Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Mike, I was very lucky; and lucky also to have the best teaching and the most perspicacious and compassionate teacher, and the company of his sangha (the other assembled students, monks, and nuns). What was needed in my case first was a purification. The teacher sensed this and sent me outside, where it could take place undisturbed. I think all my years of Yoga practice, running, and good diet before this was the beginning of the purification. Then it took a few days for the rather raw body to settle, and for the energy to cool down, and sink. Samadhi came on, for days, and suddenly broke. There was nothing after this for 8 weeks. I supported this with practice, but eventually took on too many responsibilities in my work at the time, and even took a second, very challenging and fascinating job in a great research group. I suppose erosion of the awakened state is the norm, even if Samadhi is our regular practice. I was doing the Golden Ocean Seal, just naturally. Subsequent openings over the years seemed smaller and less dramatic: there was less to be broken down. I did not any longer use koan methods, and did not practice for awakening. And the body could support the awake-state for having become accustomed, via previous lengthy entries, to what is natural. I hadn't strayed far each time from the Tao (but far enough!). Who knows what condition I am in now. But I think my teacher would be ashamed of me: not for himself, but for me, and all beings. And so he'd urge us to keep up our practice. Which we do! I'm pleased to have had long immersion times in our true nature, and pleased to have become covered again by shrouds. I'm pleased thus to have been a beginner, again and again, and to see and feel and sense what is helpful as one is climbing out of the well, again (or back in, as the analogy may go). If I'm to be a lay, un-transmitted Dharma teacher, as my teacher's organization has me being trained to be, this experience of being a beginner many times over can be a good background to come from to be effective in helping other climbers (or folks looking for the stairway to the Basement, rather). --Joe uerusuboyo@... wrote: Joe, Wow, a couple of months in that state must have been mind-blowing(out)! I've had similar experiences, but of a much, much shorter duration. Of course, I don't think those experiences should be clung to. After all, they're just glimpses of the Absolute and their significance is that they introduce us to the 'path' and hopefully keep us on it. Lucky you to receive such grace! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Joe,br/br/Thanks for that. I like the way you put it that they are kin rather than just dismiss as them as illusion. This works for me quite well because there is less movement of the mind to admit them as co-existing harmoniously. br/br/Wow, a couple of months in that state must have been mind-blowing(out)! I've had similar experiences, but of a much, much shorter duration. Of course, I don't think those experiences should be clung to. After all, they're just glimpses of the Absolute and their significance is that they introduce us to the 'path' and hopefully keep us on it. Lucky you to receive such grace!br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Joe,br/br/How about 'reconciled' (resolved) instead of transcended? br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] 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] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Chris, Let that be your epitaph. (but not soon, I hope). ;-) --Joe PS (I was a concrete-worker on numerous Carpentry jobs, and could NEVER ignore the concrete. Our forms had to be built, and secured, in time for the pour. And then we had to monitor the concrete-pouring, standing closely-by, or upon the forms, to fix anything in case something broke, or the Laborers broke something while pouring: that phase of the work/job is called Watching-Concrete. All very dangerous work! If well-paying). Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: Ignore the concrete and your head will be thumped. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Mike, Did I fail to put in some smile-face emoticons? ;-) I must have forgotten. You missed my irony, or I did not stress it. Or, I missed yours! In fact, I was going about making a very serious point, and one that I think Edgar would agree with. If, by (our) effective practice, duality disappears for us in our experience, it is far from GONE from the world (of others, who are yet bewitched with it and by it). As you know, when one continues practicing, after, say awakening, one undergoes a polishing, or sand-blasting, process, over years of time (a lifetime) and develops skilful means for almost any circumstance, just by working-out the proper muscles and keeping the proper ligaments flexible (NOT by training for specific, rehearsed cases). Well... bottom-line... we slough off the flaked paint chips of duality from our own hands and arms, but they are still adhering like unbroken skin to others. It's best not to forget! --Joe PS Unlike what you wrote in your post, I would say something like: Opposites are not transcended in Buddha Nature. I do not know what transcended would mean. Buddha Nature has nothing going-on, except via specific forms. Buddha Nature takes in all forms. Some of these look like opposites to one who is not awake. That is all. uerusuboyo@... wrote: Joe, I dare to in the same way you dare to question my mentioning it! ; ) I'm hardly saying anything revolutionary, subversive or heretical. Don't we practice koans if not to resolve contradictions and paradoxes in a flash of satori? desert_woodworker wrote: Mike, Now, now. How dare you ask such a deflating question. There (!) goes the UNIVERSE! Into a flat pancake. And much flatter than we can comprehend. Mystery flatness. Gone, gone. But not the Parasamgate of the Heart Sutra. Seeing that, I feel better. And forgiving. Long life, ;-) --Joe uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!, Sometimes it seems as though you and Edgar are arguing from polar opposites on what emptiness and form are, yet aren't opposites transcended in Buddha Nature, along with all contradictions and paradoxes? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Joe,br/br/I dare to in the same way you dare to question my mentioning it! ; ) I'm hardly saying anything revolutionary, subversive or heretical. Don't we practice koans if not to resolve contradictions and paradoxes in a flash of satori? br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Mike, Now, now. How dare you ask such a deflating question. There (!) goes the UNIVERSE! Into a flat pancake. And much flatter than we can comprehend. Mystery flatness. Gone, gone. But not the Parasamgate of the Heart Sutra. Seeing that, I feel better. And forgiving. Long life, ;-) --Joe uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!, Sometimes it seems as though you and Edgar are arguing from polar opposites on what emptiness and form are, yet aren't opposites transcended in Buddha Nature, along with all contradictions and paradoxes? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, My view is not crazy, it's just not rational and you can't accept anything that is not rational. Reality has no structure, no forms. That's why it's called 'emptiness'. Human thought supplies the illusion of structure and forms. No one has 'figured it out' because there is nothing to figure out. The best you can do is experience. The rest, as I've been saying, is illusory. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Your view is crazy. If actual reality was chaotic (random and without form) YOUR mind couldn't impose form on it. In fact you or anything else could not exist in a chaotic random world - no form could. My view is the same as the great Vedic thinkers, Buddha, The Zen patriarchs, Dogen and anyone else who has figured it out. Your view is held only by Bishop Berkeley and the serious demented inmates of insane asylums My view is the essence of Zen. Your view IS solipsism You are assuming that because you cannot directly experience form in reality there is none. But that is a logical deduction, and an unwarranted one. Edgar On May 27, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, This is really getting complex and very hard to follow. I've tried to write down what I have deduced from your statements both here and in previous posts but it is very difficult. - First of all you say all forms are 'real' whether they exist in what you call the 'external world of forms' or whether they exist in the human mind. - You state there are forms that exist in both places (like the plate) - You state there are forms that exist only in the human mind (like Zeus) - I can infer that you probably also believe there are forms that exist in the 'external world of forms' but not in the human mind (like the Higgs Boson 2000 years ago) - You state there are 'laws of nature' but deny the existence of a piece of one model of those laws - Zeus, while accepting a piece of another model of those laws - the Higgs Boson. My model is very simple: Reality is chaos and can only be experienced. That experience is Buddha Nature. Any structure or logic we perceive exists only in the human mind. Those perceptions are what I call 'illusions'. You don't KNOW I live in a house. You BELIEVE I live in a house. You don't KNOW there is such a thing as a Higgs Boson. You BELIEVE there is such a thing as a Higgs Boson. You don't even KNOW there is no such thing as Zeus. You just don't BELIEVE there is. And you don't KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow. You BELIEVE it will. The only way you can KNOW something is to EXPERIENCE it. All else is belief. You could also call that 'thoughts' or 'mental models' or 'forms in the human mind'. I refer to them as 'illusion'. I keep hammering on this because if you see the world as you are describing you will be tempted to think zen practice is some kind of knowledge-based practice. It is not. It is an experience-based practice. I have no problem with you advocated a knowledge-based practice. That is what Plato advocates. What I do have a problem with is you calling it zen. It is not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, I fear Zeus was never real in the external world of forms but existed only as forms within human minds. However the natural forms of thunderstorms and unpredictable fates that Zeus was associated with and loosely modeled after did exist as programs in the external world of forms. The Higgs boson and all of human science exists as forms in human minds, or perhaps more accurately the collective human knowledge base. However human science works because it is a fairly accurate mental model of the actual external programs called the laws of nature that run in the real external world of forms. This is the crux of your misunderstanding - or one of them... It is completely true that the entire world we think we live in exists entirely in our minds - IN OUR EXPERIENCE. There is an external real world but we do not experience it directly. I'm sure you actually have a house in Thailand - even though I do not experience it directly. Should I claim like you would that it doesn't exist if I can't experience it directly? Thus that internal world of our experience IS modeled on an actual external reality of similar though not identical structure. The basic logical structure is similar, but we vastly embellish that logical structure into the illusion of a physical colorful world that doesn't actually exist 'out there'. Only the underlying logical structure of information exists 'out there'. That being said the whole complex of internal experience and external and internal forms exists only as empty forms and active programs consisting only
