, to use your term -- right there, an example; terminology: just as all of our perceptions are only analogies of each other, all of our words are only defined words that are defined by words, ad infinitum. From the fractal nature of the universe, all the way to the senses themselves being analogies of each other. If Zen was listed on your Religions Explained post, I'd write in Same shit, new flies. and so what, we turn to posting more analogies online about pointing to moons, and beggars, and birds, and frogs, and math, and mountains, and clapping hand(s)... We contemplate, debate, and masturbate, and I suppose this is a the part where I make a hungry ghost analogy. Samara, enlightenment, illusion, experience, awakening, reality, and zen are all just analogies too. We make analogies about Buddha nature, as if a check to see if we have it or if we do not have it. Great. Here's another analogy: a turd swirling the toilet bowl of samsara. Bah, humbug! ;-) On Fri, 7/5/13, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Huang Po on Thinking and Seeing To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, July 5, 2013, 9:08 PM PBS, In fact you could say that most of our perceptions are like analogies themselves...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!, It takes one to know one! ~PeeBeeEss -- On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 10:30 AM EDT Bill! wrote: PBS, Good analogy! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Perception, delusion, thought... these are all based on each other. Experience just IS. You can't think of anything you don't already know -- thoughts that feel new are just new combinations of pieces of old knowledge. When we do experience experience, mind is aware of it, and does what it does best, which is to 'realize' it (VERY quickly, too). At this point, it is no longer 'experience'. It's like going bird-watching; you quietly sneak upon a beautiful specimen. As you slowly reach for your binoculars, your dumb-ass buddy shouts, HEY!! THERE'S ONE UP THERE!!! HURRY, IT'S FLYING AWAY FOR SOME REASON!! WHY IS IT THAT EVERY TIME I SEE A BIRD IT FLIES AWAY?!?! Your buddy really believes the bird is flying away because it was seen; he is confusing his identifying shouts for the act of seeing the bird. You'd have a much easier time (effortless, in fact) if you went to the woods by yourself, but your buddy is the one with the car! -- On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 9:48 AM EDT Bill! wrote: Merle, First of all perceptions are neither good or bad, they're just delusional. There only 'bad' if you form attachments to them (believe they are real). In the quote my interpretations is 'seeing' is experience and 'thinking' is perception
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
I missed this earlier. Isn't every thing relative? Even the absolute is relative, (I cheated once and listened rather than just chanted.) Still, among humans, beauty is a good word, useful. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 6:26 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, You wrote: You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty that applies to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this gathering, that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other night? What you've correctly stated above is why I say the judgement of beauty is relative and not absolute. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 3:24 AM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Merle, All experiences are first-hand. They are sensual. Perceptions come from your intellect. The way they are constructed is learned. For example some Western subcultures perceive the wearing of the skin and head of a dead fox around your neck as beautiful. Some subcultures would perceive that as grotesque. It's all learned behavior. You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty that applies to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this gathering, that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other night? Psssh. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  bill..are you saying you are happy to accept second hand experiences?...merle  Merle, My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was probably something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe things as beautiful. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   bill..how do you know they were beautiful? clarification please..merle I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. But have also experienced Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ bill..is that so?...is that what you have realised or have been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a beautiful sunset ?...merle ÃÆ'‚ Merle, Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into thinking we understand the truth. Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 6:22 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, Yes, I believe the human intellect is the origin of your judgement of what's beautiful and what's not. You're example below is a good one to illustrate this: I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. IMO what has happened is this: I have heard some music without really paying attention,... This is an example of you just experiencing. Later after you THINK back on this you perceive this as having been music. Everything is just experiencing, but in this case I was just experiencing my thoughts about work or the next meal. ...and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. This is where you intellect has kicked in and formed a complex perception based on your experience. This perception includes delusions of 'hearing' and 'music'. I agree my brain was more respondinf to the sound this time. But WTF, rhe first times my brain probably formed some concepts of sonic background and wondering about the difference between a world where recorded music is the norm and one where live music is the norm. Intent listening quiets my conceptual apparatus. It is this PERCEPTION that was created by your intellect that 'deeply moved' you, not the experience itself. That's evident because before you formed the perception you were experiencing without calling it 'hearing' or 'music' or 'beautiful'. I wasn't calling it beautiful during the listening. I was listening, intently. And I don’t believe you if you think a fully enlightened Buddha would never be moved by what happens. Again, you see introspective sensual experiencing, which causes tears say, to be distinct from 'external' sensual experiencing, which causes motion. The experiencing is Buddha Nature. The 'hearing', 'music', 'beautiful' and being 'moved' is Human Nature. That's the way I perceive it anyway...Bill! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: Are you kidding? Your intellect is where your sense of beauty come from? That could not be further away from my experience. Over and over, I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. Really also I find listening/seeing/tasting/touching/smelling/introspecting in general rewards attentive attending ;) with a suuden pleasurable deepening appreciation for how things are, for the specific thing at hand a routine occurance. For beauty, there is a saying, when nothing is special, then everything can be special. But our brain will be responding to beauty in any case. Spontaneously. Not because of intellectual something, but our full response to life clearly seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 2:35 AM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Merle, My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was probably something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe things as beautiful. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: Â Â bill..how do you know they were beautiful? clarification please..merle I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. But have also experienced Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÂÂ ÂÂ bill..is that so?...is that what you have realised or have been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a beautiful sunset ?...merle ÂÂ Merle, Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into thinking we understand the truth. Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Are you kidding? Your intellect is where your sense of beauty come from? That could not be further away from my experience. Over and over, I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. Really also I find listening/seeing/tasting/touching/smelling/introspecting in general rewards attentive attending ;) with a suuden pleasurable deepening appreciation for how things are, for the specific thing at hand a routine occurance. For beauty, there is a saying, when nothing is special, then everything can be special. But our brain will be responding to beauty in any case. Spontaneously. Not because of intellectual something, but our full response to life clearly seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 2:35 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Merle, My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was probably something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe things as beautiful. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   bill..how do you know they were beautiful? clarification please..merle I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. But have also experienced Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   bill..is that so?...is that what you have realised or have been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a beautiful sunset ?...merle  Merle, Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into thinking we understand the truth. Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical  logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle  Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 3:24 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Merle, All experiences are first-hand. They are sensual. Perceptions come from your intellect. The way they are constructed is learned. For example some Western subcultures perceive the wearing of the skin and head of a dead fox around your neck as beautiful. Some subcultures would perceive that as grotesque. It's all learned behavior. You can't hope to come up with some general rule about beauty that applies to more than one moment. This night, that fur whatever, this gathering, that cloud bank, this breeze, this response. But some other night? Psssh. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:  bill..are you saying you are happy to accept second hand experiences?...merle  Merle, My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was probably something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe things as beautiful. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   bill..how do you know they were beautiful? clarification please..merle I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. But have also experienced Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   bill..is that so?...is that what you have realised or have been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a beautiful sunset ?...merle  Merle, Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into thinking we understand the truth. Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical ÃÆ'‚ logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle ÃÆ'‚ Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
I meant how. There’s no way thinking will allow you to differentiate between angry seeing and tired seeing and neutral seeing. It's all a piece - the experiences mediated by introspection are the same experiences mediated by sight. You seem to be claiming your seeing is cut away from the rest of you. And I'm not arguing against your line between the experience and the perception, I am arguing against the exclusion of the sense of introspection from sensory experience. As far as what I write, of course what I write is delusion, but please not i did not write more pleasing, just brighter. Pleasing/displeasing of course have an almost irritable force to put the gaps in our living. Brighter/duller I mean to be as close to just experiencing that sense of introspection as words will let me go. You added the pleasing, that seems to me to very clearly show your resistance to my point of view here. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 1:37 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, Are you saying you don't know HOW I draw such a bright line between experience and perceptions? Or are you saying you don't know WHY I draw the line? 'How' is easy. Experience is sensual and monistic (Buddha Nature). Perceptions are intellectualizations and pluralistic (Human Nature). 'Why' is not as easy to explain, but I'll go through the steps below: - The vast majority of humans experience suffering. - In order to alleviate suffering you must drop attachments. - In order to drop attachments you must awaken to the realization that your identification with a separate and unique 'self' is a delusion. - In order to do that you have to experience monism (Buddha Nature) where all is one and there is no separate self - or anything else for that matter. - In order to do that you must suspend the creation of pluralism and delusions which are products of your intellect (Human Nature). - In order to do that you could employ any number of zen teaching methods including zazen, chanting, bowing and koans. There are probably many other non-zen ways also. - After you do that you can resume your intellect and the creation of pluralism and delusion, but now with the realization that these are delusions. You are melding together Buddha Nature and Human Nature so that Human Nature no longer obscures Buddha Nature. The result of that is Buddha, the Awakened One, 'Tathagata' as it is called in the sutras. ...and speaking of sutras... SUTRA STUFF As you know I don't usually quote things from sutras because I try as much as possible to separate zen and zen practice from the religious doctrines of Buddhism. But just for you here are some labels used in the sutras for concepts I regularly talk about: - Buddha Nature is called 'Tath#257;gatagarbha'. - The experience of Buddha Nature is called 'samadhi' and 'tathata'. - Delusions are called 'maya', although it is also often referred to as 'illusion'. When you are experiencing samadhi/tathata there is no 'red'. There is just the awareness of experience. It's only later when you start intellectualizing that you name your experience 'sight' and then more specifically 'red' and maybe 'pretty', etc... 'Seeing', 'red', 'pretty' do not exist during samadhi/tathata. I often refer to that experience as 'Just THIS!' which is the best I have come up with to describe that experience using English words. Everything you described in the last part of your post starting with Seeing includes whatever mental state... and ending with And when I have not sat, my mind is crinkled, the world grey, and the blue is pale are intellectualizations, poetic though they may be. In fact when you say 'when you sit the world seems brighter and more pleasing than when you don't sit' should in itself be a big, flashing warning light for you that all this is a delusion. Everything I wrote above is of course only IMO...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I still don't know how you draw such a bright line between these experiences are experience and those experiences over there are delusion. There's no sharp dividing lines anywhere that I can find, much less between the natural unlabeled living in sensory experience with red known as red being salient and with thoughts known as thoughts being salient. Either way there is no domain of red and no domain of thoughts. To me the inclusion of awareness of the state of thinking as a sense along with awareness of the state of vision is a very subtle and profound insight I first heard in the Heart Sutra. Out There is In Here, there's no line. Seeing includes whatever mental state (relaxed and on holiday, but bringing up a point with a valued debate friend) we are in, as much as whatever sensory experiences (blue tiles, warm water or noises from children) that consist of living right now. How could this supposed part be excluded? When I have
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Arg, pardon the typos. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 9:51 AM, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net wrote: I meant how. There’s no way thinking will allow you to differentiate between angry seeing and tired seeing and neutral seeing. It's all a piece - the experiences mediated by introspection are the same experiences mediated by sight. You seem to be claiming your seeing is cut away from the rest of you. And I'm not arguing against your line between the experience and the perception, I am arguing against the exclusion of the sense of introspection from sensory experience. As far as what I write, of course what I write is delusion, but please not i did not write more pleasing, just brighter. Pleasing/displeasing of course have an almost irritable Irresistible force to put the gaps back into our living force to put the gaps in our living. Brighter/duller I mean to be as close to just experiencing that sense of introspection as words will let me go. You added the pleasing, that seems to me to very clearly show your resistance to my point of view here. To you my decidedly neutral words have to carry some judgment. But I am used to being clear some days and cloudy others. It's ok. Each day is as it is. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 1:37 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, Are you saying you don't know HOW I draw such a bright line between experience and perceptions? Or are you saying you don't know WHY I draw the line? 'How' is easy. Experience is sensual and monistic (Buddha Nature). Perceptions are intellectualizations and pluralistic (Human Nature). 'Why' is not as easy to explain, but I'll go through the steps below: - The vast majority of humans experience suffering. - In order to alleviate suffering you must drop attachments. - In order to drop attachments you must awaken to the realization that your identification with a separate and unique 'self' is a delusion. - In order to do that you have to experience monism (Buddha Nature) where all is one and there is no separate self - or anything else for that matter. - In order to do that you must suspend the creation of pluralism and delusions which are products of your intellect (Human Nature). - In order to do that you could employ any number of zen teaching methods including zazen, chanting, bowing and koans. There are probably many other non-zen ways also. - After you do that you can resume your intellect and the creation of pluralism and delusion, but now with the realization that these are delusions. You are melding together Buddha Nature and Human Nature so that Human Nature no longer obscures Buddha Nature. The result of that is Buddha, the Awakened One, 'Tathagata' as it is called in the sutras. ...and speaking of sutras... SUTRA STUFF As you know I don't usually quote things from sutras because I try as much as possible to separate zen and zen practice from the religious doctrines of Buddhism. But just for you here are some labels used in the sutras for concepts I regularly talk about: - Buddha Nature is called 'Tath#257;gatagarbha'. - The experience of Buddha Nature is called 'samadhi' and 'tathata'. - Delusions are called 'maya', although it is also often referred to as 'illusion'. When you are experiencing samadhi/tathata there is no 'red'. There is just the awareness of experience. It's only later when you start intellectualizing that you name your experience 'sight' and then more specifically 'red' and maybe 'pretty', etc... 'Seeing', 'red', 'pretty' do not exist during samadhi/tathata. I often refer to that experience as 'Just THIS!' which is the best I have come up with to describe that experience using English words. Everything you described in the last part of your post starting with Seeing includes whatever mental state... and ending with And when I have not sat, my mind is crinkled, the world grey, and the blue is pale are intellectualizations, poetic though they may be. In fact when you say 'when you sit the world seems brighter and more pleasing than when you don't sit' should in itself be a big, flashing warning light for you that all this is a delusion. Everything I wrote above is of course only IMO...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I still don't know how you draw such a bright line between these experiences are experience and those experiences over there are delusion. There's no sharp dividing lines anywhere that I can find, much less between the natural unlabeled living in sensory experience with red known as red being salient and with thoughts known as thoughts being salient. Either way there is no domain of red and no domain of thoughts. To me the inclusion of awareness of the state of thinking as a sense along with awareness of the state of vision is a very subtle and profound insight I first heard in the Heart Sutra. Out There is In Here, there's no line
