[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Edgar, I've yet to see a set of succinct definitions of what you mean by 'reality' and 'illusions'. How about taking the list I posted and tell us what your definitions are? And try to keep the definitions to a couple sentences. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: ED, I've been trying to do just that in almost every one of my posts since I've been here but apparently not well enough... :-( Edgar On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:41 AM, ED wrote: Edgar, What you mean by 'reality' is different from what Bill! means by 'reality'. In a recent post, Bill! has stated in some detail the meaning he attaches to the word 'reality. You may want to define what you mean by 'reality'. Then, we may be able to see how and why you two are in disagreement over 'reality'. --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill! Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no logical structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in her mind as an illusion and not reality. It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on the street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses are real and you can really get killed running out in front of one BECAUSE REALITY HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend is NOT an illusion... I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that each of us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our respective minds. But because our mental models of reality are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what they model, the laws of nature, do not exist Edgar Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
JMJM, Well you have succeeded, at least with me. I often times think you are so wishy-washy you are nobody...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺å¦ç²¾æ ï¼JMJMï¼ chan.jmjm@... wrote: Hi Bill, You are still trying to show me that you are somebody. Sorry. I have come to realized that only when we realized that we are truly nobody, then we could be everybody. Then we see the wisdom in everything. jm On 9/5/2012 11:31 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, Thanks for your post. I also posted something recently that you probably had not read before you posted this. That post mirrors some of what you say, only refers to style rather than perspective. Thanks...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺å¦â¢Ã§Â²Â¾Ã¦ËŽ ï¼ËJMJMï¼Ⱐchan.jmjm@ wrote: Hello Bill and all, Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do. The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the first place. All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out who is who, but for each of us to reflect on. This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect inwardly and wake up from our dream. The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness. We argue, because we don't have the whole picture. jm On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide what's best for her. I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, èæúÃ¥æââ¢Ã§Ã²Ã¾Ã¦ÃÅà ½ ïüÃâ JMJMïüââ¬Â° chan.jmjm@ wrote: I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Bill! Realty is what exists in the present moment. It includes Buddha Nature and everything including all the forms and any illusions that exist in the present moment by manifesting Buddha Nature. But the fundamental reality of all these forms is Buddha Nature only. Illusions are the differences between an organism's simulation of reality in its mind and reality itself as it actually exists... PS: I actually agree with you that all that exists is experience, but that experience is not just in YOUR mind. That's the major disagreement I think I have with you. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self. Experience itself is raw and unmediated. Experience itself is reality. It consists of forms manifesting Buddha Nature. Many if not all of those forms are illusory. But they are reality when recognized as illusory. They are illusory only when taken as reality. All that exists is Xperience (I use this more general term because it applies equally well to all things, not just human minds). Even the most profound and complex intellectual theory ultimately exists only as experience, as the experience of its forms. All that exists is Xperience only. Reality is not at its most fundamental level a physical structure. It consists of Xperience, the Xperience of everything in the universe of everything else. Your Experience is just part of that overall structure... First is xperience, then it's categorized and analyzed and theorized, but ultimately it all remains xperience only, the xperience of those processes... Including my experience of thinking and writing this right now.. Thus it is clear that experience has a logical structure. And since xperience is the ultimate reality, that ultimate reality must also have a logical structure. Our basic disagreement as I see it is that recognizing this I embrace this logical structure of experience as a manifestation of the reality of Buddha Nature since, as we agree, experience is the ONLY reality, and it has a logical structure, while you throw up your hands and deny that part of experience is reality, and claim only the formless aspect of Buddha nature you experience while doing zazen is reality. As I say over and over, ALL of experience is reality, all of experience manifests Buddha Nature, not just the formless aspect of it. Edgar On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I've yet to see a set of succinct definitions of what you mean by 'reality' and 'illusions'. How about taking the list I posted and tell us what your definitions are? And try to keep the definitions to a couple sentences. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: ED, I've been trying to do just that in almost every one of my posts since I've been here but apparently not well enough... :-( Edgar On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:41 AM, ED wrote: Edgar, What you mean by 'reality' is different from what Bill! means by 'reality'. In a recent post, Bill! has stated in some detail the meaning he attaches to the word 'reality. You may want to define what you mean by 'reality'. Then, we may be able to see how and why you two are in disagreement over 'reality'. --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill! Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no logical structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in her mind as an illusion and not reality. It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on the street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses are real and you can really get killed running out in front of one BECAUSE REALITY HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend is NOT an illusion... I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that each of us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our respective minds. But because our mental models of reality are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what they model, the laws of nature, do not exist Edgar