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill!,br/br/In vipassana (and Buddhism) we don't have to worry about externals and what reality is made of (sounds too metaphysical to me) because the important thing is how we react within our bodies-mind. But I would've thought that reality being form and emptiness means that the forms we cognise thru the senses (6 in Buddhism) are in reality are just denser 'pockets' of vibrations, but ultimately all part of the same soup of energy.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Mike, Zen doesn't really give a shit about all the what's and why's (especially the why's) of all this either. The only thing I can really state with confidence is the experience of Buddha Nature is empty. No forms. It just seems to me that forms only reappear when my intellect kicks back in. That's why I believe forms are a product of my intellect, but the only think I'm sure of is Buddha Nature contains no forms. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!,br/br/In vipassana (and Buddhism) we don't have to worry about externals and what reality is made of (sounds too metaphysical to me) because the important thing is how we react within our bodies-mind. But I would've thought that reality being form and emptiness means that the forms we cognise thru the senses (6 in Buddhism) are in reality are just denser 'pockets' of vibrations, but ultimately all part of the same soup of energy.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill!,br/br/Sometimes it seems as though you and Edgar are arguing from polar opposites on what emptiness and form are, yet aren't opposites transcended in Buddha Nature, along with all contradictions and paradoxes?br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Mike, Yes! Buddha Nature is empty: no forms and no dualisms, so no contradictions or paradoxes. Empty is empty. The intellect however is not empty. It's chock full of forms, dualism, contradictions and paradoxes. This is what my position is and has been all along. Edgar will have to speak for himself about what his position is on this... ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!,br/br/Sometimes it seems as though you and Edgar are arguing from polar opposites on what emptiness and form are, yet aren't opposites transcended in Buddha Nature, along with all contradictions and paradoxes?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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Nighty-Night All! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Mike, Yes! Buddha Nature is empty: no forms and no dualisms, so no contradictions or paradoxes. Empty is empty. The intellect however is not empty. It's chock full of forms, dualism, contradictions and paradoxes. This is what my position is and has been all along. Edgar will have to speak for himself about what his position is on this... ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Bill!,br/br/Sometimes it seems as though you and Edgar are arguing from polar opposites on what emptiness and form are, yet aren't opposites transcended in Buddha Nature, along with all contradictions and paradoxes?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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill, What you have repeated over and over is.. Illusions and forms are products only of YOUR mind Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 9:51 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, You have employed a corrupted syllogism: - Solipsism is believing that things only exist in one's mind. - Bill! believes things only exist in his mind. - Therefore, Bill! practices solipsism. You error is in the definition solipsism. Dictionary.com has: sol·ip·sism noun 1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. 2. Extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic... 1. I have repeated over and over again that I believe the 'self' is illusory and in fact cannot be proved to exist. 2. I have also repeated over and over again that feelings, desires (attachments) are also illusory in that they are anchored to the illusion of self. When the illusion of self dissolves these attachments dissolve also - like waves breaking on the shore and disappearing into the sea. So, here are two corrected versions of your corrupted syllogism: A negative conclusion: - Solipsism is believing that things only exist in one's mind. - Bill! believes things in his mind are illusions and don't really exist. - Therefore, Bill! does not practice solipsism. ...or a positive conclusion: - Zen teaches the ability to distinguish between experience (Buddha Nature) and illusion. - Bill! recognized the distinction between experience (Buddha Nature) and illusion. Therefore, Bill! practices zen. I hope this helps clear things up for you...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, That's solipsism. You claim the plate and your wife are illusions in your mind. If you really believe that, which I'm sure you don't. You just read it in a zen comic book somewhere, you should be institutionalized. Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If I am unable at this moment to experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) that plate or my wife then yes, they 'exist' only in my mind. They 'exist' as thoughts - memories or fantasies - in other words illusions. My intellect creates the idea that they persist. When I at some later moment experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) them my intellect relates my memory with my current experience and gives me the illusion that they are persistent. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill Everything in your mind in both cases IS REAL. But its reality is as thoughts and forms in your mind... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, now we're getting somewhere... Let's start with the 'not present' condition... You state that (following the example) when the plate is not present it exists/persists as a mental form. I would call that an idea. Are you saying that ideas are real, that thoughts are real? Likewise when the plate is 'present' (and by that I mean is experienced) are you saying that my perceptions of the plate are real? By perceptions I mean my discriminations and judgements I've formed about the plate such as: circular, white in color, a dinner plate, clean, named plate, etc... Do you contend all these ideas about the plate are real? Thanks...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, When the plate is present it is a form in reality that exists as pure information. And your mind also constructs forms in your mind that represent how you represent the plate internally. When the plate is not present the internal mental forms persist but the external form is not present... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I answered this is a prior, separate post, but I wanted to ask you if you think your questions below answered my question. In other word is your answer to 'what is an example of a form' a plate or some other object that is not now present? If your answer to that is 'yes', then is there any difference if the object is present? Is it still a form then, or is it something else? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, You now have told me what you think about thoughts of things that have been experienced that are present and not present. I don't necessarily agree with you but I understand, especially since you claim in both cases these thoughts exist in my mind so they are REAL. That's pretty easy to follow. Now I'd like to ask you about thoughts about things that have not been experienced, and about forms over time. The two examples are Zeus and the Higgs Bosun. The two time periods are 2000 years ago and now. 2000 years ago was Zeus a form? - if so, - was Zeus real then? - is Zeus still a form now? - if so, is Zeus real now? At the present time is the Higgs Bosun a form? - If so, - is the Higgs Bosun real now? - was the Higgs Bosun a form 2000 years ago? - if not, was the Higgs Bosun not real then?Thanks for your cooperation...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill Everything in your mind in both cases IS REAL. But its reality is as thoughts and forms in your mind... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, now we're getting somewhere... Let's start with the 'not present' condition... You state that (following the example) when the plate is not present it exists/persists as a mental form. I would call that an idea. Are you saying that ideas are real, that thoughts are real? Likewise when the plate is 'present' (and by that I mean is experienced) are you saying that my perceptions of the plate are real? By perceptions I mean my discriminations and judgements I've formed about the plate such as: circular, white in color, a dinner plate, clean, named plate, etc... Do you contend all these ideas about the plate are real? Thanks...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, When the plate is present it is a form in reality that exists as pure information. And your mind also constructs forms in your mind that represent how you represent the plate internally. When the plate is not present the internal mental forms persist but the external form is not present... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I answered this is a prior, separate post, but I wanted to ask you if you think your questions below answered my question. In other word is your answer to 'what is an example of a form' a plate or some other object that is not now present? If your answer to that is 'yes', then is there any difference if the object is present? Is it still a form then, or is it something else? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill, I fear Zeus was never real in the external world of forms but existed only as forms within human minds. However the natural forms of thunderstorms and unpredictable fates that Zeus was associated with and loosely modeled after did exist as programs in the external world of forms. The Higgs boson and all of human science exists as forms in human minds, or perhaps more accurately the collective human knowledge base. However human science works because it is a fairly accurate mental model of the actual external programs called the laws of nature that run in the real external world of forms. This is the crux of your misunderstanding - or one of them... It is completely true that the entire world we think we live in exists entirely in our minds - IN OUR EXPERIENCE. There is an external real world but we do not experience it directly. I'm sure you actually have a house in Thailand - even though I do not experience it directly. Should I claim like you would that it doesn't