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Non-thought is not no mental activity, sitting errect fully present in a moment takes more lively brains/more energetic bodies than sleep. Or are you suggesting that skimming thru life without really inhabiting each moment is the key? Or just falling prey to that Zen temptation of word play, since I wrote of people moved by beauty? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 10:53 AM, pandabananas...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, Mind moves mind. Yours truely, Peebles You: Over and over, I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. -- On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 12:31 PM EDT Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Are you kidding? Your intellect is where your sense of beauty come from? That could not be further away from my experience. Over and over, I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. Really also I find listening/seeing/tasting/touching/smelling/introspecting in general rewards attentive attending ;) with a suuden pleasurable deepening appreciation for how things are, for the specific thing at hand a routine occurance. For beauty, there is a saying, when nothing is special, then everything can be special. But our brain will be responding to beauty in any case. Spontaneously. Not because of intellectual something, but our full response to life clearly seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 2:35 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Merle, My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was probably something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe things as beautiful. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   bill..how do you know they were beautiful? clarification please..merle I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. But have also experienced Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   bill..is that so?...is that what you have realised or have been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a beautiful sunset ?...merle  Merle, Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into thinking we understand the truth. Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical  logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle  Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
And additionally are you really claiming that you don't experience beauty as a thing of the moment but only as something to make rules or reason about? And PBS, was there some non-rhetorical point about mind moves? Other than the joke about mouths flapping? Do you also have some concept of monistic experience which excludes what may post hoc be called an appreciation for the richness the trip? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 9:42 PM, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net wrote: So you are claiming that states of the brain and non thought are mutually exclusive? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 6:44 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, Non-thought is no intellectual activity - no creating pluralism which is the foundation of delusion and attachment. Later you can reincorporate thought without attachment by realizing it as delusive. It doesn't mean all your bodily functions shut down. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: Non-thought is not no mental activity, sitting errect fully present in a moment takes more lively brains/more energetic bodies than sleep. Or are you suggesting that skimming thru life without really inhabiting each moment is the key? Or just falling prey to that Zen temptation of word play, since I wrote of people moved by beauty? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 10:53 AM, pandabananasock@... wrote: Chris, Mind moves mind. Yours truely, Peebles You: Over and over, I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. -- On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 12:31 PM EDT Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Are you kidding? Your intellect is where your sense of beauty come from? That could not be further away from my experience. Over and over, I have heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time have really listened to it, and been deeply moved. Really also I find listening/seeing/tasting/touching/smelling/introspecting in general rewards attentive attending ;) with a suuden pleasurable deepening appreciation for how things are, for the specific thing at hand a routine occurance. For beauty, there is a saying, when nothing is special, then everything can be special. But our brain will be responding to beauty in any case. Spontaneously. Not because of intellectual something, but our full response to life clearly seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 2:35 AM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Merle, My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was probably something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe things as beautiful. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: Â Â bill..how do you know they were beautiful? clarification please..merle I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets. But have also experienced Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÂÂ ÂÂ bill..is that so?...is that what you have realised or have been told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a beautiful sunset ?...merle ÂÂ Merle, Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into thinking we understand the truth. Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
It's a metaphor for life. No escape, not getting places, just an interesting trip. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 11:50 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Merle, I agree with what you've written below BECAUSE you've specified a destination - get back out, or to return to the place from whence I came. If that is indeed my intention then yes, I might need a map; and yes, without one (or even with one) I might indeed get lost. BUT, if I had no intention to get back out or return to where I started. If my only intention was to roam around in the wilderness forever or until I die (whichever comes first) then I wouldn't need a map and couldn't get lost. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:  bill..you are splitting hairs..i dare you to go into a wilderness jungle.. and try to find you way back after you have been wandering through it for a couple of hours..and no leaving a secret trail to follow back... ask joe...would he wander into the desert far from base camp without a map?  your just asking for trouble bill and no you are not permitted to take provisions with you  merle  Edgar, You're not lost if you're already home wherever you are. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You are't lost until you try to get home and can't! Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, One only needs a map or considers themselves 'lost' if they have a specific destination in mind. If you are just wandering around enjoying the woods with no destination in mind you don't need a map, and how could you be lost? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  musical notes are the language  used to communicate to others the music score or plan or map... it is like a map...without a map or a path one would be lost in the woods...merle  Mike, That's a pretty good analogy. Music notation is a way to intellectually communicate a musical score. I guess that would be much like the sutras. Listening would be the sensual way to communicate music. That would be more like zen. IMO...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@ wrote: br/Bill!,br/br/The Beatles were arguably the best band in the world and none of them could read music. Perhaps, therefore, we should discard with formal music notation?br/br/Mikebr/br/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
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 4, 2013 5:57 AM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical How is it logical that numbers and equations are jusy exactly lines? The beauty is there because the true connections defy logic. One just sits back and gasps in wonder. There's better examples but they need more than plan text to write. Euler's formula, Cauchy integral formulae, fundamental group of a surface. Even Galois theory. Shocking connections between the most distant things. Certainly not like just sitting, but also mot really like making up a story to go along with putting everything in little buckets of good or bad. IMO logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 4, 2013 6:06 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Merle, Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes. So I have to say no here. Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into thinking we understand the truth. Never thought much about logic but I wouldn't guess the aesthetic response is other than some spontaneous emotional response. Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is. There is beauty in truth, or at least in reality. And a similar beauty in math. Is more what I'm saying. All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If you are looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to let go your attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: mathematics is beautiful because it is logical  logic is beautiful because it is so pointing to the truth truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way for realisation to take place .. merle  Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
I have no idea how one could describe even one moment of experience with math. Nonetheless, we shall have to disagree. Seeing things as they are, there is no self, and there never was a self. Math is not like that. With no self, the flowers are flowers and math is math. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 4, 2013 10:57 AM, pandabananas...@yahoo.com wrote: Math is just the world of delusion, except after the play, out of character, backstage giving an interview. Just like anything else, we regard it, and it reflects back whatever mental framework we use to regard it in the first place. Haiku (I posted this YEARS ago): Strike a bell with wood. Strike it again with metal. One bell; two noises. Math is the only thing which can comprehensively describe our experiences, but 'description' is not 'experience'. Trade your purpose for your beingness, stand back and let it resolve. Water, non-sentient, does not need to calculate the path of least resistance, it simply and immediately flows, never failing to take the path of least resistance. The thought of an upside-down cup of water hesitating to spill until it works out the fastest way to the ground... Experience just IS Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
I have to share Bill's disagreement of math being a language or even being communicative. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 10:48 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: mathematics is a universal language as is art and music..merle PBS, Math, logic, reason like all delusions should come with the caveat 'suitable for everyday use'. As a universal human language to communicate our logical concepts it's very useful, but it should never be mistaken for reality. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
I still don't know how you draw such a bright line between these experiences are experience and those experiences over there are delusion. There's no sharp dividing lines anywhere that I can find, much less between the natural unlabeled living in sensory experience with red known as red being salient and with thoughts known as thoughts being salient. Either way there is no domain of red and no domain of thoughts. To me the inclusion of awareness of the state of thinking as a sense along with awareness of the state of vision is a very subtle and profound insight I first heard in the Heart Sutra. Out There is In Here, there's no line. Seeing includes whatever mental state (relaxed and on holiday, but bringing up a point with a valued debate friend) we are in, as much as whatever sensory experiences (blue tiles, warm water or noises from children) that consist of living right now. How could this supposed part be excluded? When I have sat, the trees' green is greener, the sky is close and intimate with my thoughts arising and falling, now stopping now starting, and you will ask me to put space between these that you are not one but two? And when I have not sat, my mind is crinkled, the world grey, and the blue is pale. I find no lines or boundaries. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 4, 2013 6:09 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Merle, Yes. Experience is not a delusion. That's all. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   anything that is not a delusion for you bill?..merle  I didn't really finish my thought below. It should read: 'I know math is based on logic. That's all I need to know that it is delusional.' ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Edgar, I know math is based on logic. That's all I need to know. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, This appears to be part of your problem in understanding the nature of the world of forms. The math out there doesn't consist of ideal circles, squares, and lines as some of the ancient Greeks thought. The math our there is like software that continually computes the current state of reality in the present moment. It has nothing to do with idealized geometry... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:35 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, I fundamentally disagree with you. Math is no difference than logic or reason. I know many think that math represents reality, exists 'out there' and we 'discover it'. IMO math is just a projection of human intellect. We project it on reality the very same way we project all delusions. In reality there are no integers, no straight line, no circles, etc... That's the way I see it anyway... --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The math's an analogy. But I will speak up for math by stating math does something different than mirror the small individual's intellect. Perhaps it mirrors the essential uncreated mind :) Like reality it has a certain independence from thoughts and selves. Unlike reality, it's not reality. --Chris Thanks, --Chris chris@ +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
The experience of unity that is what I am trying to convey, not that effectively, is no more sharable than the experience of unity one may notice while taking a bath or washing the coffee mugs. Communicators may try to use math, but these uses are always matters of stories. Any ways, surely you don't mean math itself communicates? What ever would that mean? Remember, math properly is called maths. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 4, 2013 12:16 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, It's really dumb to say math doesn't communicate! Of course it does... Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I have to share Bill's disagreement of math being a language or even being communicative. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 10:48 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: mathematics is a universal language as is art and music..merle PBS, Math, logic, reason like all delusions should come with the caveat 'suitable for everyday use'. As a universal human language to communicate our logical concepts it's very useful, but it should never be mistaken for reality. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananas...@yahoo.com wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@... wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
The main thing I wanted to say was I think KISS, in the world of pluralism, is a good idea. My truncated thought is that I prefer writing about non duality to be fresh, spoken as if the writer has seen nondually and is using concepts and words familiar to his or her own actual life instead of just repeating what has been written down. I find Brad Warner, Karen Maezen Miller, Pema Chodron, the Platform Sutra, and parts of Dogen to have this vitality and freshness. Some modern Buddhist writing seems to yearn for resting in non-duality but to end up having a lot of complex ideas from the past touching all the words. Reading good intentioned words can be like a bad Sunday school, whereas the fresh writing leads to laughter and tears and the pleasure of this funny life, a bit like a picnic that, despite it all, the bugs or whatever, leaves one full and content, enjoying the clean air. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 Well said, Mike. Applaud.. jm On 7/3/2013 12:04 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill!, It's just two sides of the same coin. Zen just gets you to awaken with very little explanation and instruction - The sutras explain the processes of the mind that create a self and suffering and the steps necessary to awaken and be liberated. Both work. Zen is a steep cliff-face that can get you to the top quickly, but you'll see few at the top. 'Buddhism' is a less steep and longer winding route that takes longer to reach the summit, but is more accessible and will see more people reach the top. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org billsm...@hhs1963.org; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage * Sent: * Wed, Jul 3, 2013 6:50:20 AM Joe, I do feel that Buddhism proper causes humans to suffer. I feel that it gives them a false sense (an intellectually-based belief) that they know what awakening is and how to conduct themselves in accordance with someone else's teachings who they believe was awakened. In truth it probably makes them feel better, but it keeps them from going further - to awaken themselves. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@...desert_woodworker@...wrote: Bill!, quoting: I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. Face it: it cannot be. It is a living thing. Living things evolve. I see no asteroid coming to smack it. Zen practice is a personal choice for a person who can cut to the chase, ...or who can embrace nothing else. Other practice is available for folks with a different bent. I think, again, that your view of need is a personal one. If it's a more extensive view, then I say, get on with accomplishing it. Remember the objection against considering to end the war in Vietnam?: What are you going to replace it with? But I think you have personally already discarded Buddhism; you call your practice Zen, not Zen Buddhism. It would seem already that Buddhism should not annoy you. Where else do you mean you would like to see it discarded? And, for what PRACTICAL purpose? Is it like a swarm of mosquitoes that annoys you? Or do you, as a Bodhisattva, feel that it is causing sentient beings to suffer? coffee time, best!, --Joe Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. Zen, on the other hand, as it's presented in a lot of zen literature is presented very simply and very effectively. There is some zen literature that is complex also, but most of that is either trying to resolve zen with Buddhism or explain in an almost technical style the experience of Buddha Nature. Anyway, I'm just more supportive of the KISS school - and the simpler the better.
Re: [Zen] Guess who?