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Edgar, Thanks for this post. I read it over hastily but will read it over more thoroughly in the [my] morning, and will respond as appropriate. Good Night...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill! Realty is what exists in the present moment. It includes Buddha Nature and everything including all the forms and any illusions that exist in the present moment by manifesting Buddha Nature. But the fundamental reality of all these forms is Buddha Nature only. Illusions are the differences between an organism's simulation of reality in its mind and reality itself as it actually exists... PS: I actually agree with you that all that exists is experience, but that experience is not just in YOUR mind. That's the major disagreement I think I have with you. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self. Experience itself is raw and unmediated. Experience itself is reality. It consists of forms manifesting Buddha Nature. Many if not all of those forms are illusory. But they are reality when recognized as illusory. They are illusory only when taken as reality. All that exists is Xperience (I use this more general term because it applies equally well to all things, not just human minds). Even the most profound and complex intellectual theory ultimately exists only as experience, as the experience of its forms. All that exists is Xperience only. Reality is not at its most fundamental level a physical structure. It consists of Xperience, the Xperience of everything in the universe of everything else. Your Experience is just part of that overall structure... First is xperience, then it's categorized and analyzed and theorized, but ultimately it all remains xperience only, the xperience of those processes... Including my experience of thinking and writing this right now.. Thus it is clear that experience has a logical structure. And since xperience is the ultimate reality, that ultimate reality must also have a logical structure. Our basic disagreement as I see it is that recognizing this I embrace this logical structure of experience as a manifestation of the reality of Buddha Nature since, as we agree, experience is the ONLY reality, and it has a logical structure, while you throw up your hands and deny that part of experience is reality, and claim only the formless aspect of Buddha nature you experience while doing zazen is reality. As I say over and over, ALL of experience is reality, all of experience manifests Buddha Nature, not just the formless aspect of it. Edgar On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I've yet to see a set of succinct definitions of what you mean by 'reality' and 'illusions'. How about taking the list I posted and tell us what your definitions are? And try to keep the definitions to a couple sentences. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: ED, I've been trying to do just that in almost every one of my posts since I've been here but apparently not well enough... :-( Edgar On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:41 AM, ED wrote: Edgar, What you mean by 'reality' is different from what Bill! means by 'reality'. In a recent post, Bill! has stated in some detail the meaning he attaches to the word 'reality. You may want to define what you mean by 'reality'. Then, we may be able to see how and why you two are in disagreement over 'reality'. --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill! Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no logical structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in her mind as an illusion and not reality. It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on the street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses are real and you can really get killed running out in front of one BECAUSE REALITY HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend is NOT an illusion... I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that each of us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our respective minds. But because our mental models of reality are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what they model, the laws of nature, do not exist Edgar 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:
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Edgar, I got up this morning, had a cup of tea and settled in to watch CNN 360 when a neighbor had an emergency which captured my attention so I am just now able to attend to your post. I'm feeling very generous this morning so I will forgo the usual 'tough love' and concentrate instead on 'kumyaya love'... As usual my comments are embedded below: Bill! Realty is what exists in the present moment. It includes Buddha Nature and everything including all the forms and any illusions that exist in the present moment by manifesting Buddha Nature. But the fundamental reality of all these forms is Buddha Nature only. [Bill!] Okay. I think then I can say that our differences in the way we use the term 'reality' is that I call 'reality' what you call 'fundamental reality', and you call 'reality' what I call 'reality' plus 'illusions'. Or symbolically: [Bill] REALITY = Fundamental Reality = Buddha Nature [EDGAR] FUNDAMENTAL REALITY = Buddha Nature REALITY = Fundamental Reality + Illusions. Illusions are the differences between an organism's simulation of reality in its mind and reality itself as it actually exists... [Bill!] Agreed! PS: I actually agree with you that all that exists is experience, but that experience is not just in YOUR mind. That's the major disagreement I think I have with you. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self. [Bill!] I do agree with you that his area is an area of disagreement if I'm understanding you correctly. To put it in simple terms, I believe Reality is ONLY what you experience and there is no more. An example: Right now I hear the sound of a rooster crowing outside my window. The SOUND is REALITY, and it is the SUM TOTAL of reality. It is experienced by Buddha Nature - in fact the very EXPERIENCE itself IS Buddha Nature. The inferences that the sound is from a rooster, and that the rooster is something separate from me, and that it is in a different location than me, etc..., are all products of my dualistic mind, and are what I generalize and term as 'illusion'. And this INCLUDES inferences, and projections that lead me to believe there are other roosters living in the USA or France. I am not experiencing them. The 'idea' of them is just that, an idea, an inference - or what I generalize and term illusions. And I do include logical inferences in this category. I maintain Illusions do not exist in Buddha Nature because again I believe Buddha Nature is sensory experience only, or what you have called above 'Fundamental Reality'. I believe our logical inferences what cascade out from our experience are not 'Fundamental Reality' have a dualistic base so are part of our discriminating mind, not of Buddha Nature. I am also uncomfortable with your characterization of what you think I believe as What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self. That's close, but you need to again be very careful about the terms. I do believe Buddha Nature (singular) is Experience, is Reality. I do believe 'our individual discriminating minds' (plural)when they arise then create dualism which allows for the dualistic set of Reality/Illusions. If there is no dualism, only Buddha Nature there is only Reality - no Illusions. Or as I say (and I know you're sick of reading it but it's the best I can do...) Just THIS! Experience itself is raw and unmediated. Experience itself is reality. [Bill!] Yes! Yes! Yes! It consists of forms manifesting Buddha Nature. [Bill!] Reality/Experience is Emptiness. Forms are generated and imposed by our discriminating minds. Emptiness is Emptiness. Forms are Forms. They are not interchangeable. Many if not all of those forms are illusory. But they are reality when recognized as illusory. They are illusory only when taken as reality. [Bill!] Some of those Forms are based on Reality/Experience and some are not, but even those based on inferences about Reality/Experience are not Reality, they are Forms. I say all Forms are Illusory - dualistic products of our discriminating minds. All that exists is Xperience (I use this more general term because it applies equally well to all things, not just human minds). Even the most profound and complex intellectual theory ultimately exists only as experience, as the experience of its forms. [Bill!] I'm not sure about this new (to me) term 'Xperience'. How does that differ from 'Experience', or is it just a short-hand way of writing 'Experience'? Anyway I disagree with the last phrase of your last sentence above: ...as the experience of its forms. You don't Experience Forms. You create them. You only Experience Reality. All that exists is Xperience only. Reality is not at its most fundamental level a physical
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
what a mouthful...all about what is real and what is not..jesus... what till dementia gets ya..what's real then?..merle Edgar, I got up this morning, had a cup of tea and settled in to watch CNN 360 when a neighbor had an emergency which captured my attention so I am just now able to attend to your post. I'm feeling very generous this morning so I will forgo the usual 'tough love' and concentrate instead on 'kumyaya love'... As usual my comments are embedded below: Bill! Realty is what exists in the present moment. It includes Buddha Nature and everything including all the forms and any illusions that exist in the present moment by manifesting Buddha Nature. But the fundamental reality of all these forms is Buddha Nature only. [Bill!] Okay. I think then I can say that our differences in the way we use the term 'reality' is that I call 'reality' what you call 'fundamental reality', and you call 'reality' what I call 'reality' plus 'illusions'. Or symbolically: [Bill] REALITY = Fundamental Reality = Buddha Nature [EDGAR] FUNDAMENTAL REALITY = Buddha Nature REALITY = Fundamental Reality + Illusions. Illusions are the differences between an organism's simulation of reality in its mind and reality itself as it actually exists... [Bill!] Agreed! PS: I actually agree with you that all that exists is experience, but that experience is not just in YOUR mind. That's the major disagreement I think I have with you. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self. [Bill!] I do agree with you that his area is an area of disagreement if I'm understanding you correctly. To put it in simple terms, I believe Reality is ONLY what you experience and there is no more. An example: Right now I hear the sound of a rooster crowing outside my window. The SOUND is REALITY, and it is the SUM TOTAL of reality. It is experienced by Buddha Nature - in fact the very EXPERIENCE itself IS Buddha Nature. The inferences that the sound is from a rooster, and that the rooster is something separate from me, and that it is in a different location than me, etc..., are all products of my dualistic mind, and are what I generalize and term as 'illusion'. And this INCLUDES inferences, and projections that lead me to believe there are other roosters living in the USA or France. I am not experiencing them. The 'idea' of them is just that, an idea, an inference - or what I generalize and term illusions. And I do include logical inferences in this category. I maintain Illusions do not exist in Buddha Nature because again I believe Buddha Nature is sensory experience only, or what you have called above 'Fundamental Reality'. I believe our logical inferences what cascade out from our experience are not 'Fundamental Reality' have a dualistic base so are part of our discriminating mind, not of Buddha Nature. I am also uncomfortable with your characterization of what you think I believe as What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self. That's