exist if I can't experience it directly? Thus that internal world of our experience IS modeled on an actual external reality of similar though not identical structure. The basic logical structure is similar, but we vastly embellish that logical structure into the illusion of a physical colorful world that doesn't actually exist 'out there'. Only the underlying logical structure of information exists 'out there'. That being said the whole complex of internal experience and external and internal forms exists only as empty forms and active programs consisting only of and running in Buddha Nature, what I call ontological energy, the reality of being real and actual, which by its presence creates and manifests a present moment full of happening. If all forms and illusions did not manifest in the reality of Buddha Nature they could never even appear. Because they do appear they do have Buddha Nature and thus are part of reality. But their reality is as empty forms of illusions, not the reality they seem to be. Mountains are mountains again. Mountains are the information forms of external reality fleshed out with mental attributes such as size, hardness, color, coldness etc. by our minds. Reality for Dummies might illustrate this as a paint by color of a mountain. The b/w line drawing of the mountain is (very roughly) what exists in reality (its underlying form). The mind colors in all the colors and textures in its mental model of the mountain. Edgar On May 27, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, You now have told me what you think about thoughts of things that have been experienced that are present and not present. I don't necessarily agree with you but I understand, especially since you claim in both cases these thoughts exist in my mind so they are REAL. That's pretty easy to follow. Now I'd like to ask you about thoughts about things that have not been experienced, and about forms over time. The two examples are Zeus and the Higgs Bosun. The two time periods are 2000 years ago and now. 2000 years ago was Zeus a form? - if so, - was Zeus real then? - is Zeus still a form now? - if so, is Zeus real now? At the present time is the Higgs Bosun a form? - If so, - is the Higgs Bosun real now? - was the Higgs Bosun a form 2000 years ago? - if not, was the Higgs Bosun not real then? Thanks for your cooperation...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill Everything in your mind in both cases IS REAL. But its reality is as thoughts and forms in your mind... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, now we're getting somewhere... Let's start with the 'not present' condition... You state that (following the example) when the plate is not present it exists/persists as a mental form. I would call that an idea. Are you saying that ideas are real, that thoughts are real? Likewise when the plate is 'present' (and by that I mean is experienced) are you saying that my perceptions of the plate are real? By perceptions I mean my discriminations and judgements I've formed about the plate such as: circular, white in color, a dinner plate, clean, named plate, etc... Do you contend all these ideas about the plate are real? Thanks...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, When the plate is present it is a form in reality that exists as pure information. And your mind also constructs forms in your mind that represent how you represent the plate internally. When the plate is not present the internal mental forms persist but the external form is not present... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I answered this is a prior, separate post, but I
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, This is really getting complex and very hard to follow. I've tried to write down what I have deduced from your statements both here and in previous posts but it is very difficult. - First of all you say all forms are 'real' whether they exist in what you call the 'external world of forms' or whether they exist in the human mind. - You state there are forms that exist in both places (like the plate) - You state there are forms that exist only in the human mind (like Zeus) - I can infer that you probably also believe there are forms that exist in the 'external world of forms' but not in the human mind (like the Higgs Boson 2000 years ago) - You state there are 'laws of nature' but deny the existence of a piece of one model of those laws - Zeus, while accepting a piece of another model of those laws - the Higgs Boson. My model is very simple: Reality is chaos and can only be experienced. That experience is Buddha Nature. Any structure or logic we perceive exists only in the human mind. Those perceptions are what I call 'illusions'. You don't KNOW I live in a house. You BELIEVE I live in a house. You don't KNOW there is such a thing as a Higgs Boson. You BELIEVE there is such a thing as a Higgs Boson. You don't even KNOW there is no such thing as Zeus. You just don't BELIEVE there is. And you don't KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow. You BELIEVE it will. The only way you can KNOW something is to EXPERIENCE it. All else is belief. You could also call that 'thoughts' or 'mental models' or 'forms in the human mind'. I refer to them as 'illusion'. I keep hammering on this because if you see the world as you are describing you will be tempted to think zen practice is some kind of knowledge-based practice. It is not. It is an experience-based practice. I have no problem with you advocated a knowledge-based practice. That is what Plato advocates. What I do have a problem with is you calling it zen. It is