I better not argue with you, clearly you can beat me up! Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 6:06 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: You got it! Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Guess who? * Sent: * Wed, Jul 3, 2013 12:44:50 PM i see..the bald chap is you mike?..merle Check out this video on YouTube: http://youtu.be/Z2KxRq--0pU Sent from my iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
The math's an analogy. But I will speak up for math by stating math does something different than mirror the small individual's intellect. Perhaps it mirrors the essential uncreated mind :) Like reality it has a certain independence from thoughts and selves. Unlike reality, it's not reality. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
I wasn't talking about enlightenment however, was I? Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, Except... that has nothing to do with awakening in Zen, which is having nothing. That's not just the experience of Wu, (mu), when one experiences it, but continues endlessly, until it's covered-up again eventually, which always happens. I think infinities and epsilons in math have good applicability as metaphors to, or of, features of operation of Zen Mind / No Mind. Maybe best applicability. Just weighing-in, vis-a-vis math. I wrote here already that one finds oneself doing math in a different way in the awakened state, compared with previously. It can still be done. But it is so, so different (an experience). I survived, somehow. My job depended on it. And I took another (part-time) job during those eight weeks of the continuation of the first opening. One finds space and time for things one can help in, that's for sure. It could be good to find a way to check (stop) oneself from over-extending, but I don't know how. Probably a married householder parent will have no problem, thanks to plenty of cooperative or competing influence. --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Noting that I did not state that math represents reality, we may happily disagree. Most people that discover new math do indeed find it to have that same stays even if you ignore it cussedness as reality. Not that it's reality. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:35 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, I fundamentally disagree with you. Math is no difference than logic or reason. I know many think that math represents reality, exists 'out there' and we 'discover it'. IMO math is just a projection of human intellect. We project it on reality the very same way we project all delusions. In reality there are no integers, no straight line, no circles, etc... That's the way I see it anyway... --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: The math's an analogy. But I will speak up for math by stating math does something different than mirror the small individual's intellect. Perhaps it mirrors the essential uncreated mind :) Like reality it has a certain independence from thoughts and selves. Unlike reality, it's not reality. --Chris Thanks, --Chris chris@... +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com 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 Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Form is nothing other than emptiness.the style is the message? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 2, 2013 9:42 AM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Edgar, But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about form and style, not about substance and content. Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go. tnx, --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: My point was that your long post consisted entirely of large scale intellectualization The so called intellectualization of my post was two concise sentences. Your intellectualization was 20 some often run-on sentences Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Your communication is received as much by its style as its message. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 2, 2013 9:55 AM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, I'd answer, No. Form and style and content are emptiness. Content is content. Style is style. Apples and oranges are conjoined with a conjunction, not an equals-sign; otherwise, so-much for diversity. --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: Form is nothing other than emptiness.the style is the message? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 2, 2013 9:42 AM, Joe desert_woodworker@... wrote: Edgar, But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about form and style, not about substance and content. Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
I like that - KISS is our task now. I find the most Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 2, 2013 2:49 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Joe, I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. Zen, on the other hand, as it's presented in a lot of zen literature is presented very simply and very effectively. There is some zen literature that is complex also, but most of that is either trying to resolve zen with Buddhism or explain in an almost technical style the experience of Buddha Nature. Anyway, I'm just more supportive of the KISS school - and the simpler the better. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@... wrote: Bill!, Every generation has a responsibility to the present and the future. I suspect you personally are doing the updating that you can. Onward! It's said that Buddhism passes from one warm hand to another. It's not that this needs updating; it's always changing, anyway. Joe Campbell opined that the 'Star Wars' story could be a new mythology. I hoped not. To me, it seemed the same-old same-old. I think to him it did, too, and was just a re-telling. Nothing was updated, really. Now, do you want to see the teaching stories of Buddhism updated and re-tooled or re-clothed for yourself, or for others? If for others, do you sense that others are dissatisfied with the stories and other vehicles as they receive them, and have you heard them complain that the old outlines don't suit? And, has that been at Buddhist practice centers, Bill!, or solely on the internet, where it's not clear if people are engaged in practice? --Joe Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Joe, Most religions are wisdom traditions. Their core beliefs may indeed be just as pertinent today as they were 2500 years ago. It's not their core beliefs I'm uncomfortable with, it's their method of communicating their core beliefs - their myths, parables and symbols. It's these I'd like to see updated. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@ wrote: Mike, I agree, sir. Religions are Wisdom-Traditions. Wisdom Traditions use the tools they have available. Then, and now. That, too, is what makes them Wise. They utilize fully what they have available, in service of True Compassion. For their times, and future times. Religions are not nonsense, as some hasty-pudding kitchen-workers say. Maybe they're just hopped-up on instant (soluble) Coffee. The wisdom-traditions purvey and convey wisdom, and preserve wisdom, and the path to it. As traditions, they also keep on changing, as generations pass, and come. That's another part of what makes them Wise. Hasty people live for the next thing, not for Now. And don't see where Now has *graciously* come from. But, they are to be forgiven! That's why Wisdom and Compassion are preserved, and transmitted. For them, and fo all. Anyway, a new generation is born TODAY. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
NEP? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 30, 2013 8:01 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, Agreed with one addition. Right action does help decrease suffering which in turn makes it easier to attain realization. Of course with realization one naturally follows the 8 fold path which as you point out is somewhat arbitrary... Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 6:00 AM, Bill! wrote: Mike, The Noble Eightfold Path is a good guideline. So are the Ten Commandments. I have three problems with the Noble Eightfold Path: 1. There are 8 categories. Why are all the activities that are possible in life divided into 8 categories? Do the authors of this really think those 8 categories cover the whole of life? And if not why did they pick these 8? 2. All of them encourage you to do 'right'. How do you know what's right? The Eightfold Path doesn't tell you that. 3. Following this path is supposed to lead to the ...cessation of suffering (dukkha) and the achievement of self-awakening. - Wikipedia.com. I think this is all reversed. First you must awaken. Second, that awakening enables the recognition of delusion, then the dropping of attachments to delusions, and only then to the cessation of suffering. After all that's complete and only then are you able to really follow the Noble Eightfold Path, but by then you aren't really following anything, you are walking the path and the path is you, your life. You're never going to cease suffering and awaken just by following some set of rules like The Noble Eightfold Path. That's my opinion anyway...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!,br/br/I can tell by the completely misrepresented view of things like The Noble Eightfold Path on this forum that people criticise even though it's obvious they haven't even bothered to study them. They're absolutely beautiful and sublime teachings. Even though they're over 2,500 years old they still can be applied to life today. To criticise them also shows a complete ignorance of upaya (skilful means) to teach the Dharma. Different people, with different personalities and temperaments will always require a variety of different teaching methods. Otherwise we get into the bigotry of believing that only my way is the correct way.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Don't forget the eightfold way. I have heard it speculated that numbered lists make it easier in an oral tradition to remember stuff, and that the proliferation of numbered items in ancient spiritual traditions, especial Buddhism, are a normal result of a few hundred years of oral transmission. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 29, 2013 7:26 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, I think it's a matter of definition. In general I think excessive concern with 'stages' of realization is a distraction from realization... And that goes for standard Buddhism's obsessive with counting all sorts of things as well. The 7 this, the 5 that, the 8 this etc. etc. Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As you know I don't like to rely too much on Buddhist or Hindu terms either. 'Samadhi' is a meditative state of non-duality or monism. It's what I also call 'shikantazaza' if you're experiencing it during zazen. It can also be called no-thought. I associate it strongly with Buddha Nature since there is no dualism thus no delusion. I know you include delusions in Buddha Nature, but I'm just explaining my terminology. Anyway, if 'samadhi' is a state of pure non-duality how do you think that equates with 'nirvana'? I'm begining to think the only diffrence is 'samadhi' is temporary where 'nirvana' is permanent. What do you (or anyone else) think? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, I don't use the term and don't really get into all the interminable Buddhist and HIndu levels and counts of everything anyone could think of... Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As a follow-on to this, what do you consider the difference/distinction between samadhi and nirvana? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Edgar, I liked your description of the difference between enlightenment and nirvana: ...enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are... and In nirvana all forms cease permanently. I agree with that and use the term 'delusions' as a term for your ...see them for what they truly are ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil is total nonsense. Maybe slightly above 50% at best depending on who is doing the judging Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:07 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar,br/br/There is no confusion in what I said at all and it also depends on from which tradition you're talking about karma. As I've been taught, karma will indeed play itself out, but only as long as a person still identifies themselves with a self. Upon awakening to our Original Nature (which can happen at any time) karma is extinguished because where is the self for karma to attach to? Unless of course you're getting karma confused with the crazy notion that karma is fatalistic and/or deterministic which would make emancipation from karma impossible.br/br/Here are a few snippets on the subject. There are many, many more out there if you care to do the research..br/br/He who believes in Karma does not condemn even the most corrupt, for they, too, have their chance to reform themselves ***at any moment*** (buddhanet.net)br/br/Since basic nature transcends all duality and is
Re: [Zen][Anger] Re: moderation
I saw no tag until I clicked on reply. Possibly a gmail bug. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 27, 2013 2:16 PM, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.j...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bill, Such as this one. Please note the subject line. JM On 6/27/2013 7:05 AM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, So how do you insert these tags? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.jmjm@...chan.jmjm@...wrote: Hi Bill, As per Buddha's teaching, when we are attached to form, five poison arises. They are [greed], [anger], [delusion], [arrogance], [suspicion]. Buddha also remind us to avoid the four notions. They are notions of [self],[human][sentient being],[death]. Then Buddha asked us to drop the [attachment to self] and [attachment to dharma]. These are fundamental practices of Chan. I see them rampant through out Zen Forum. These are tags we can insert into subject line. So that we all can learn and be awakened from them. Because moderation disables our ability to encounter these issues, while these are the issues we can grow from. These are part of our practice and necessary mirrors for each of us to reflect from. Let me know if you have more questions. JM On 6/27/2013 1:33 AM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, Interesting suggestion. I guess it's the new e-version of 'The Scarlet Letter'. I'm not sure what 'tagging' is or how to do it, but I will discuss this with Edgar and let everyone know our decision. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.comZen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.jmjm@ wrote: Dear Edgar Bill, moderators, Chan is ALL, which means all attachments, delusions, angers are part of Chan. We learn and wake up from them. These are our home work. These are part of our everyday practice. The sixth Patriarch said, Dharma is in the secular world. Buddha is enlightened inside the secular world. Instead of moderation, may I suggest [tagging]. When anyone is lost in form, and the five poisons or the discrimination mind arises, you tag them with [labels] in the subject line. This way everyone can learn and be awakened from them. With palms together, JM
Re: [Zen]
I also am uncomfortable with people on the forum judging each other, as Joe apparently is doing here. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 26, 2013 8:53 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, I suggest this is a good example of the type of post that should be moderated as it includes several personal attacks, in fact the entire subject of this post is a personal attack. What do you think? Edgar On Jun 25, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, Bill!, quoting the Weasel: What do you think of my idea below to focus the group... As if it was HIS idea! LOL! It would not be a year too soon, since I became active again (following my sign-up and activity at this very Forum in its initiatory year, 1999). Some Zen forums are, in general, quite, well, focused. Hail! To them. There's good reason for ...that. Granted, Edgar is squirming, now, because he is uncomfortable with our insinuating upon his fakery and ignorance, which, previously, he thought he could hide, via his casual, anything-goes-as-Zen, insouciance. Some of us know better, ...but only by experience. It's a different knowing, eh, Bill! ? Moderate (verb) and censor posts as you must / will, and TNX!, overall, --Joe PS I'll bow out, when a majority of active (and actually intelligent) Members recommend me to be Transported to Vulture Peak, for my flesh to be pecked by Avians. Like Merle's country-men, in the day, for Legal reasons, Transported. All Hail. Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, What do you think of my idea below to focus the group back on just Zen rather than it being the general venting and gossip forum as it seems to have become recently?
Re: [Zen] Re: Body surfing as practice
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 26, 2013 2:32 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Chris, I try not to speak well of myself or poorly of others, no matter how much their idiocy seems to call out for mocking insults. Slipping it in thru the back door (not *that* back door!). Nice. I meant for that to be a description of my own judgmental mind, not attachable to a specific poster here. I have judged almost all of the active posters as right on and no way in various writings. I am a guy that reads certain posts and rolls my blind eyes at the persistent patterns from the specks in my friends eyed. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Body surfing as practice Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 4:54:14 AM This post was my response to you and Merle asking for more personal stuff from me, and the overwhelming clear parallel between passing waves and passing moments. Except maybe for the bit when the wave has crashed and I am lying in 4 inches of water, thrilled by life. I try not to speak well of myself or poorly of others, no matter how much their idiocy seems to call out for mocking insults. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 25, 2013 9:55 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, Nice analogy, but you didn't insult anyone in it. Are you sure you're posting this on the right forum? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: It has been a year since I jumped in the waves, so I stand in the water a newbie, unacquainted with the ebb and flow. There is no controlling the water, merely seeing clearly and responding appropriately. Waves roll ceaselessly-sometimes my eager mind wants me to jump in front of a wave before the wave has arrived. Sometimes my regretful mind wants me to jump after a wave already gone. Sometimes, I wait and jump with the wave, caught up into the swirling process of breaking on the shore, pushed along into the shore, not caring or worrying for a thing just knowing the exultant motion of life: balanced between air and water, rolling along, held tenderly in the center, the wave and rider are flung together with sand and foam and shells and motion and seaweed and friction and light . . eventually I emerge, the wave gone, and stand up and drain the water from my sinuses and nose and eyes, establishing some idea of inside and outside, and walk to the waves. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Fwd: [evol-psych] News: Dream of regenerating human body parts gets a little closer
I ran a neighborhood parenting listserv for some years, a group of people that can approach the piss and vinegar of zen practitioners. Whenever arguments broke out too much I would argue for three behaviors: Write scrupulously. Assume good will, help rather than judge, and be aware of people's sensitivity. We are all doing a difficult job (living in this case, parenting in the other case), and it is easy to trigger people's sore spots with careless words. Read forgivingly. Assume good will, assume even critical sounding judgements are meant to be helpful. Read remembering that there is no effen way someone can judge you at all based on email. If someone is all up in your face, it is their style, not a sign they have some special authority to judge you. Always include a bit of good, humor, koans, or anecdotes, to leaven whatever potentially judgmental or off-topic words you also are including. Traffic composition is a matter of balance. Make those busy people happy they glanced at your words. I would add one for the highest volume posters on this list: sometimes silence is golden. Not answering sometimes speaks volumes. In email chains, the last to post is the loser :) Sometimes saying nothing allows other people to articulate their own wisdom. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 26, 2013 9:43 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, I'd say that to be fair and consistent the person who posted these comments shown below should also be put on moderation. Anything else would be simply hypocritical, wouldn't it? Boy are you being dense today More delusion and ignorance on your part Humans are BY FAR the cruelest species, especially those who tend to trash animals and spread false ignorant rumors about them You are an irrational nut case Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Fwd: [evol-psych] News: Dream of regenerating human body parts gets a little closer * Sent: * Wed, Jun 26, 2013 12:55:32 PM Bill, Here is another example of a personal attack with personal name calling. I suggest this poster should also be placed on moderation along with Joe. What do you think? Edgar On Jun 25, 2013, at 11:05 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Merle, Edgar, Do yourselves a favour and educate yourselves on Buddhism before you make personal attacks and show yourselves to be ignoramuses. This is from dharma net.org and recounts Buddha's parable on being born human. 1 The Preciousness of Human Life Endowed with Freedom and Opportunity Preciousness of human life Buddha told a wonderful parable: Imagine, he said, an old blind turtle who lives in the bottom of the seven oceans and who surfaces once every century for air. Floating randomly around the seas there's a golden yoke. As often as the blind turtle at the bottom of the ocean happens to raise his head through the neck hole of the yoke when he comes up for his centenary breath, that's the likelihood of being born in the human life-form. Reflect on how rare your human birth is — for every human, how many billions of other life forms there on this earth. You weren't born an insect, a sardine. With such a rare opportunity, you really should appreciate what you have right now! You should reflect how wonderful our life form is of the human embodiment, our person. How lucky we are to have it endowed liberty and opportunity. What might this mean – “liberty”? What freedoms do you have — just by being a human — that you should cherish and take advantage of? Imagine you were born a rabbit, a life in which is continual reaction to the predator chasing you. Imagine a life as a tiger, running for your own food. If you have trouble with this, ask yourself: If I were born a canary, I would not be able to... As a human, you can pause and reflect on what your situation is and then use your intelligence to choose a path of action. Beyond the freedom which comes from being a human, what other liberties are you blessed with? Chances are if you are taking this lesson, contemplating practicing this path, you enjoy freedoms many other humans do not. Do you think “I have no time to develop my practice, I have no time to reflect, to meditate, to be mindful…? Think about all the humans on this earth whose circumstances do not allow them to study the Dharma, develop a path of emancipation. Chances are if you are studying the four thoughts that turn the mind, you have the opportunity to practice them. Think of all the humans who lack this opportunity, people who are destitute, people enslaved economically, people enslaved politically, people who spend every moment of their lives and all their energies on survival. Spend some time and really appreciate the freedom and opportunity you are blessed with. Do you have enough to eat each
Re: [Zen] Posting and Replying Policy - Draft
Problem with public warnings is that it raises the bar - most people are much more embarrassed by a public scolding than by a private one. And then moderators might be more likely to not apply easy early correction waiting instead for later hard corrections. Not my decision of course, just speaking as one that hates to be reprimanded in public. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 26, 2013 10:45 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, I agree except that I think in the interests of transparency all 'warnings' should be issued publicly on group. That also lets all members see the policy in action instead of having it being done in secret by the moderators... Edgar On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Bill! wrote: This is the policy Edgar, Al and I have come up with regarding future Posts and Replies. Please review it and return comments preferably publicly or privately if you must to Edgar or me. *** - All posts and replies should have some relevance to the forum's published topic – zen,or related areas such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, philosophy, etc..., as long as you tie it back to zen. Digressions will be tolerated to some extent, but any truly off-topic conversations should be taken off the forum to another medium such as email. - No personal attacks will be tolerated – ad hominems. This will be strictly enforced. Calling someone `stupid' and then following that with a smiley face will not be accepted as an amelioration. - Spirited disagreements about ideas or opinions are encouraged. - The Forum Moderators will discuss any problematic Posts or Replies and will issue a warning (privately via email) to anyone they deem to have violated this policy. There is no set number of warnings. The number could range from zero to three or four depending on the severity of the violation as determined by the Moderators. - If the member does continues to violate this policy his/her membership posting privileges will be changed to MODERATE - which means all Posts and Replies will have to be read and approved by the Moderators before it is posted to the Forum. Please return your comments or suggestions promptly so we can enact this policy post haste. Thanks...Bill! ...for Edgar and Al Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Fwd: [evol-psych] News: Dream of regenerating human body parts gets a little closer
Takoma Park Maryland has a wonderful parenting community, full of wisdom and quick to help. We even had a group of meditating parents. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 26, 2013 9:09 PM, siska_...@yahoo.com wrote: ** Chris, this is wonderful. Siska -- *From: * Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net *Sender: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:04:22 -0700 *To: *Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com *ReplyTo: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [Zen] Fwd: [evol-psych] News: Dream of regenerating human body parts gets a little closer I ran a neighborhood parenting listserv for some years, a group of people that can approach the piss and vinegar of zen practitioners. Whenever arguments broke out too much I would argue for three behaviors: Write scrupulously. Assume good will, help rather than judge, and be aware of people's sensitivity. We are all doing a difficult job (living in this case, parenting in the other case), and it is easy to trigger people's sore spots with careless words. Read forgivingly. Assume good will, assume even critical sounding judgements are meant to be helpful. Read remembering that there is no effen way someone can judge you at all based on email. If someone is all up in your face, it is their style, not a sign they have some special authority to judge you. Always include a bit of good, humor, koans, or anecdotes, to leaven whatever potentially judgmental or off-topic words you also are including. Traffic composition is a matter of balance. Make those busy people happy they glanced at your words. I would add one for the highest volume posters on this list: sometimes silence is golden. Not answering sometimes speaks volumes. In email chains, the last to post is the loser :) Sometimes saying nothing allows other people to articulate their own wisdom. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 26, 2013 9:43 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, I'd say that to be fair and consistent the person who posted these comments shown below should also be put on moderation. Anything else would be simply hypocritical, wouldn't it? Boy are you being dense today More delusion and ignorance on your part Humans are BY FAR the cruelest species, especially those who tend to trash animals and spread false ignorant rumors about them You are an irrational nut case Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Fwd: [evol-psych] News: Dream of regenerating human body parts gets a little closer * Sent: * Wed, Jun 26, 2013 12:55:32 PM Bill, Here is another example of a personal attack with personal name calling. I suggest this poster should also be placed on moderation along with Joe. What do you think? Edgar On Jun 25, 2013, at 11:05 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Merle, Edgar, Do yourselves a favour and educate yourselves on Buddhism before you make personal attacks and show yourselves to be ignoramuses. This is from dharma net.org and recounts Buddha's parable on being born human. 1 The Preciousness of Human Life Endowed with Freedom and Opportunity Preciousness of human life Buddha told a wonderful parable: Imagine, he said, an old blind turtle who lives in the bottom of the seven oceans and who surfaces once every century for air. Floating randomly around the seas there's a golden yoke. As often as the blind turtle at the bottom of the ocean happens to raise his head through the neck hole of the yoke when he comes up for his centenary breath, that's the likelihood of being born in the human life-form. Reflect on how rare your human birth is — for every human, how many billions of other life forms there on this earth. You weren't born an insect, a sardine. With such a rare opportunity, you really should appreciate what you have right now! You should reflect how wonderful our life form is of the human embodiment, our person. How lucky we are to have it endowed liberty and opportunity. What might this mean – “liberty”? What freedoms do you have — just by being a human — that you should cherish and take advantage of? Imagine you were born a rabbit, a life in which is continual reaction to the predator chasing you. Imagine a life as a tiger, running for your own food. If you have trouble with this, ask yourself: If I were born a canary, I would not be able to... As a human, you can pause and reflect on what your situation is and then use your intelligence to choose a path of action. Beyond the freedom which comes from being a human, what other liberties are you blessed with? Chances are if you are taking this lesson, contemplating practicing this path, you enjoy freedoms many other humans do not. Do you think “I have no time to develop my practice, I have no time
[Zen] Body surfing as practice
It has been a year since I jumped in the waves, so I stand in the water a newbie, unacquainted with the ebb and flow. There is no controlling the water, merely seeing clearly and responding appropriately. Waves roll ceaselessly-sometimes my eager mind wants me to jump in front of a wave before the wave has arrived. Sometimes my regretful mind wants me to jump after a wave already gone. Sometimes, I wait and jump with the wave, caught up into the swirling process of breaking on the shore, pushed along into the shore, not caring or worrying for a thing just knowing the exultant motion of life: balanced between air and water, rolling along, held tenderly in the center, the wave and rider are flung together with sand and foam and shells and motion and seaweed and friction and light . . eventually I emerge, the wave gone, and stand up and drain the water from my sinuses and nose and eyes, establishing some idea of inside and outside, and walk to the waves.