close, but you need to again be very careful about the terms. I do believe Buddha Nature (singular) is Experience, is Reality. I do believe 'our individual discriminating minds' (plural)when they arise then create dualism which allows for the dualistic set of Reality/Illusions. If there is no dualism, only Buddha Nature there is only Reality - no Illusions. Or as I say (and I know you're sick of reading it but it's the best I can do...) Just THIS! Experience itself is raw and unmediated. Experience itself is reality. [Bill!] Yes! Yes! Yes! It consists of forms manifesting Buddha Nature. [Bill!] Reality/Experience is Emptiness. Forms are generated and imposed by our discriminating minds. Emptiness is Emptiness. Forms are Forms. They are not interchangeable. Many if not all of those forms are illusory. But they are reality when recognized as illusory. They are illusory only when taken as reality. [Bill!] Some of those Forms are based on Reality/Experience and some are not, but even those based on inferences about Reality/Experience are not Reality, they are Forms. I say all Forms are Illusory - dualistic products of our discriminating minds. All that exists is Xperience (I use this more general term because it applies equally well to all things, not just human minds). Even the most profound and complex intellectual theory ultimately exists only as experience, as the experience of its forms. [Bill!] I'm not sure about this new (to me) term 'Xperience'. How does that differ from 'Experience', or is it just a short-hand way of writing 'Experience'? Anyway I disagree with the last phrase of your last sentence above: ...as the experience of its forms. You don't Experience Forms. You create them. You only Experience
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Merle, This post was directed primarily to Edgar. He and I like to discuss such things. None of this is really important or a pre-requisite to zen practice. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:  what a mouthful...all about what is real and what is not..jesus... what till dementia gets ya..what's real then?..merle  Edgar, I got up this morning, had a cup of tea and settled in to watch CNN 360 when a neighbor had an emergency which captured my attention so I am just now able to attend to your post. I'm feeling very generous this morning so I will forgo the usual 'tough love' and concentrate instead on 'kumyaya love'... As usual my comments are embedded below: Bill! Realty is what exists in the present moment. It includes Buddha Nature and everything including all the forms and any illusions that exist in the present moment by manifesting Buddha Nature. But the fundamental reality of all these forms is Buddha Nature only. [Bill!] Okay. I think then I can say that our differences in the way we use the term 'reality' is that I call 'reality' what you call 'fundamental reality', and you call 'reality' what I call 'reality' plus 'illusions'. Or symbolically: [Bill] REALITY = Fundamental Reality = Buddha Nature [EDGAR] FUNDAMENTAL REALITY = Buddha Nature REALITY = Fundamental Reality + Illusions. Illusions are the differences between an organism's simulation of reality in its mind and reality itself as it actually exists... [Bill!] Agreed! PS: I actually agree with you that all that exists is experience, but that experience is not just in YOUR mind. That's the major disagreement I think I have with you. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self. [Bill!] I do agree with you that his area is an area of disagreement if I'm understanding you correctly. To put it in simple terms, I believe Reality is ONLY what you experience and there is no more. An example: Right now I hear the sound of a rooster crowing outside my window. The SOUND is REALITY, and it is the SUM TOTAL of reality. It is experienced by Buddha Nature - in fact the very EXPERIENCE itself IS Buddha Nature. The inferences that the sound is from a rooster, and that the rooster is something separate from me, and that it is in a different location than me, etc..., are all products of my dualistic mind, and are what I generalize and term as 'illusion'. And this INCLUDES inferences, and projections that lead me to believe there are other roosters living in the USA or France. I am not experiencing them. The 'idea' of them is just that, an idea, an inference - or what I generalize and term illusions. And I do include logical inferences in this category. I maintain Illusions do not exist in Buddha Nature because again I believe Buddha Nature is sensory experience only, or what you have called above 'Fundamental Reality'. I believe our logical inferences what cascade out from our experience are not 'Fundamental Reality' have a dualistic base so are part of our discriminating mind, not of Buddha Nature. I am also uncomfortable with your characterization of what you think I believe as What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self. That's close, but you need to again be very careful about the terms. I do believe Buddha Nature (singular) is Experience, is Reality. I do believe 'our individual discriminating minds' (plural)when they arise then create dualism which allows for the dualistic set of Reality/Illusions. If there is no dualism, only Buddha Nature there is only Reality - no Illusions. Or as I say (and I know you're sick of reading it but it's the best I can do...) Just THIS! Experience itself is raw and unmediated. Experience itself is reality. [Bill!] Yes! Yes! Yes! It consists of forms manifesting Buddha Nature. [Bill!] Reality/Experience is Emptiness. Forms are generated and imposed by our discriminating minds. Emptiness is Emptiness. Forms are Forms. They are not interchangeable. Many if not all of those forms are illusory. But they are reality when recognized as illusory. They are illusory only when taken as reality. [Bill!] Some of those Forms are based on Reality/Experience and some are not, but even those based on inferences about Reality/Experience are not Reality, they are Forms. I say all Forms are Illusory - dualistic products of our discriminating minds. All that exists is Xperience (I use this more general term because it applies equally well to all things, not just human minds). Even the most profound and complex intellectual theory ultimately exists only as experience, as the experience of its forms.