not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, I fear Zeus was never real in the external world of forms but existed only as forms within human minds. However the natural forms of thunderstorms and unpredictable fates that Zeus was associated with and loosely modeled after did exist as programs in the external world of forms. The Higgs boson and all of human science exists as forms in human minds, or perhaps more accurately the collective human knowledge base. However human science works because it is a fairly accurate mental model of the actual external programs called the laws of nature that run in the real external world of forms. This is the crux of your misunderstanding - or one of them... It is completely true that the entire world we think we live in exists entirely in our minds - IN OUR EXPERIENCE. There is an external real world but we do not experience it directly. I'm sure you actually have a house in Thailand - even though I do not experience it directly. Should I claim like you would that it doesn't exist if I can't experience it directly? Thus that internal world of our experience IS modeled on an actual external reality of similar though not identical structure. The basic logical structure is similar, but we vastly embellish that logical structure into the illusion of a physical colorful world that doesn't actually exist 'out there'. Only the underlying logical structure of information exists 'out there'. That being said the whole complex of internal experience and external and internal forms exists only as empty forms and active programs consisting only of and running in Buddha Nature, what I call ontological energy, the reality of being real and actual, which by its presence creates and manifests a present moment full of happening. If all forms and illusions did not manifest in the reality of Buddha Nature they could never even appear. Because they do appear they do have Buddha Nature and thus are part of reality. But their reality is as empty forms of illusions, not the reality they seem to be. Mountains are mountains again. Mountains are the information forms of external reality fleshed out with mental attributes such as size, hardness, color, coldness etc. by our minds. Reality for Dummies might illustrate this as a paint by color of a mountain. The b/w line drawing of the mountain is (very roughly) what exists in reality (its underlying form). The mind colors in all the colors and textures in its mental model of the mountain. Edgar On May 27, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, You now have told me what you think about thoughts of things that have been experienced that are present and not present. I don't necessarily agree with you but I understand, especially since you claim in both cases these thoughts exist in my mind so they are REAL. That's pretty easy to follow. Now I'd
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill, Your view is crazy. If actual reality was chaotic (random and without form) YOUR mind couldn't impose form on it. In fact you or anything else could not exist in a chaotic random world - no form could. My view is the same as the great Vedic thinkers, Buddha, The Zen patriarchs, Dogen and anyone else who has figured it out. Your view is held only by Bishop Berkeley and the serious demented inmates of insane asylums My view is the essence of Zen. Your view IS solipsism You are assuming that because you cannot directly experience form in reality there is none. But that is a logical deduction, and an unwarranted one. Edgar On May 27, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, This is really getting complex and very hard to follow. I've tried to write down what I have deduced from your statements both here and in previous posts but it is very difficult. - First of all you say all forms are 'real' whether they exist in what you call the 'external world of forms' or whether they exist in the human mind. - You state there are forms that exist in both places (like the plate) - You state there are forms that exist only in the human mind (like Zeus) - I can infer that you probably also believe there are forms that exist in the 'external world of forms' but not in the human mind (like the Higgs Boson 2000 years ago) - You state there are 'laws of nature' but deny the existence of a piece of one model of those laws - Zeus, while accepting a piece of another model of those laws - the Higgs Boson. My model is very simple: Reality is chaos and can only be experienced. That experience is Buddha Nature. Any structure or logic we perceive exists only in the human mind. Those perceptions are what I call 'illusions'. You don't KNOW I live in a house. You BELIEVE I live in a house. You don't KNOW there is such a thing as a Higgs Boson. You BELIEVE there is such a thing as a Higgs Boson. You don't even KNOW there is no such thing as Zeus. You just don't BELIEVE there is. And you don't KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow. You BELIEVE it will. The only way you can KNOW something is to EXPERIENCE it. All else is belief. You could also call that 'thoughts' or 'mental models' or 'forms in the human mind'. I refer to them as 'illusion'. I keep hammering on this because if you see the world as you are describing you will be tempted to think zen practice is some kind of knowledge-based practice. It is not. It is an experience-based practice. I have no problem with you advocated a knowledge-based practice. That is what Plato advocates. What I do have a problem with is you calling it zen. It is not. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, I fear Zeus was never real in the external world of forms but existed only as forms within human minds. However the natural forms of thunderstorms and unpredictable fates that Zeus was associated with and loosely modeled after did exist as programs in the external world of forms. The Higgs boson and all of human science exists as forms in human minds, or perhaps more accurately the collective human knowledge base. However human science works because it is a fairly accurate mental model of the actual external programs called the laws of nature that run in the real external world of forms. This is the crux of your misunderstanding - or one of them... It is completely true that the entire world we think we live in exists entirely in our minds - IN OUR EXPERIENCE. There is an external real world but we do not experience it directly. I'm sure you actually have a house in Thailand - even though I do not experience it directly. Should I claim like you would that it doesn't exist if I can't experience it directly? Thus that internal world of our experience IS modeled on an actual external reality of similar though not identical structure. The basic logical structure is similar, but we vastly embellish that logical structure into the illusion of a physical colorful world that doesn't actually exist 'out there'. Only the underlying logical structure of information exists 'out there'. That being said the whole complex of internal experience and external and internal forms exists only as empty forms and active programs consisting only of and running in Buddha Nature, what I call ontological energy, the reality of being real and actual, which by its presence creates and manifests a present moment full of happening. If all forms and illusions did not manifest in the reality of Buddha Nature they could never even appear. Because they do appear they do have Buddha Nature and thus are part of reality. But their reality is as empty forms of illusions, not the reality they seem to be. Mountains are mountains again. Mountains are the information forms of external reality
[Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@... Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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.
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@... Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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.
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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.
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, If I am unable at this moment to experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) that plate or my wife then yes, they 'exist' only in my mind. They 'exist' as thoughts - memories or fantasies - in other words illusions. My intellect creates the idea that they persist. When I at some later moment experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) them my intellect relates my memory with my current experience and gives me the illusion that they are persistent. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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,
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Beddy-Bye time...Good night all...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Edgar, If I am unable at this moment to experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) that plate or my wife then yes, they 'exist' only in my mind. They 'exist' as thoughts - memories or fantasies - in other words illusions. My intellect creates the idea that they persist. When I at some later moment experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) them my intellect relates my memory with my current experience and gives me the illusion that they are persistent. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, I answered this is a prior, separate post, but I wanted to ask you if you think your questions below answered my question. In other word is your answer to 'what is an example of a form' a plate or some other object that is not now present? If your answer to that is 'yes', then is there any difference if the object is present? Is it still a form then, or is it something else? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill, That's solipsism. You claim the plate and your wife are illusions in your mind. If you really believe that, which I'm sure you don't. You just read it in a zen comic book somewhere, you should be institutionalized. Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If I am unable at this moment to experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) that plate or my wife then yes, they 'exist' only in my mind. They 'exist' as thoughts - memories or fantasies - in other words illusions. My intellect creates the idea that they persist. When I at some later moment experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) them my intellect relates my memory with my current experience and gives me the illusion that they are persistent. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Bill, When the plate is present it is a form in reality that exists as pure information. And your mind also constructs forms in your mind that represent how you represent the plate internally. When the plate is not present the internal mental forms persist but the external form is not present... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I answered this is a prior, separate post, but I wanted to ask you if you think your questions below answered my question. In other word is your answer to 'what is an example of a form' a plate or some other object that is not now present? If your answer to that is 'yes', then is there any difference if the object is present? Is it still a form then, or is it something else? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, Bill!, As if it matters to the circles if Edgar agrees! Nor to us. Nor to Plato ...who is in never-never land. ;-) Funny, Edgar, that Plato was talking about Forms. ;-} I don't think you understand -- in any sense -- him/them aright. He was much closer to reality, but of course was as challenged in the use of language as we all are when discussing Buddha Nature; the Absolute; or Ideal Forms. Even if we stand on our own, we stand on the shoulders of ancestors, whether Giants or not. ;-) Kudos to all who try talking about Buddha Nature, including our cousin Plato. And Bill! Merle doesn't discuss it: she snaps her Kyosaku! --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, You have employed a corrupted syllogism: - Solipsism is believing that things only exist in one's mind. - Bill! believes things only exist in his mind. - Therefore, Bill! practices solipsism. You error is in the definition solipsism. Dictionary.com has: sol·ip·sism noun 1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. 2. Extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic... 1. I have repeated over and over again that I believe the 'self' is illusory and in fact cannot be proved to exist. 2. I have also repeated over and over again that feelings, desires (attachments) are also illusory in that they are anchored to the illusion of self. When the illusion of self dissolves these attachments dissolve also - like waves breaking on the shore and disappearing into the sea. So, here are two corrected versions of your corrupted syllogism: A negative conclusion: - Solipsism is believing that things only exist in one's mind. - Bill! believes things in his mind are illusions and don't really exist. - Therefore, Bill! does not practice solipsism. ...or a positive conclusion: - Zen teaches the ability to distinguish between experience (Buddha Nature) and illusion. - Bill! recognized the distinction between experience (Buddha Nature) and illusion. Therefore, Bill! practices zen. I hope this helps clear things up for you...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, That's solipsism. You claim the plate and your wife are illusions in your mind. If you really believe that, which I'm sure you don't. You just read it in a zen comic book somewhere, you should be institutionalized. Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If I am unable at this moment to experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) that plate or my wife then yes, they 'exist' only in my mind. They 'exist' as thoughts - memories or fantasies - in other words illusions. My intellect creates the idea that they persist. When I at some later moment experience (see, hear, smell, taste or feel) them my intellect relates my memory with my current experience and gives me the illusion that they are persistent. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Edgar, Okay, now we're getting somewhere... Let's start with the 'not present' condition... You state that (following the example) when the plate is not present it exists/persists as a mental form. I would call that an idea. Are you saying that ideas are real, that thoughts are real? Likewise when the plate is 'present' (and by that I mean is experienced) are you saying that my perceptions of the plate are real? By perceptions I mean my discriminations and judgements I've formed about the plate such as: circular, white in color, a dinner plate, clean, named plate, etc... Do you contend all these ideas about the plate are real? Thanks...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, When the plate is present it is a form in reality that exists as pure information. And your mind also constructs forms in your mind that represent how you represent the plate internally. When the plate is not present the internal mental forms persist but the external form is not present... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I answered this is a prior, separate post, but I wanted to ask you if you think your questions below answered my question. In other word is your answer to 'what is an example of a form' a plate or some other object that is not now present? If your answer to that is 'yes', then is there any difference if the object is present? Is it still a form then, or is it something else? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind? If not then where? Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind? If not then where? Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife! :-) Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in Nature...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You've read too much Plato! The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that arise in nature. You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere in never never land out there but I don't... Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote: Siska, I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in which we often engage. Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in: I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume. I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become amplified. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: Hi Bill, The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are part of reality. If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the reality. I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! BillSmart@ Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote 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,