Re: [Zen] Re: Body surfing as practice
This post was my response to you and Merle asking for more personal stuff from me, and the overwhelming clear parallel between passing waves and passing moments. Except maybe for the bit when the wave has crashed and I am lying in 4 inches of water, thrilled by life. I try not to speak well of myself or poorly of others, no matter how much their idiocy seems to call out for mocking insults. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 25, 2013 9:55 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, Nice analogy, but you didn't insult anyone in it. Are you sure you're posting this on the right forum? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: It has been a year since I jumped in the waves, so I stand in the water a newbie, unacquainted with the ebb and flow. There is no controlling the water, merely seeing clearly and responding appropriately. Waves roll ceaselessly-sometimes my eager mind wants me to jump in front of a wave before the wave has arrived. Sometimes my regretful mind wants me to jump after a wave already gone. Sometimes, I wait and jump with the wave, caught up into the swirling process of breaking on the shore, pushed along into the shore, not caring or worrying for a thing just knowing the exultant motion of life: balanced between air and water, rolling along, held tenderly in the center, the wave and rider are flung together with sand and foam and shells and motion and seaweed and friction and light . . eventually I emerge, the wave gone, and stand up and drain the water from my sinuses and nose and eyes, establishing some idea of inside and outside, and walk to the waves. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: God
What is more trivial than selling water by the river? Maybe hoping that reason can save one? Perhaps rather than the word trivial, I should have said the language taken from Japan and ancient India and China lead Westerners to assume that zazen is about some quick fix, pulling down some low hanging fruit, yet another texture to add to the quilt of multiculturalism. Here's my chanting CD, here's my saree, here's an elephant statur, here's my guru's (that I met once in Central Park) picture, here's my zafu. Oh Yeah, I see Buddha nature in the Whole Foods produce section after I mindfully buy some MSC fish. Using language from our tradition, seeing the face of God, perhaps will slow people down a bit, so when Bill speaks of no thoughts, they are prepared to listen, and to appreciate why he might find that a turning point in his life. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 18, 2013 1:42 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, Merle, Joe, et al... Could you get anymore trivial and any more true than the saying which is also the title of a book: selling water by the river? What is more trivial than water? What is more precious than water? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:  yes chris..you are on the correct path to this trivial...i think edgar calls it comic book zen...merle  http://www.thesatoriteacompany.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IK735YHVtA http://zenhabits.net/ I believe you must simply be failing to understand my words here.  You've never seen US culture trivialize zen? http://cherrycrime26.hubpages.com/hub/Meditation-Techniques-To-Manifest-Money http://www.zenprofits.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Centered-Transform-Your-Weeks-Meditation/dp/1401935869 Oh well, Chris Thanks, --Chris chris@... +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Joe desert_woodworker@... wrote: Chris, I never heard such stuff.  Dunno where you may be coming from. It may be just a geographic or cultural proclivity, or merely and importantly personal. I hope you and your chosen teacher will take these things up, if they are important in (Zen) practice. Best, --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: I wasn't really referring to the case when people with a lot of aware experiences of buddha nature trivialize it - that seems like a non-problem to me. I was referring to the tendency of [my, i.e. US] culture to trivialize everything, especially stuff from other traditions, e.g. http://zeninamoment.com/  or http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/list/1 http://bigmind.org/genpo-roshi People want to think that there is some simple fix that they can acquire, rather than that there is no problem, and nothing to fix but their own tendencies to blindness, irritation and wanting stuff, which is extremely non-trivial to lay down, and that the process of laying down these tendencies is so profoundly satisfying that one can't find it trivial; it is as trivial as singing in the rain while feeling happy. In my experience, people in the US are apt to paper over the most profound moments with silly thin ideas, turning away from the suchness we have a chance to share in and turning towards some paper-thing abstraction. Do I think that substituting seeing God or seeing the face of God might help someone understand Just This! or experience Buddha nature?  I find it likely enough to be worth discussing. 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
Re: [Zen] Re: God
I think the inescapable meanness in your words here show very well that there is no permanent essence attached to persons or to awakening. Sometimes Merle's words show she gets it, at that time. Sometimes your words show that. Everyone that writes here has I think missed the mark from time to time. That’s a good lesson-we aren't really separate from one another and sometimes we join the dance eyes open and sometimes eyes closed, so our partners make way for us. I respect your long history of practise and achievement, but with language like every and compared and more advanced I think you show us that no amount of practise is enough. You may hold to an essential difference between yourself and Merle and I as less advanced, but today I do not see that dividing line. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 17, 2013 6:42 PM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, I've seen Merle trivialize it, in every post. Hi, Cous'! Luv ya. Compared to / with her posts, Americans are more advanced in practice than you and me. Trivialize? I'm an old man, C. This goes / has gone with the territory. But, find yourself in a community of practitioners, and you will find critical mass. Looky-here, C.: there's Zen; and, there's hooey. I think it's always been so. When it comes to Zen... only a Practitioner, well, knows. We forgive all trivializations. How could anyone else know? We know that practice is necessary. And we try to extend our appreciation of our practice to others. But do not proselytize. This is why I teach. To the extent that I do. Since 1980. I don't forgive my (your) culture; and, I don't indict it. It takes a Certain Maturity, to take up our Practice. You won't find it online. Usually. Rare exceptions. Bill!, and me; Mike; and you. Maybe some lurkers. And Mr. Zendervish, here, certainly. Kudos, and hail!, all non-fuddlers! --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: http://www.thesatoriteacompany.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IK735YHVtA http://zenhabits.net/ I believe you must simply be failing to understand my words here. You've never seen US culture trivialize zen? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: God
I am often charged with having no sense of humor, indeed and in person. A defensive posture adopted for often being puzzled by human interaction. I will try to act from a stance that all here have good will. I myself am about to pack up my zafu for a trip back to my family of origin, to share a week at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean and welcome my new niece. I will probably have even more time to write here than normally. May these bits find all of us well, free of suffering and well in our body/minds and our interrelating. http://www.zensoaps.com Love, Chris Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 18, 2013 6:57 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Merle, Chris and Joe... Chris' post was well thought out. His posts usually are, even the ones I disagree with. In this one I especially liked his observation that especially on this site Everyone that writes here has I think missed the mark from time to time. I do think however a good deal of Chris' discomfort with Joe's posts are more of style than substance. Joe uses humor, which sometimes leads to quips and sarcasm. Some people take those more personally and harshly than others. Chris' style is pretty much straight-up and more consistently serious. Merle's style seems to be completely spontaneous and somewhat quirky at times. Edgar? Well, Edgar is just Edgar. Anyway I don't think anybody here is trying to hurt anyone's feelings or purposely trying to offend. There is sometimes jabs here and there (I certainly jab sometimes), but I assume that's just to get someone's attention or emphasis a point. Those are my thoughts on this...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:  a comforting well thought out post chris...merle  I think the inescapable meanness in your words here show very well that there is no permanent essence attached to persons or to awakening. Sometimes Merle's words show she gets it, at that time. Sometimes your words show that. Everyone that writes here has I think missed the mark from time to time. That’s a good lesson-we aren't really separate from one another and sometimes we join the dance eyes open and sometimes eyes closed, so our partners make way for us. I respect your long history of practise and achievement, but with language like every and compared and more advanced I think you show us that no amount of practise is enough. You may hold to an essential difference between yourself and Merle and I as less advanced, but today I do not see that dividing line. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 17, 2013 6:42 PM, Joe desert_woodworker@... wrote: Chris, I've seen Merle trivialize it, in every post.  Hi, Cous'!  Luv ya. Compared to / with her posts, Americans are more advanced in practice than you and me. Trivialize?  I'm an old man, C.  This goes / has gone with the territory.  But, find yourself in a community of practitioners, and you will find critical mass. Looky-here, C.: there's Zen; and, there's hooey.  I think it's always been so.  When it comes to Zen... only a Practitioner, well, knows.  We forgive all trivializations.  How could anyone else know?  We know that practice is necessary.  And we try to extend our appreciation of our practice to others.  But do not proselytize. This is why I teach.  To the extent that I do.  Since 1980. I don't forgive my (your) culture; and, I don't indict it.  It takes a Certain Maturity, to take up our Practice.  You won't find it online.  Usually.  Rare exceptions.  Bill!, and me;  Mike; and you.  Maybe some lurkers.  And Mr. Zendervish, here, certainly.  Kudos, and hail!, all non-fuddlers! --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: http://www.thesatoriteacompany.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IK735YHVtA http://zenhabits.net/ I believe you must simply be failing to understand my words here.  You've never seen US culture trivialize zen? 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
Re: [Zen] Re: God
I wasn't really referring to the case when people with a lot of aware experiences of buddha nature trivialize it - that seems like a non-problem to me. I was referring to the tendency of [my, i.e. US] culture to trivialize everything, especially stuff from other traditions, e.g. http://zeninamoment.com/ or http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/list/1 http://bigmind.org/genpo-roshi People want to think that there is some simple fix that they can acquire, rather than that there is no problem, and nothing to fix but their own tendencies to blindness, irritation and wanting stuff, which is extremely non-trivial to lay down, and that the process of laying down these tendencies is so profoundly satisfying that one can't find it trivial; it is as trivial as singing in the rain while feeling happy. In my experience, people in the US are apt to paper over the most profound moments with silly thin ideas, turning away from the suchness we have a chance to share in and turning towards some paper-thing abstraction. Do I think that substituting seeing God or seeing the face of God might help someone understand Just This! or experience Buddha nature? I find it likely enough to be worth discussing. --Chris Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 16, 2013 1:47 PM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, thank you taking the care to translate. All copied. ;-) Silly thin ideas? Are those thumb-pressed keys really making OK contact? Is there anyone here new to Zen who you will help? I hope so. Happy Day, --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I reread my paragraph and the garbled bit is so then I am not really addressing you rather than do then I am really addressing you. I am not addressing you because you seem to have some idea of one mind is God seeing and no mind is superior. I am trying to make a point about using rhe language to meet God instead of experience Buddha nature so that Westerners new to Zen will not mistake silly thin ideas for experiencing Buddha nature. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] trivial pursuit
Thanks Merle, that's just the point I was trying to make. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 17, 2013 4:13 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: chris...i checked the websites..there is so much there out on net..every tom dick and jennifer think they have the answers to the meaning of life... there so many i can help you types..one could get totally bamboozled...it is the age of the self help books as well... all seems to be in crisis..the age of seek happiness...seek seek seek...when in reality it is really as bill so often say experience and edgar says reality reality...i t's really about acceptance as it is...you can only change what can be changed and accept what cannot...and try to make the best of things... this trivialisation of the meaning of life...well only a trivial mind will create trivia... if that satisfies that mind what can you do?.. it's a bit like being satisfied with cheap fast food not slow cooking.. nothing trivial about singing in the rain..especially after a long heartbreaking drought... all can be put into perspective.. merle I wasn't really referring to the case when people with a lot of aware experiences of buddha nature trivialize it - that seems like a non-problem to me. I was referring to the tendency of [my, i.e. US] culture to trivialize everything, especially stuff from other traditions, e.g. http://zeninamoment.com/ or http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/list/1 http://bigmind.org/genpo-roshi People want to think that there is some simple fix that they can acquire, rather than that there is no problem, and nothing to fix but their own tendencies to blindness, irritation and wanting stuff, which is extremely non-trivial to lay down, and that the process of laying down these tendencies is so profoundly satisfying that one can't find it trivial; it is as trivial as singing in the rain while feeling happy. In my experience, people in the US are apt to paper over the most profound moments with silly thin ideas, turning away from the suchness we have a chance to share in and turning towards some paper-thing abstraction. Do I think that substituting seeing God or seeing the face of God might help someone understand Just This! or experience Buddha nature? I find it likely enough to be worth discussing. --Chris Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 16, 2013 1:47 PM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, thank you taking the care to translate. All copied. ;-) Silly thin ideas? Are those thumb-pressed keys really making OK contact? Is there anyone here new to Zen who you will help? I hope so. Happy Day, --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I reread my paragraph and the garbled bit is so then I am not really addressing you rather than do then I am really addressing you. I am not addressing you because you seem to have some idea of one mind is God seeing and no mind is superior. I am trying to make a point about using rhe language to meet God instead of experience Buddha nature so that Westerners new to Zen will not mistake silly thin ideas for experiencing Buddha nature. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: God