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
JMJM, Thanks for your post. I also posted something recently that you probably had not read before you posted this. That post mirrors some of what you say, only refers to style rather than perspective. Thanks...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺å¦ç²¾æ ï¼JMJMï¼ chan.jmjm@... wrote: Hello Bill and all, Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do. The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the first place. All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out who is who, but for each of us to reflect on. This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect inwardly and wake up from our dream. The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness. We argue, because we don't have the whole picture. jm On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide what's best for her. I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺å¦â¢Ã§Â²Â¾Ã¦ËŽ ï¼ËJMJMï¼Ⱐchan.jmjm@ wrote: I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill! 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:
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
bill i understand where you and edgar are coming from... edgar has a point and so do you... merle JMJM, You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide what's best for her. I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.jmjm@... wrote: I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
JMJM, I can't find the post where you referred to the jhanas, but I've never seen you refere to them before. What do you understand by them and do they play an important role in your practice? Mike From: 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.j...@gmail.com To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Cc: Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 6:11 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl Hello Bill and all, Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do. The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the first place. All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out who is who, but for each of us to reflect on. This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect inwardly and wake up from our dream. The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness. We argue, because we don't have the whole picture. jm On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide what's best for her. I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.jmjm@... wrote: I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Bill! I'm not patronizing you but I do assume you mean what you say. Should I not? Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Please don't patronize me. We have been talking in metaphors and my post and statmemts are just a continuation of that. When I say 'after enlightenment you do not need to eat' I am extending the metaphor of the rice gruel and bowl. I'll say it a little plainer for you: 'After enlightenment you don't need to study Buddhist sutras or try to understand anything, because you realize then Buddha Nature is not about understanding.' Understand? Want more tea? ...or can you see your cup is overflowing already? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill! and Merle, Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen consists of using information because even after realization you are still living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the world of forms is still there exactly as it was before, you just now realize it for what it really is - the manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle Â
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Edgar, What you mean by 'reality' is different from what Bill! means by 'reality'. In a recent post, Bill! has stated in some detail the meaning he attaches to the word 'reality. You may want to define what you mean by 'reality'. Then, we may be able to see how and why you two are in disagreement over 'reality'. --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill! Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no logical structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in her mind as an illusion and not reality. It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on the street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses are real and you can really get killed running out in front of one BECAUSE REALITY HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend is NOT an illusion... I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that each of us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our respective minds. But because our mental models of reality are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what they model, the laws of nature, do not exist Edgar
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
ED, I've been trying to do just that in almost every one of my posts since I've been here but apparently not well enough... :-( Edgar On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:41 AM, ED wrote: Edgar, What you mean by 'reality' is different from what Bill! means by 'reality'. In a recent post, Bill! has stated in some detail the meaning he attaches to the word 'reality. You may want to define what you mean by 'reality'. Then, we may be able to see how and why you two are in disagreement over 'reality'. --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill! Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no logical structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in her mind as an illusion and not reality. It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on the street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses are real and you can really get killed running out in front of one BECAUSE REALITY HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend is NOT an illusion... I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that each of us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our respective minds. But because our mental models of reality are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what they model, the laws of nature, do not exist Edgar
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Hi Bill, You are still trying to show me that you are somebody. Sorry. I have come to realized that only when we realized that we are truly nobody, then we could be everybody. Then we see the wisdom in everything. jm On 9/5/2012 11:31 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, Thanks for your post. I also posted something recently that you probably had not read before you posted this. That post mirrors some of what you say, only refers to style rather than perspective. Thanks...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.jmjm@... wrote: Hello Bill and all, Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do. The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the first place. All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out who is who, but for each of us to reflect on. This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect inwardly and wake up from our dream. The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness. We argue, because we don't have the whole picture. jm On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide what's best for her. I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.jmjm@ wrote: I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