http://www.thesatoriteacompany.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IK735YHVtA http://zenhabits.net/ I believe you must simply be failing to understand my words here. You've never seen US culture trivialize zen? http://cherrycrime26.hubpages.com/hub/Meditation-Techniques-To-Manifest-Money http://www.zenprofits.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Centered-Transform-Your-Weeks-Meditation/dp/1401935869 Oh well, Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, I never heard such stuff. Dunno where you may be coming from. It may be just a geographic or cultural proclivity, or merely and importantly personal. I hope you and your chosen teacher will take these things up, if they are important in (Zen) practice. Best, --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I wasn't really referring to the case when people with a lot of aware experiences of buddha nature trivialize it - that seems like a non-problem to me. I was referring to the tendency of [my, i.e. US] culture to trivialize everything, especially stuff from other traditions, e.g. http://zeninamoment.com/ or http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/list/1 http://bigmind.org/genpo-roshi People want to think that there is some simple fix that they can acquire, rather than that there is no problem, and nothing to fix but their own tendencies to blindness, irritation and wanting stuff, which is extremely non-trivial to lay down, and that the process of laying down these tendencies is so profoundly satisfying that one can't find it trivial; it is as trivial as singing in the rain while feeling happy. In my experience, people in the US are apt to paper over the most profound moments with silly thin ideas, turning away from the suchness we have a chance to share in and turning towards some paper-thing abstraction. Do I think that substituting seeing God or seeing the face of God might help someone understand Just This! or experience Buddha nature? I find it likely enough to be worth discussing. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] trivial pursuit
Joe, pretend I'm not addressing you with the current thread - clearly we are failing to communicate, yet I am curious about the responses of other practioners to my words. Sorry, --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, Merle, Dunno why you bother with Colonel Sanders. Finger-Lickin' good, notwithstanding. I thought you were practicing Zen, of some (Soto) sort. Merle, sorry: you are not practicing Soto Zen. --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: Thanks Merle, that's just the point I was trying to make. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 17, 2013 4:13 PM, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: chris...i checked the websites..there is so much there out on net..every tom dick and jennifer think they have the answers to the meaning of life... Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: God
I think a more exact parallel is meeting God with experiencing Buddha nature. As a non-Christian mystic I wonder how you derived your theory of seeing God being fundamentally distinct from no-mind. Surely you are not speaking from experience? Credit to Brad Warner for this. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 16, 2013 8:43 AM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Bill!, Edgar, Nobody's act of defining changes the fact that one is an experience and one is an illusion. Christian Contemplative Mystics experience God, and they suppose that the Buddha Nature they've heard about is some poor unsaved person's illusion; Zen Buddhists experience Buddha Nature and suppose that God must be somebody elses' illusion who has not yet heard of Buddhadharma. But a distinction we can draw is that Buddha Nature is experienced only when there is No-Mind. God is an experience of people who stop at One-Mind in their practice. This is why a Zen teacher is absolutely necessary to guide a practitioner to *keep going* in intensive practice, and not to stop at One-Mind. One cannot do this oneself. If you stop at One-Mind (a quite wonderful state, itself), you do not experience No-Mind, and you do not therefore know Zen, and Zen-Mind, which is No-Mind. --Joe Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Edgar, Yes, I see that you define them as the same thing. That's fine. I don't however. I assume that's fine too... ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: God
That is pretty much what Sensei Warner is calling the experience of meeting God. Only afterwards, of course, not during. He favors this word over the Buddha nature word for Westerners who have a tendency to trivialize Budda nature. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 16, 2013 9:40 AM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, Warner gets a demerit. One-Mind is the state where-from God can be perceived. From No-Mind there is no such thing. Nor is there anything else. --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I think a more exact parallel is meeting God with experiencing Buddha nature. As a non-Christian mystic I wonder how you derived your theory of seeing God being fundamentally distinct from no-mind. Surely you are not speaking from experience? Credit to Brad Warner for this. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Jesus and Advaita
There is a very enjoyable Manga series on the life of Buddha by Osama Tezuka, actually. Some gorgeous art and a good story and an interesting if not orthodox take on his biography and teachings. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 15, 2013 3:30 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Uncle Scrooge was my favorite. But I outgrew them. Edgar On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Merle Lester wrote: edgar...tolerance and compassion please... what is not a comic book to you? you are so so anti comic books did you actually ever get to read any as a kid? merle Merle and Bill, Total comic book BS. Jesus, a fully enlightened teacher ? What does that even mean to you two? Obviously nothing other than a warm fuzzy ego feeling you can use to put some concept to bed without thinking about it any more Edgar On Jun 14, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Merle Lester wrote: yes bill..me too i agree..merle Suresh, As you probably know I believe Jesus was a fully enlightened teacher. I think he just taught and spoke using the language of Judaism - much the way Buddha used the language of Hinduism. Two book I liked are: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ZEN which is a collection of writings by various authors including Alan Watts, and focused on the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (which is not in the official Bible). http://www.amazon.com/The-Gospel-According-Zen-Beyond/dp/0451627156 I also like THE MUSTARD SEED by Bagran Sri Rashneeh (AKA Osho) which also focused on the Gospel of Thomas. http://www.amazon.com/Mustard-Seed-Bhagwan-Shree-Rajneesh/dp/B000NXJ71M ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, SURESH JAGADEESAN varamtha@... wrote: Jesus and Advaita:- HERE IS A COPY OF A MAIL RECEIVED FROM A FRIEND AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOME Bible and christian quotes in the light of Advaita:- Here an attempt is being made to interpret the parables of Jesus, in the light of the knowledge contained in the innumerable scriptures of our ancient land of Bharat. When interpreted thus, all sectarian ideas imposed on the teachings of Christ, such as rejecting all alternative paths, other than Christianity as false, will disappear. The illogical tenets imposed by the Church such as making it mandatory for the whole world to accept the person Jesus as their saviour, in order to be saved from the eternal suffering in hell, finds no place in the real teachings of Christ. Christ's teachings are primarily concerned about the ultimate reality of the universe being one's real Self or consciousness. He necessitates the withdrawal of one's senses from the sense objects and relations of the world, so as to come into the eternal blissful state of being one with the Self, which he calls Entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Hindu Rishis have declared, Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahuta Vadanti which means Truth is ONE; the learned people call it by different names. This is a statement made by the Rishis who have attained self realisation. The Rishi declares without an iota of doubt that Truth is one. They say this because they have fully realised it themselves. There is no scope for doubt. They say it with absolute conviction. They have seen the Truth themselves. Therefore they say, wherever the learned men are, they speak about this same Truth. Because there is no second Truth about which anyone can speak. Therefore the Rishi say, even though the learned men may use different names, they all speak about the same Truth. So whether you call it the `Kingdom of God', or you call it JeevanMukthi they all refer to the liberated state of the soul. The teachings of Jesus are very much in accordance with the Advaita Vedanta philosophy contained in Vedic texts. Jesus does not speak about a Kingdom of God, which shall be established in a future time. In fact the Kingdom of God transcends time itself and one shall enter it by living in the present moment, by connecting to one's inner Self. Jesus says that in order to realise the Father one must detach oneself from this objective manifested world which is impermanent, and meditate on the Self. Jesus is a spiritual master who has to be seen as a Self realised soul, a person who has attained the ultimate Goal prescribed in our scriptures. The Text of the Gospel of Thomas These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke. This opening words of this text, gives a very important clue. It says that the sayings are secret. If we study the teachings of Jesus, he himself says that Truth cannot be hidden and that it will reveal itself. There is nothing secret about the teachings of Christ, in the sense that it shouldn't be imparted to other people. If someone wants to experience sweetness merely hearing the word sweet is not enough. He must eat sugar himself so as to experience sweetness. And he said,
Re: [Zen] Re: God
I think we can find people on this very listserv that trivialize Buddha nature, making it a picture of itself rather. And you seem resolute in keeping rhe meanings you assign to words and to change the topic to that rather than working for communication about the meanings I was explaining for the words, do then I am really addressing you. If you wish to have some discussion about one mind, fine, but I am interested in discussion the parallels between experiencing Buddha nature and meeting God. In order to convey to Westerner's that this experience is not some small point. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 16, 2013 10:21 AM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Chris, That's interesting. Probably only in the recent book of his I've heard you name does he do that(?). Not everybody in the West who comes to Zen practice is going to be thrilled by talk of God, in any connection. But they can just avoid buying his book. ;-) I've never heard of anyone trivializing Buddha Nature. If anything, they trivialize God: and that's why they've left the religion of their father (or mother, if they are Jewish). Having not attained One-Mind (most Christians and Jews and Muslims are not mystical practitioners, unfortunately), they don't have the experience of God, and carry only the cultural transmission of a God-influence in family, society, and History, and through worship gatherings. Experience of No-Mind, Buddha Mind, Buddha Nature, Zen-Mind, Nirmanakaya, etc., names for the same experience, does not cause one to de-value the experience of others who met God, and lived in One-Mind state for a while, or live as such now, but it certainly dissuades us from staying there, at One-Mind. Not that it's a bad state. It's just that, once you have lived with Zen-Mind, you know One-Mind for what it is. Again, it's not bad, though. But it does not bewitch you, and cannot: One just keeps practicing. A happy Father's Day to you, Old Man! --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: That is pretty much what Sensei Warner is calling the experience of meeting God. Only afterwards, of course, not during. He favors this word over the Buddha nature word for Westerners who have a tendency to trivialize Budda nature. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] God
There is a new book out by Brad Warner about this topic called There Is No God and He is Everywhere. I am only on chapter 2 but it is interesting so far. The straw Gods that people argue against here (based I suppose on the media reports of extremist positions) are given short shrift, but the idea of God outside of our beliefs and thoughts is fleshed out. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 14, 2013 3:05 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: mike... indeed it is good..and so we do at the end of the day...you cannot reason the existence of god.. god is god is god... merle Merle, I half agree and disagree. I think it's good for us to contemplate these kind of issues from time to time and then thru diligent practice the 'answers' can be realised. For example, do you blindly accept the existence of God or do you also use reason? I would agree that it is only thru experiential wisdom that these kind of questions will be resolved - usually in the form of no longer needing to ask such questions of ourselves - but there have been some great thinkers from the jnana school of yoga, too. I think Suresh may have had such exposure. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] God * Sent: * Fri, Jun 14, 2013 11:32:35 AM relax suresh...stop the mind games..relax...and as joe says practice...merle Dear Sirs, For last few days. I was wondering whether there can be any god at all, I being born Hindu Brahmin, keep going to temples, and hearing all those discourses, Bhajans, etc., and wanted to see the god right in front of my eyes. But that did not happened so far. May be I might have imagined and brought those image right in front of my closed eyes, but that is not the god. After reading JK and OSHO, I wondered what the truth is. Ramana had mixed teachings. He says self is all, and self is god or self is guru. At one place on dissolution, there exist only brahman, and not god, so god is the product of maya. Now what is god? Is god Shiva or Vishnu? There are group of saints who has seen god as Shiva, and there are group of saints who has seen god as Vishnu. And there are other saints who has seen god in different names and forms. In recent days, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa claimed to have seen god has Kali. Ramana states god is in heart cave just like shivalinga. Now those who claim god in some form are highly intelligent and done great virtues. Now Buddha maintained a neutral state, neither deny god, nor accept god, by not speaking about god. The Atheist who deny god, mainly shows the inequality of the world, such as some are rich and some are poor. And many who are doing bad deeds, live happily and those who always does good deeds live in miserable condition. If god would have been there, who is supposed to be full of love, why he has not given good life for those who does good deeds? For this inequality there is one answer that is Karma. Those who did good karmas in past life, now are enjoying and those who did bad karmas in the past life are suffering. But those who are in good living condition, why haven’t learnt in their past life not to do any bad karmas now, because they only cause suffering to others. Most of the Suffering or happiness is caused by human beings alone even though nature also plays role here, science states even the suffering caused by nature is also in turn by human beings only, because of his unintelligent acts with nature. Then why these human beings haven’t learnt to be happy while living on this earth? Then the answer is selfishness. Again this selfishness is cause of ignorance. The ignorance is that human beings doesn’t learn that my happiness is depends on your happiness. If I want to be happy, then I have to make you happy, then only my happiness is not disturbed by you. So human beings have to learn the principle of sharing. But this sharing is not an easy thing for human beings. Why? Because unconsciously we believe that by sharing our happiness diminishes. So we always like to possess more. Common belief is that if one possesses more, than more happier he will be. That possession can be of anything, it may be of wealth, it may be of knowledge, it may be of people. And this desire to possess has no limit. The rich want to become more rich. The knowledgeable person wants to become more knowledgeable. The person who controls large crowd of people, want to establish his control in much larger crowd. So in nutshell the human mind do not mind to possess if it can possess the universe also. Who will like to possess? To possess something, one need to have space. To possess more rich wealth, one need more space. To possess more knowledge, one needs to have more space in brain. So this desire to possess rises
Re: [Zen] to agree or not to agree
You are falsely modest, Merle. If you do not make the art, who will? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 11, 2013 12:57 AM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: that someone should know better...merle You are on the top of a tree, hanging on by your teeth. Someone comes by and asks if they should get a teacher. If.you answer you will fall. If you do not answer, they will not find the way. What do you do? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 10, 2013 8:35 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: agreement is not necessarily awakening...merle Merle, That would be immaterial; but, go ahead and see; I don't mind. You pay attention for both of us -- you and me!, i.e. -- please. On this score, there is no doubt anywhere, ...and it's a big universe. See if Bill! agrees, and Mike, and Chris. And Subhana, Roshi. And John Tarrant Roshi. In your neck of the woods. Etc. --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe... right joe..i get the picture! ..does edgar agree?..merle Merle, Don't bother continuing this. Continue with your Practice. See a Teacher as you are able. Everything depends on that.
Re: [Zen] Re: The Book of Mirdad
Edgar, You write as tho you have caught your self engaged in self-deception, or partial blindness of your own reality. For those of us who have a tendency to prefer things to be slightly other than they are, or who have a lifetime of not seeing certain parts of our functioning, ir can be useful to have a teacher. It is harder to fool more people at the same time. Plus, having a teacher to bounce things off of is pleasant. YMMV of course, and perhaps my own self unawareness is much higher than the average. Chris Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 11, 2013 3:57 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, Yes, in the limited teacher student context. But as I've explained before reality is the ONLY real teacher. Human teachers may or may not serve as little pieces of reality that facilitate pointing out Buddha Nature. But there is NO NEED AT ALL to 'convince' your teacher to pass the koan. You either realize Buddha Nature or you don't. If you do the teacher is no longer relevant One demonstrates Buddha Nature to Buddha Nature by realizing Buddha Nature. NO teacher necessary other than reality itself. Only dependent personalities think teachers are a necessity. Did you need a teacher to start breathing when you were born? Edgar On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Yes, demonstrating Buddha Nature is the 'answer' or 'solution' to all koans. And yes, that could involve pointing, or an utterance, or some other action or even silence and no action. And yes, you do have to 'convince' your teacher to pass the koan - at least if you want to gain his/her verification that you have passed the koan. After you have passed the koan there was at least in my case then some rational conversation about the structure of the koan and on what it was specifically designed to focus. These discussions were intended to prepare you for becoming a teacher. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, There is only one answer or solution to ALL koans. And that is Buddha Nature. So all one has to do in response to any koan is simply to point to anything at all and convincingly bring attention to its Buddha Nature. But as I say repeatedly anything at all can be a koan to get you to that realization. Reality itself is ultimately the ONLY koan even in its seemingly most insignificant aspect... Edgar On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:17 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I agree with Joe here. All the 'breakthrough' koans (the first ones that are specifically designed to induce kensho (first experience of Buddha Nature)require a demonstration rather than an explanation. For example my first koan was Joshu's MU and my teacher's request was to BRING me Mu and SHOW me Mu - certainly not explain what Joshu's answer 'Mu' means. In later koans, although still requiring actions or demonstrations, there is some room for intellectual discussions with your teacher, although these discussions are usually focused on just what the koan is specifically designed to accomplish rather than a discussion on the meaning of the actual content. This has been my experience with koan study anyway, and this was with two different zen masters - although admittedly the two zen masters were from the same 'school' and they themselves had a teacher:student relationship at one time. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@ wrote: Edgar, If YOU take things literally, then that's what YOU do. Anyone who passes the koan What is the sound of One Hand?, makes a demonstration. It's easy, at that time. After that work. What are you all hung up about? Edgar, note, too: my practice has been not too much on koans; after a few, my teacher saw the road ahead for me, and that was not koans. Either, no need, or no aptitude. From my point of view, after a point, it was: No need for gumdrops along the way. Yet, all Hail! for folks who go on this way longer that I did. I took my Doctor's prescription and switched modalities. Hail! I'm lucky to have had such a teacher. May you be lucky in this way, in some life. --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Joe, The point of my reply to your post both of which you obsessively snipped is this Your post went against even the view of koans you are supposed to believe in as an orthodox zennist. You and Bill claim that koans have no solution but are to be discarded in a satori. But instead your post claimed that you not only understood the sound of one hand but could produce it yourself. Thus you don't even understand the naive view of koans Bill does... You are not supposed to take the koan to heart as if it actually expressed something but to discard it... Even Bill knows that...
Re: [Zen] Re: The Book of Mirdad
I mean any human who has some psychological blindness to parts of their current reality can benefit from interactions with another person, especially in tasks where the tendency to fool yourself is a factor. That's why teachers are generally useful. Your true statement about teachers not being needed to realize freedom seems to ignore that part of my humanity, the part that can't handle the truth. I can’t assume you have a tendency to fool yourself, but I am confident most people do. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 11, 2013 9:14 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, I have no idea what you are saying here. Or where this seemingly irrational conclusion came from. Or are you projecting? Edgar On Jun 11, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Edgar, You write as tho you have caught your self engaged in self-deception, or partial blindness of your own reality. For those of us who have a tendency to prefer things to be slightly other than they are, or who have a lifetime of not seeing certain parts of our functioning, ir can be useful to have a teacher. It is harder to fool more people at the same time. Plus, having a teacher to bounce things off of is pleasant. YMMV of course, and perhaps my own self unawareness is much higher than the average. Chris Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 11, 2013 3:57 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, Yes, in the limited teacher student context. But as I've explained before reality is the ONLY real teacher. Human teachers may or may not serve as little pieces of reality that facilitate pointing out Buddha Nature. But there is NO NEED AT ALL to 'convince' your teacher to pass the koan. You either realize Buddha Nature or you don't. If you do the teacher is no longer relevant One demonstrates Buddha Nature to Buddha Nature by realizing Buddha Nature. NO teacher necessary other than reality itself. Only dependent personalities think teachers are a necessity. Did you need a teacher to start breathing when you were born? Edgar On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Yes, demonstrating Buddha Nature is the 'answer' or 'solution' to all koans. And yes, that could involve pointing, or an utterance, or some other action or even silence and no action. And yes, you do have to 'convince' your teacher to pass the koan - at least if you want to gain his/her verification that you have passed the koan. After you have passed the koan there was at least in my case then some rational conversation about the structure of the koan and on what it was specifically designed to focus. These discussions were intended to prepare you for becoming a teacher. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, There is only one answer or solution to ALL koans. And that is Buddha Nature. So all one has to do in response to any koan is simply to point to anything at all and convincingly bring attention to its Buddha Nature. But as I say repeatedly anything at all can be a koan to get you to that realization. Reality itself is ultimately the ONLY koan even in its seemingly most insignificant aspect... Edgar On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:17 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I agree with Joe here. All the 'breakthrough' koans (the first ones that are specifically designed to induce kensho (first experience of Buddha Nature)require a demonstration rather than an explanation. For example my first koan was Joshu's MU and my teacher's request was to BRING me Mu and SHOW me Mu - certainly not explain what Joshu's answer 'Mu' means. In later koans, although still requiring actions or demonstrations, there is some room for intellectual discussions with your teacher, although these discussions are usually focused on just what the koan is specifically designed to accomplish rather than a discussion on the meaning of the actual content. This has been my experience with koan study anyway, and this was with two different zen masters - although admittedly the two zen masters were from the same 'school' and they themselves had a teacher:student relationship at one time. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@ wrote: Edgar, If YOU take things literally, then that's what YOU do. Anyone who passes the koan What is the sound of One Hand?, makes a demonstration. It's easy, at that time. After that work. What are you all hung up about? Edgar, note, too: my practice has been not too much on koans; after a few, my teacher saw the road ahead for me, and that was not koans. Either, no need, or no aptitude. From my point of view, after a point, it was: No need for gumdrops along the way. Yet, all Hail! for folks who go on this way longer that I did. I took my Doctor's prescription and switched modalities. Hail
Re: [Zen] to agree or not to agree
You are on the top of a tree, hanging on by your teeth. Someone comes by and asks if they should get a teacher. If.you answer you will fall. If you do not answer, they will not find the way. What do you do? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 10, 2013 8:35 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: agreement is not necessarily awakening...merle Merle, That would be immaterial; but, go ahead and see; I don't mind. You pay attention for both of us -- you and me!, i.e. -- please. On this score, there is no doubt anywhere, ...and it's a big universe. See if Bill! agrees, and Mike, and Chris. And Subhana, Roshi. And John Tarrant Roshi. In your neck of the woods. Etc. --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe... right joe..i get the picture! ..does edgar agree?..merle Merle, Don't bother continuing this. Continue with your Practice. See a Teacher as you are able. Everything depends on that.
Re: [Zen] Re: The Book of Mirdad
I didn't think you had done Koan training, Edgar? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 8, 2013 4:40 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, O boy, here we go again Maybe YOUR intellect shuts down but my intellect IS Buddha Nature Edgar On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:17 PM, Bill! wrote: Suresh, et al... I agree with Joe here. In fact zen koans are used to exhaust logic and dialectic. When you try to use logic or dialectic to 'solve' a koan you will continually fail and eventually will just give up out of frustration or boredom - much the way you can relax your mind by gazing into a fire (chaotic image) or hearing a repetitious sound (ticking of a clock). Your mind may first try to 'make sense' (create a perception) out of the changing images of the flames or the constant ticking of the clock, but eventually will just 'tune them out'. The same happens with to your intellect during a koan. It eventually just shuts down - and what then is left? Buddha Nature! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@... wrote: Suresh, Well, obsessed is too strong -- and wrong -- a word. On a Zen forum, I don't mind speaking about Zen, however. Your habit seems to speak about all else but Zen. Other things enter here from time to time, of course, which relate to our topic. But in general, I enjoy keeping on-topic, and making the forum a more concentrated place upon the central topic that it is dedicated to. Here, such concentration is not obsession: but it is keeping on topic, and following the Terms of Service of the board. You say you know Naimy: but he passed away 25 years ago. Did you know him personally, earlier? I do not agree that argument can lead to what you call pure consciousness. Neither does it have to do with the No Mind of Zen awakening. Argument and dialectic can only show the futility of using logic and thought to realize Buddha Mind. Once a person is satisfied -- and exhausted -- that cogitation is futile, he/she can then get down to actual practice, instead, preferably with a Zen teacher and a group, and see them regularly, and practice Zazen regularly. That is, if your interest is in fact really in Zen. --Joe Suresh varamtha@ wrote: Dear Joe, Of course the discussion was with other forum member. I know the author of The Book of Mirdad. I have posted it since it is also related to Buddha. Since that member thought Buddha also copied from vedas, I have to argue with him. Like you are so much obsessed with zen and zen only, the other member is obsessed with Hindu scriptures such as vedas. He thinks only vedas are supreme and oldest and all other have copied and told in their own way. I don't like obsession. I am free from all theories and all ism. I also wanted to indicate my way of argument, which when followed carefully arrive at pure consciousness or No self in zen terms. I only post what is related to zen, meditation, no self, the pure consciouness.
Re: [Zen] Re: The Book of Mirdad
Ok, but would you agree that Bill's descrion of classical koan training is accurate - the koan is used to silence the generation of thoughts and words? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 8, 2013 6:47 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, I've been dealing with the quantum koan all my life. Reality is the ultimate koan... Solve that one and you've got it! Edgar On Jun 8, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I didn't think you had done Koan training, Edgar? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 8, 2013 4:40 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, O boy, here we go again Maybe YOUR intellect shuts down but my intellect IS Buddha Nature Edgar On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:17 PM, Bill! wrote: Suresh, et al... I agree with Joe here. In fact zen koans are used to exhaust logic and dialectic. When you try to use logic or dialectic to 'solve' a koan you will continually fail and eventually will just give up out of frustration or boredom - much the way you can relax your mind by gazing into a fire (chaotic image) or hearing a repetitious sound (ticking of a clock). Your mind may first try to 'make sense' (create a perception) out of the changing images of the flames or the constant ticking of the clock, but eventually will just 'tune them out'. The same happens with to your intellect during a koan. It eventually just shuts down - and what then is left? Buddha Nature! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@... wrote: Suresh, Well, obsessed is too strong -- and wrong -- a word. On a Zen forum, I don't mind speaking about Zen, however. Your habit seems to speak about all else but Zen. Other things enter here from time to time, of course, which relate to our topic. But in general, I enjoy keeping on-topic, and making the forum a more concentrated place upon the central topic that it is dedicated to. Here, such concentration is not obsession: but it is keeping on topic, and following the Terms of Service of the board. You say you know Naimy: but he passed away 25 years ago. Did you know him personally, earlier? I do not agree that argument can lead to what you call pure consciousness. Neither does it have to do with the No Mind of Zen awakening. Argument and dialectic can only show the futility of using logic and thought to realize Buddha Mind. Once a person is satisfied -- and exhausted -- that cogitation is futile, he/she can then get down to actual practice, instead, preferably with a Zen teacher and a group, and see them regularly, and practice Zazen regularly. That is, if your interest is in fact really in Zen. --Joe Suresh varamtha@ wrote: Dear Joe, Of course the discussion was with other forum member. I know the author of The Book of Mirdad. I have posted it since it is also related to Buddha. Since that member thought Buddha also copied from vedas, I have to argue with him. Like you are so much obsessed with zen and zen only, the other member is obsessed with Hindu scriptures such as vedas. He thinks only vedas are supreme and oldest and all other have copied and told in their own way. I don't like obsession. I am free from all theories and all ism. I also wanted to indicate my way of argument, which when followed carefully arrive at pure consciousness or No self in zen terms. I only post what is related to zen, meditation, no self, the pure consciouness.
Re: [Zen] Re: The Book of Mirdad
I was going to say that in all my conversations with people studying koans and all my reading of zen, I have never before run into a claim of solving a koan. However, in fact, there is a book called After Zen about a Dutch detective who becomes disillusioned with Zen (Rinzai school, as practised in Canada at a remote monastery) and who found his tradition to be a bit abusive, which has a scene where the author and another former student discuss how demonstrating anger is necessary for the teacher to pass a student. Cheers, Chris Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 Chris, That's the theory, but it's only one of several types of first steps for beginners to (hopefully) get a little satori experience by temporarily exhausting their brains trying to figure out something that doesn't have an easy solution. The other approach is to actually SOLVE the koan and experience the Buddha Nature in reality that way... After that one eventually realizes that Buddha Nature is the essence of everything including intellect... Edgar On Jun 8, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Ok, but would you agree that Bill's descrion of classical koan training is accurate - the koan is used to silence the generation of thoughts and words? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 8, 2013 6:47 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, I've been dealing with the quantum koan all my life. Reality is the ultimate koan... Solve that one and you've got it! Edgar On Jun 8, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I didn't think you had done Koan training, Edgar? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 8, 2013 4:40 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, O boy, here we go again Maybe YOUR intellect shuts down but my intellect IS Buddha Nature Edgar On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:17 PM, Bill! wrote: Suresh, et al... I agree with Joe here. In fact zen koans are used to exhaust logic and dialectic. When you try to use logic or dialectic to 'solve' a koan you will continually fail and eventually will just give up out of frustration or boredom - much the way you can relax your mind by gazing into a fire (chaotic image) or hearing a repetitious sound (ticking of a clock). Your mind may first try to 'make sense' (create a perception) out of the changing images of the flames or the constant ticking of the clock, but eventually will just 'tune them out'. The same happens with to your intellect during a koan. It eventually just shuts down - and what then is left? Buddha Nature! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@... wrote: Suresh, Well, obsessed is too strong -- and wrong -- a word. On a Zen forum, I don't mind speaking about Zen, however. Your habit seems to speak about all else but Zen. Other things enter here from time to time, of course, which relate to our topic. But in general, I enjoy keeping on-topic, and making the forum a more concentrated place upon the central topic that it is dedicated to. Here, such concentration is not obsession: but it is keeping on topic, and following the Terms of Service of the board. You say you know Naimy: but he passed away 25 years ago. Did you know him personally, earlier? I do not agree that argument can lead to what you call pure consciousness. Neither does it have to do with the No Mind of Zen awakening. Argument and dialectic can only show the futility of using logic and thought to realize Buddha Mind. Once a person is satisfied -- and exhausted -- that cogitation is futile, he/she can then get down to actual practice, instead, preferably with a Zen teacher and a group, and see them regularly, and practice Zazen regularly. That is, if your interest is in fact really in Zen. --Joe Suresh varamtha@ wrote: Dear Joe, Of course the discussion was with other forum member. I know the author of The Book of Mirdad. I have posted it since it is also related to Buddha. Since that member thought Buddha also copied from vedas, I have to argue with him. Like you are so much obsessed with zen and zen only, the other member is obsessed with Hindu scriptures such as vedas. He thinks only vedas are supreme and oldest and all other have copied and told in their own way. I don't like obsession. I am free from all theories and all ism. I also wanted to indicate my way of argument, which when followed carefully arrive at pure consciousness or No self in zen terms. I only post what is related to zen, meditation, no self, the pure consciouness.
Re: [Zen] Re: The Book of Mirdad
I've never heard you describe your lineage as crazy, Joe. My practise at the moment - reading a Percy Jackson book to a very tired 8.5 year old who is fighting the bed time ritual with upset and so on. Q Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 Chris, Anger is bound to get a student a swift swat with an agile stick. That's why I make my sticks as I do: agile; swift; flexible; noisy; durable. Of quarter-sawn timber. Sometimes plain-sawn. I make them to last several lifetimes, but a teacher usually only exercises them for a single lifetime, as far as I know, then passes them on. So far, so good. No complaints! Not even from students... . --Joe Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I was going to say that in all my conversations with people studying koans and all my reading of zen, I have never before run into a claim of solving a koan. However, in fact, there is a book called After Zen about a Dutch detective who becomes disillusioned with Zen (Rinzai school, as practised in Canada at a remote monastery) and who found his tradition to be a bit abusive, which has a scene where the author and another former student discuss how demonstrating anger is necessary for the teacher to pass a student. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
To encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment? The perspective in which they are not opposites is just a beginning - in the market place each opposite is well formed, complete reality, and the distinctions are no different than the unity. Ignore the concrete and your head will be thumped. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 1, 2013 10:26 AM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Mike, Well, I'm just expressing a model or a function or condition of things as experienced in a state in which duality (and thought) were IMPOSSIBLE (for about two months, unremittingly, the first time). I don't mean to harangue with merely personal and idiosyncratic insistence(s). Not me! ;-) But I like your word resolved a lot (even though you put it parenthetically). I would have to go further, and say that Buddha Nature of course admits of these apparent opposites. They are still there. But they are just not experienced as opposites by someone who is awake. Their more true family-relatedness is appreciated (seen), as part of one's own nature. And since they are of your own nature, there is no contrast that can assert itself, and so no way for you to experience them as in any way opposite: they are only KIN to each other, in Buddha Nature; and, KIN to you (me)! My word-choice would be admits; or, nonetheless admits. Or, welcomes lovingly and seamlessly; or, supports as 'actually' non-dual features, mis-perceived AS dual by beings who are yet dreaming. --Joe uerusuboyo@... wrote: Joe, How about 'reconciled' (resolved) instead of transcended? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] The desperate Kate
Haven't you praised caffeine? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 31, 2013 9:34 AM, Joe desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com wrote: Mike, I make absolutely no moral or medical pronouncements, nor even say much about the Law; but I will say, in any case, that consciousness is one thing, and drugs are another. Just noting the difference; just talking. --Joe uerusuboyo@... wrote: Joe, Mine is a simple point. If people want to experiment with discovering different states of consciousness then let them with no fear of the law. If we don't have sovereignty over our consciousness then we have no freedom at all. That is all Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] wisdom
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 27, 2013 9:32 PM, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.j...@gmail.com wrote: Yes Merle, When we have wisdom, we would see Chan in every phenomena, every logic, every event and every sentient being. I think one can be far from wisdom, far from the end of the path, and still find each monent to be an opportunity to learn and to grow. In Three Pillars of Zen, some old proverb is quoted: when first one puts a foot upon the path of the Buddha, 10,000 Bodhisattvas spring up to assist one. In my path, I found once I started meditating, having read that there is nothing whatsoever to be clung to whatsoever as me or mine, then each situation taught me the great joy of dropping my preferences in the face of what is. I continue with preferences and my self idea, but the tiny shift in perspective allows each moment to be welcomed as a teaching even when not free of attachments to some idea of how I expected things to be. Your mileage may vary. Chris We would be in sync with the cause and effect of everything in each moment. We would be one with the universe, both in form and formless. We no longer need to agree or disagree, because we would know EACH has a reason to exist in the universe, based each particular perspectives and causes. We would be compassionate, accepting and always in peace within ourselves as well as with everyone around us. Thank you for your sharing, JM On 5/27/2013 2:30 PM, Merle Lester wrote: group the idea of wisdom is so much more than cleverness or even intelligence. it carries with it the idea of long experience, or is a perspective born of a wider view of things, and sometimes it comes as a surprising insight of a child. merle
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
There is also a translation or interpretation of Dharma Gate as being a particular type of path. One might say I have entered the way by the dharma gate of pain, and now seek to enter the dharma gate of formal lay training. Or one travels through the dharma gate of rearing small children. The dharma gate of the tea ceremony, or of typing highly available network servers. The dharma gate of procrastination. Each moment the opportunity is renewed and we have a gate to enter or to avoid. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 29, 2013 1:00 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Mike, 'Dharma' does have many meanings. I looked it up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma and one of the meaning in Buddhist Phenomenology is what you've said, however the most common meaning in Buddhism is Buddha's teachings. Desire is attachment. The bottom line is you are attached to some thought - some illusion. It doesn't matter if that thought is a thought of a 'real' woman, a drawing or an outright fantasy. The OBJECT of the attachment is not really the problem. It the SUBJECT of the attachment which is the problem and that is your illusory self. If you dissolve the illusion of self, the SUBJECT of the dualistic illusion, there is no longer any OBJECT nor relationship between them. Now all I've said is an attempt at a logical explanation of what I believe happens based on logical models (forms) and terms we both share. But as has been said over and over on this forum explanations do not really have a lot of authority in zen practice. The only real authority or source you can depend on is experience. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!,br/br/I agree with most of what you say, but I think you give a limited account of what 'dharma' means. The Dharma is, of course, the main body of Buddha's teaching as well as universal law. But 'dharmas' also have another meaning related to how reality manifests (in this case - thoughts). There are many dharma gates we have to master and seeing thoughts as illusory is only part of the picture. We don't avoid attachment to thoughts just because they are illusory, but because of the craving/aversion they create. Desiring a beautiful woman that you've painted on a piece of paper doesn't make the desire unreal even though the woman is an illusion.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/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
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
You don't make your thoughts, you merely perceive them. At least, not only is the idea of you who could make the thoughts a limited idea, but I personally can't force myself to think a certain thought, to stop thinking some certain thought, or to stop thinking altogether. It is true that zazen seems to increase the ability to focus attention instead of having it fly off, but the content of the attention is not so volitional, at least for me. I find I can notice repetitive patterns in my thoughts by paying attention, and that knowing what type of thoughts are clamoring for my attention is useful. Chris, who finds writing to the Zen forum effortless and my actual work task impossible to think about. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 29, 2013 4:45 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Edgar and Mike, So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her thoughts. I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. And they are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think there is a different set of reality for each person on this planet that they make and terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you can get. Are you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd could call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but reality. And as you know I call them all illusions. If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them what you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, temporary realities. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Mike, Correct. As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but illusion taken for reality is illusion. The thought in your head of Edgar being a member of a boy band is a perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. Edgar On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, Bill!, I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things I'd like your feedback. When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master them. Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM Bill, Philosophy and illusion [edit] Just like many other words often used in a different sense in spirituality the word illusion is used to denote different aspects in Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate illusion from truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, Illusion is something which is not true and not false. Whereas in general usage it is common to assume that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes a distinction between Maya (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this philosophy maya is true in itself but it is not true in comparison with the truth. As per this philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of truth or reality. Based on these assumptions Vedas declare that the world as humans normally see is illusion (Maya). It does not mean the world is not real. The world is only so much real as the image of a person in a mirror. The world is not real/true when compared to the reality. But the world is also not false. Falsehood is something which does not exist. if w e apply this philosophy to the above example, the illusion is not actually illusion but is false. This is because in general usage people tend to consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per adishankar's a guru of monist teachings the world we think is not true but is an illusion (not true not false). The truth of the world is something which can only be experienced by removing the identity (ego). Edgar Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
The false idea pointed to by thoughts of self included such things as choice. I think thoughts arise without volition, without much choice as we normally conceive of it. One chooses to think a given thought in roughly the same way a person who smokes chooses to have lung cancer. If by Make you mean something not involving volition, then I agree (assuming you also mean body/mind by you). My whole being != me There is nothing whatsoever to be clung to as me or mine; my whole being is just one bit of the great stream of the universe flowing on. The thing that causes a specific though rather than some other thought or non-thinking t is what I refer to as the whole history of the universe, balanced with exquisite sensitivity by the balance measuring devices, neuronal junctions and neuronal networks. Post hoc sometimes one can see what led up to a given thought, but not always. And before the thought happens, it can't really be caused or even predicted with great confidence. Maybe really good marketers can get 10% of their memes spread successfully, but in general humans are not that good at predicting what groups of humans will think and do in the future. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 29, 2013 1:53 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, You have a strange idea of what the 'you' is. Of course 'you' make your thoughts. Your whole organism is your 'you', not just your consciousness. Your whole being obviously generates your thoughts... Where else would they come from? Edgar On May 29, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: You don't make your thoughts, you merely perceive them. At least, not only is the idea of you who could make the thoughts a limited idea, but I personally can't force myself to think a certain thought, to stop thinking some certain thought, or to stop thinking altogether. It is true that zazen seems to increase the ability to focus attention instead of having it fly off, but the content of the attention is not so volitional, at least for me. I find I can notice repetitive patterns in my thoughts by paying attention, and that knowing what type of thoughts are clamoring for my attention is useful. Chris, who finds writing to the Zen forum effortless and my actual work task impossible to think about. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 29, 2013 4:45 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Edgar and Mike, So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her thoughts. I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. And they are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think there is a different set of reality for each person on this planet that they make and terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you can get. Are you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd could call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but reality. And as you know I call them all illusions. If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them what you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, temporary realities. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Mike, Correct. As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but illusion taken for reality is illusion. The thought in your head of Edgar being a member of a boy band is a perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. Edgar On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, Bill!, I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things I'd like your feedback. When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master them. Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM Bill, Philosophy and illusion [edit] Just like many other words often used in a different sense in spirituality the word illusion is used to denote different aspects in Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate illusion from truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, Illusion is something which is not true and not false. Whereas in general usage
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: I can will myself to think about the things I want to think about. There are also a lot of times I think about things spontaneously and even involuntarily. I can halt my thinking. That's what zazen/shikantaza is. Perhaps my distinction is silly, but I'm not talking about the subject of the thought (I need to think about tomorrow's schedule now -- ok go) but about the thought itself - Oh god, I have to talk to X, can't stand them. As far as stopping your thinking, I will take your word for it. When I sit, my thinking can halt, but it is not me stopping it, it is me relaxing and the natural quiet coming to the fore. Trying to will myself into no-thinking isn't too useful. I agree that thoughts are perceptions, but then again in my terminology perceptions and illusions are pretty much the same thing. Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524
Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
Your mind. I think the illusory word there is your, moreso than mind. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 26, 2013 5:10 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, NO! You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind. But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises. I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not exist! Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind and not mind. So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not yet exist when the forms arise. Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind. Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind OR external world, since these are both forms that arise. So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of experiencer and experienced. divTherefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong... At the most fundamental level forms just arise. What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all that is possible for anything to arise within. Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, because reality is the totality of all that exists. Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious. There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't confuse you with them right now. Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, No, unfortunately not. Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have stated. In this case the word is 'forms'. Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions. The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental. Other than that all is well...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote: Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally! :-) Siska -Original Message- From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@... Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote Bill, Total agreement as stated. Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning.. Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post. Rumi's poem/metaphor was: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. - Rumi I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these
Re: [Zen] New science is shedding light on what really happens during out-of-body experiences
Sometimes the words in the august Zen Forum remind me of nothing so much as the inane squabbling my 8 year old and my 12 year old do when they haven't eaten recently enough. I thought Zen Forum would allow me to escape the inane and tedious bickering of normal life, but here it is, still posing an apparent dilemma. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Joe, Is that little . at the bottom meant to represent the size of your brain? :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, What Bill! perfectly meant was tautology. His Literary-Critical English-Lit Major vocabulary got in the way of his eye-tooth, and he couldn't see what he was saying (for once). ;-) And, BTW, Edgar: the Enso in Zen and Ch'an art is NOT a symbol of your circular reasoning! It's not a symbol of reasoning at all. It's not a symbol. It's not. It's. . --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: LOL! You are too funny. Trying to be rational but you don't know the difference between syllogism and solipsism! No wonder you are so opposed to rationality if you don't have any! :-)
Re: [Zen] New science is shedding light on what really happens during out-of-body experiences
Sometimes. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 26, 2013 12:53 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, I agree it's pretty pathetic Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Sometimes the words in the august Zen Forum remind me of nothing so much as the inane squabbling my 8 year old and my 12 year old do when they haven't eaten recently enough. I thought Zen Forum would allow me to escape the inane and tedious bickering of normal life, but here it is, still posing an apparent dilemma. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Joe, Is that little . at the bottom meant to represent the size of your brain? :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, What Bill! perfectly meant was tautology. His Literary-Critical English-Lit Major vocabulary got in the way of his eye-tooth, and he couldn't see what he was saying (for once). ;-) And, BTW, Edgar: the Enso in Zen and Ch'an art is NOT a symbol of your circular reasoning! It's not a symbol of reasoning at all. It's not a symbol. It's not. It's. . --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: LOL! You are too funny. Trying to be rational but you don't know the difference between syllogism and solipsism! No wonder you are so opposed to rationality if you don't have any! :-)
Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
I find it amusing when email purporting to be from the view point of the absolute includes such watch phrases as Me or Mine or You or Yours. Mind is just mind, water is just water. But whose water? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 26, 2013 5:58 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, I know this was a reply to Edgar's post below, but I wasn't sure if it was in support or qualifying his post. I agree with you that the 'your' part of 'your mind' is the critical qualifier that signals illusion. This is because it signals dualism. So yes, I do claim forms arise in the duality created by 'your mind'. If 'your mind' does not exist then duality does not exist; then there is only the One Mind, the Original Mind - Buddha Nature. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: Your mind. I think the illusory word there is your, moreso than mind. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 26, 2013 5:10 AM, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, NO! You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind. But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises. I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not exist! Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind and not mind. So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not yet exist when the forms arise. Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind. Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind OR external world, since these are both forms that arise. So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of experiencer and experienced. divTherefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong... At the most fundamental level forms just arise. What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all that is possible for anything to arise within. Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, because reality is the totality of all that exists. Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious. There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't confuse you with them right now. Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, No, unfortunately not. Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have stated. In this case the word is 'forms'. Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions. The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental. Other than that all is well...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally! :-) Siska -Original Message- From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote Bill, Total agreement as stated. Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning.. Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post. Rumi's poem/metaphor was: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. - Rumi I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is: I looked for my self, But my
Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
I interpreted Edgar's post to be the one purporting (what with the arising and dualities being created later) to be from some non-dual perspective. But he starts out with your, even with YOUR. Battle lost. Your language is much clearly read by me, Bill! Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 26, 2013 9:34 PM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Chris, You're starting to sound a little like Edgar now. In your case assuming I've trying to do something I'm not trying to do - at least in the referenced post. Don't ever think that any post of mine is ...purporting to be from the view point of the absolute Virtually none are. Most are from a dualistic, relative POV. Some of my posts do attempt to describe holistic experience (Buddha Nature) but always from a dualistic POV. That's the whole challenge of the Zen Forum, and virtually all other communication modes as well but especially those based solely on language. If I were to attempt to post something directly communicating holistic experience it would have to be in a poem, and even then would I'm sure fall way short. The only way I know to directly communicate Buddha Nature is with a face-to-face encounter because the communication has to take the form of an experience, not an explanation. Just a clarification and FYI...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: I find it amusing when email purporting to be from the view point of the absolute includes such watch phrases as Me or Mine or You or Yours. Mind is just mind, water is just water. But whose water? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 26, 2013 5:58 PM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Chris, I know this was a reply to Edgar's post below, but I wasn't sure if it was in support or qualifying his post. I agree with you that the 'your' part of 'your mind' is the critical qualifier that signals illusion. This is because it signals dualism. So yes, I do claim forms arise in the duality created by 'your mind'. If 'your mind' does not exist then duality does not exist; then there is only the One Mind, the Original Mind - Buddha Nature. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: Your mind. I think the illusory word there is your, moreso than mind. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 26, 2013 5:10 AM, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, NO! You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind. But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises. I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not exist! Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind and not mind. So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not yet exist when the forms arise. Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind. Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind OR external world, since these are both forms that arise. So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of experiencer and experienced. divTherefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong... At the most fundamental level forms just arise. What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all that is possible for anything to arise within. Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, because reality is the totality of all that exists. Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious. There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't confuse you with them right now. Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, No, unfortunately not. Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have stated. In this case the word is 'forms'. Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions. The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental. Other than that all is well...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Yeeaaay, Edgar
Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit world view they carry with them. I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads to madness. The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent popular science fails to address it. I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective reasonable model of computation externalized. One may just put the pants on. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Edgar, People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real or not? I say they're not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get that through your solipsistic head! Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if illusions are real or not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Total agreement as stated. Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning.. Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post. Rumi's poem/metaphor was: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. - Rumi I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into emptiness. That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to see what Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him... ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, I followed until: Waves broke. The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back. Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote ..Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be used. But not what I think Bill means by rationality. To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous system calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours tea out, or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a lrg through the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less effort, or intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen writers mean by rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied directly but simulated in the nervous system. Trying to think, thoughts that try to be more than thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of activity. Mistaking that sort of activity for reality is what Zen cautions against, not the embodied practical reason of the nervous system. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your rational mind. Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his Zen... Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit world view they carry with them. I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads to madness. The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent popular science fails to address it. I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective reasonable model of computation externalized. One may just put the pants on. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Edgar, People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real or not? I say they're not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get that through your solipsistic head! Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if illusions are real or not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Total agreement as stated. Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning.. Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post. Rumi's poem/metaphor was: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. - Rumi I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things
Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
I thought in your view inanimate stones compute their next state? And what I mean by rationality is not intelligent computation but meandering through the associative network of concepts which seem to make up my conscious arena. The putting on of pants need not involve that arena at all and may consist solely of neural level computations, which seems to be your idea of rationality. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 2:15 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to function. Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones. Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen... Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be used. But not what I think Bill means by rationality. To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous system calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours tea out, or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a lrg through the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less effort, or intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen writers mean by rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied directly but simulated in the nervous system. Trying to think, thoughts that try to be more than thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of activity. Mistaking that sort of activity for reality is what Zen cautions against, not the embodied practical reason of the nervous system. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your rational mind. Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his Zen... Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit world view they carry with them. I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads to madness. The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent popular science fails to address it. I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective reasonable model of computation externalized. One may just put the pants on. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Edgar, People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real or not? I say they're not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get that through your solipsistic head! Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if illusions are real or not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Total agreement as stated. Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning.. Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post. Rumi's poem/metaphor was: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. - Rumi I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self
Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be used. But not what I mean by rational thought, nor what I think Bill! means by rational thought. It is perfectly possible to put pants on without using any rational thinking at all, just the unconscious firing of neurons. --Chris Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your rational mind. Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his Zen... Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit world view they carry with them. I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads to madness. The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent popular science fails to address it. I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective reasonable model of computation externalized. One may just put the pants on. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Edgar, People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real or not? I say they're not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get that through your solipsistic head! Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if illusions are real or not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Total agreement as stated. Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning.. Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post. Rumi's poem/metaphor was: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. - Rumi I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into emptiness. That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to see what Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him... ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, I followed until: Waves broke. The rest is a bit
Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
Hmm, I seem to be sending out multiple replies - they keep showing up as drafts and so I finish them (differently as you may see). Since I've already lurched off the path of a good internet debate, let me bring up a book I am reading: Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking [Kindle Edition] Douglas Hofstadterhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8field-author=Douglas%20Hofstadtersearch-alias=digital-textsort=relevancerank (Author), Emmanuel Sanderhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_2?_encoding=UTF8field-author=Emmanuel%20Sandersearch-alias=digital-textsort=relevancerank (Author) Hofstadter is an interesting thinking - not necessarily a zennist, tho he writes about koans a fair amount in Gödel Escher Bach, and is vegetarian for basically Buddhist grounds. He's a smart person that is very interested in the nature of our cognitive processes, a natural topic of interest to one who has spent a lot of time meditating. His point in this book is that reasoning by analogy is at the heart of the easy for people type thinking that has so far eluded artificial intelligence research. Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.netwrote: I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be used. But not what I mean by rational thought, nor what I think Bill! means by rational thought. It is perfectly possible to put pants on without using any rational thinking at all, just the unconscious firing of neurons. --Chris Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your rational mind. Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his Zen... Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit world view they carry with them. I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads to madness. The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent popular science fails to address it. I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective reasonable model of computation externalized. One may just put the pants on. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Edgar, People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real or not? I say they're not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get that through your solipsistic head! Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if illusions are real or not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Total agreement as stated. Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning.. Edgar On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post. Rumi's poem/metaphor was: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Waves broke. Awareness rose again. And a voice returned me to myself. It always happens like this. Sea turns on itself and foams, And with every foaming bit another body. Another being takes form. And when the sea sends word, Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. - Rumi I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is: I looked for my self, But my self was gone. The boundaries of my being Had disappeared in the sea. Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self
[Zen] Happy Vesak
In some countries today is the celebration of the Buddha's awakening under the Bodhi tree. May you be free from suffering, may you be well. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524
Re: [Zen] the strawberry myth
Say tart rather than sour and it can shatter one's expectations in quite an ecstatic manner. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 17, 2013 8:47 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: group the thing about a strawberry .. a quality strawberry..it is suppose to be sweet... that is what we expect from a strawberry... the very essence of it is it's sweetness.. a sour one well apart from the fact it puts us off eating it and it is a product that will not sell well in the markets... get real.. would you want to eat sour strawberries for desert?.. for christ sake.. sour strawberries will put you off eating them for life... it's not all about judgement it's about accepting the reality that the sour strawberry does not contain the essence of what it is to be a strawberry.. that's not rocket science.. and requires no more that a nod and a shake of the head then spit it out.. end of story.. let's not read into this strawberry caper.. create a myth and make it something to be set in stone for ever more ... amen.. merle Merle www.wix.com/merlewiitpom/1
Re: [Zen] the strawberry myth
The tart ones can be oooh just so tart.another way to appreciate life. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 for christ sake group..not all strawberries are sweet..depends on the conditions under which they are grown..sweet, sour bitter salty all psrt and parcel of life...merle Chris, Exactly. The man with no Zen would be so enveloped in regret/hope that he wouldn't be able to experience Suchness in that moment. I fail to see how this koan could be irrelevant. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Cc: * edgaro...@att.net; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Fri, May 17, 2013 5:14:39 AM The man in the story got sweetness when he was probably expecting fear and wanting a way out, but he was able to experience the sweetness. May I be so open to what is. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 16, 2013 10:10 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, Sensation (chewing) comes before perception (sweetness). To attach to the perception of good/bad leads to suffering. But what of the man on the cliff? He _exclaimed_ that the strawberry tasted sweet! Not Zen? Irrelevant? I don't think so. What of the man in the last ox-herding paintings - looks like a happy chappy to me. I'm surprised (or maybe not) that you're taking this perspective because you always argue that when illusions are seen as illusions that is enlightenment. Or do you never enjoy anything? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Fri, May 17, 2013 1:33:14 AM Mike, Again you fail to understand the meaning... Edgar On May 16, 2013, at 9:05 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Merle, Well it seems on this forum that if you've ever tasted sweet strawberries you weren't practicing Zen... Talk about blind dogma! Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Thu, May 16, 2013 10:33:24 PM lucky you mike...sweet strawberries... the sweetest i ever tasted was in helsinki finland in may 2005.. have yet to find any to compare..merle Edgar, Yet it _does_ taste so sweet... Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Thu, May 16, 2013 2:11:24 PM Mike, All the forms of the world are Buddha Nature and that includes strawberries... However the taste of the strawberry is in your mind, it's a form carrying information about how your biological organism relates to the form of the strawberry... Edgar On May 16, 2013, at 9:27 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill! Yet the strawberry tastes so sweet! I just feel that your description of Buddha Nature just doesn't seem to engage with life (and yet I know that as 'Bill!' you do!). I think it goes back to the feeling I have that what you say about Buddha Nature, although correct, only focuses on the Absolute. Life is recognising both the relative and absolute as truth. Who wouldn't want to enjoy the taste of a strawberry! Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Wed, May 15, 2013 8:18:46 AM Mike, What you are asking about is the very essence of zen, IMO. Non-dualistic (holistic) experience is the very essence of shikantaza and Buddha Nature as far as I'm concerned. All zen teaching techniques (counting breaths, koans, chanting, bowing, samu, kinhin, etc...) are employed to do one thing: stop your intellect from creating the illusion of duality. When you are able to do this, to wipe away all illusions, what is left is Buddha Nature or just holistic experience (sensual). There is no subject/object split. There is no observer/observed, no experience/experience. There is Just THIS! For example when you bite into a lemon there is no you/lemon split, no taste/smell split, no sour/sweet split, no lemon/other fruit split. There is Just THIS! It's later when your intellect kicks in and you start perceiving (rather than just experiencing) that you start assigning categories like lemon, yellow, sour, etc... That's what I mean by 'no observer' and that's what 'shikantaza' means by 'just sit', and 'clear mind' or 'no mind'. If you'd like to read in more detail what I think about this you can go to: The Origin of the Illusion of Selfhttp://www.billsmart.com/writing/zen/self/self.htm which is about the dualistic illusion of self/other. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!, I'm interested in your point
Re: [Zen] Re: Advaita
The man in the story got sweetness when he was probably expecting fear and wanting a way out, but he was able to experience the sweetness. May I be so open to what is. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 16, 2013 10:10 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, Sensation (chewing) comes before perception (sweetness). To attach to the perception of good/bad leads to suffering. But what of the man on the cliff? He _exclaimed_ that the strawberry tasted sweet! Not Zen? Irrelevant? I don't think so. What of the man in the last ox-herding paintings - looks like a happy chappy to me. I'm surprised (or maybe not) that you're taking this perspective because you always argue that when illusions are seen as illusions that is enlightenment. Or do you never enjoy anything? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Fri, May 17, 2013 1:33:14 AM Mike, Again you fail to understand the meaning... Edgar On May 16, 2013, at 9:05 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Merle, Well it seems on this forum that if you've ever tasted sweet strawberries you weren't practicing Zen... Talk about blind dogma! Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Thu, May 16, 2013 10:33:24 PM lucky you mike...sweet strawberries... the sweetest i ever tasted was in helsinki finland in may 2005.. have yet to find any to compare..merle Edgar, Yet it _does_ taste so sweet... Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * Re: [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Thu, May 16, 2013 2:11:24 PM Mike, All the forms of the world are Buddha Nature and that includes strawberries... However the taste of the strawberry is in your mind, it's a form carrying information about how your biological organism relates to the form of the strawberry... Edgar On May 16, 2013, at 9:27 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill! Yet the strawberry tastes so sweet! I just feel that your description of Buddha Nature just doesn't seem to engage with life (and yet I know that as 'Bill!' you do!). I think it goes back to the feeling I have that what you say about Buddha Nature, although correct, only focuses on the Absolute. Life is recognising both the relative and absolute as truth. Who wouldn't want to enjoy the taste of a strawberry! Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad -- * From: * Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org; * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; * Subject: * [Zen] Re: Advaita * Sent: * Wed, May 15, 2013 8:18:46 AM Mike, What you are asking about is the very essence of zen, IMO. Non-dualistic (holistic) experience is the very essence of shikantaza and Buddha Nature as far as I'm concerned. All zen teaching techniques (counting breaths, koans, chanting, bowing, samu, kinhin, etc...) are employed to do one thing: stop your intellect from creating the illusion of duality. When you are able to do this, to wipe away all illusions, what is left is Buddha Nature or just holistic experience (sensual). There is no subject/object split. There is no observer/observed, no experience/experience. There is Just THIS! For example when you bite into a lemon there is no you/lemon split, no taste/smell split, no sour/sweet split, no lemon/other fruit split. There is Just THIS! It's later when your intellect kicks in and you start perceiving (rather than just experiencing) that you start assigning categories like lemon, yellow, sour, etc... That's what I mean by 'no observer' and that's what 'shikantaza' means by 'just sit', and 'clear mind' or 'no mind'. If you'd like to read in more detail what I think about this you can go to: The Origin of the Illusion of Selfhttp://www.billsmart.com/writing/zen/self/self.htm which is about the dualistic illusion of self/other. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!, I'm interested in your point that there is no observer when sitting shikantaza. If so, are all sensations in the body-mind not experienced? If they are experienced, who or what is experiencing them? I'm also interested in other member's perspectives on this when they get passed the He said - she said current thread.. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: Dogen's words on a True Teacher, and Practice
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.comwrote: now I have answered to Chris, he did not answer I did finally answer with what I believed to be an apologetic sort of non-comment. I agreed with the general assessment of my constant stupidity and mentioned not intended to answer for another, but just adding a comment on a common word pattern. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524
Re: [Zen] fasle accusation
WHoops, please accept my apologies Merle! I indeed knew that it was Suresh whom I was quoting, but I didn't think that the machine quoting mechanism that I use would make such an error. I was sloppy; I'll double check the next few trimmed replies I make. Sorry. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.comwrote: EXCUSE ME..chris...get your facts right..or check your eyesight..i never wrote that...it was your buddy suresh..re read the posts..merle On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.comwrote: now I have answered to Chris, he did not answer I did finally answer with what I believed to be an apologetic sort of non-comment. I agreed with the general assessment of my constant stupidity and mentioned not intended to answer for another, but just adding a comment on a common word pattern. --Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524
Re: [Zen] Fw: Dogen's words on a True Teacher, and Practice
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 11, 2013 1:48 AM, varam...@gmail.com wrote: --Original Message-- To: Zen Subject: Re: Dogen's words on a True Teacher, and Practice Sent: May 11, 2013 2:14 PM Dear Chris So you think you have answered intelligently. I had hoped to answer helpfully, but I see that didn't occur. Mr.Charles did not made any reply. What do you know in what sense he wrote that. I was not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but just was responding to these very common words. Please note you people are playing with words and think you are separate, a kind of separate identity and feel superior. I say you all just as stupid as anybody else. For sure, I can't argue about being stupid. My kids would also agree. They witness all the mistakes I make each day. --Chris Mr.Charles correctly wrote the forum is only words and words and nothing else. If he meant buddha in concept, do you mean to say you kill Buddha concept when you come across. This is another stupidity. I see in this forum in the name of zen and buddha only stupidity is flowing like river. Best wishes Suresh Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Dogen's words on a True Teacher, and Practice
The Buddha in this usage is not the person known as Lord Buddha or Siddhartha Gautama but the concept of the Buddha. Do not act with the concept of person or enlightened or good or whatever. Just act. Especially, don't sit thinking there is some you that is cut off from other stuff that isn't you. Just sit. Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:11 AM, SURESH JAGADEESAN varam...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Charles, You have quoted If you come across the Buddha - Kill him - How do you know person across you is a Buddha? In case you have capability to recognise that he is Buddha, who gave you this perception? Again it has to be a Buddha? It is like you want to kill your own mother, How come you have become so ignorant? Buddha never ever wanted to kill even an ant, and you call your self the follower or following his path wanted to kill Buddha himself? Don't say just because someone has said, see your self the truth. People are misguided by reading few books. Try to see how you are influenced? Many are not even aware that they have been influenced. A person said to be in Buddha nature do not take any action either in mind or in body. It happens, and when it happens it is always of love. best wishes Suresh -- Thanks and best regards J.Suresh New No.3, Old No.7, Chamiers road - 1st Lane, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600018 Ph: 044 42030947 Mobile: 91 9884071738 Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