we are the everyman...merle Merle www.wix.com/merlewiitpom/1 From: Anthony Wu wu...@yahoo.com.sg To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 7 September 2012 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl JMJM, Bill! (not Bill) is always somebody. You are also somebody by claiming you are nobody. Good argument. Anthony From: 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.j...@gmail.com To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 22:46 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl Hi Bill, You are still trying to show me that you are somebody. Sorry. I have come to realized that only when we realized that we are truly nobody, then we could be everybody. Then we see the wisdom in everything. jm On 9/5/2012 11:31 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, Thanks for your post. I also posted something recently that you probably had not read before you posted this. That post mirrors some of what you say, only refers to style rather than perspective. Thanks...Bill! --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） mailto:chan.jmjm@... wrote: Hello Bill and all, Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do. The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the first place. All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out who is who, but for each of us to reflect on. This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect inwardly and wake up from our dream. The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness. We argue, because we don't have the whole picture. jm On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide what's best for her. I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. ...Bill! --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.jmjm@ wrote: I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
On 9/5/2012 8:26 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I must say this whole line of discussion has been profoundly disappointing to me. A bowl full of rice A bowl full of emptiness A bowl full of shit KG 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] Re: clarification of the bowl
bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle  Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils   that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils  This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? What appears, appears. What of it? Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such conceptual contortions required. Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no effort. KG On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:  Kris, There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation from it. Clarity here reads as insight. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils  Then you still know too much. ;) If it so clear as that, there is nothing to see. The 'obscuration' all that may show the way. What you are seeing as separate only appears to be. All a matter of how you see it. So who is leading who? Who suffers? In seeking perfection, it forever eludes. The clear minded are equally empty headed. Don't throw the Buddha out with the bathwater. KG PS - Expresses simpler/more obviously wordlessly - see: 'Wabi Sabi' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi On 9/2/2012 12:32 PM, mike brown wrote:
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
bill..i know that bible quote well,,, edgar paints it well for me..i do not understand what you mean by the bowls or the bible quote..how is it zen?...merle Merle, That's an interesting question. I'm going way out on a limb here but I actually believe the size of your bowl does matter. The larger the bowl you have (like Edgar) the more rice gruel it takes to fill it up. And if many cases people with very large bowls never get full. They always want more. People with smaller bowls to start with have less to empty, less attachments. It's probably easier for them to empty their bowl and experience Buddha Nature. The closest I could come to citing a source that says pretty much the same thing would be: Mark 10:14-15 Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. ...and: Matthew 18:2-4 Jesus called a little child to come to him. Jesus stood the child before the followers. Then Jesus said, I tell you the truth. You must change and become like little children. If you don't do this, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. I interpret Jesus' term 'kingdom of heaven' as the same as Buddha Nature. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle  Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils   that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils  This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? What appears, appears. What of it? Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such conceptual contortions required. Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no effort. KG On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:  Kris, There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation from it. Clarity here reads as insight. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle  Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ààplease clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle àKG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: Ãâ take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle Ãâ Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils Ãâ Ãâ that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the story of
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Merle, I hope I've addressed this question in my previous long post about rice gruel, bowls, knowledge, illusions, attachments, zen and Buddha Nature. One clarification for you: I hold Jesus to be an enlightened teacher (Bodhisattva) so I use quotes from him as well as from Buddha - or in fact quotes from anyone else I think is saying something noteworthy about Buddha Nature. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: bill..i know that bible quote well,,, edgar paints it well for me..i do not understand what you mean  by the bowls or the bible quote..how is it  zen?...merle  Merle, That's an interesting question. I'm going way out on a limb here but I actually believe the size of your bowl does matter. The larger the bowl you have (like Edgar) the more rice gruel it takes to fill it up. And if many cases people with very large bowls never get full. They always want more. People with smaller bowls to start with have less to empty, less attachments. It's probably easier for them to empty their bowl and experience Buddha Nature. The closest I could come to citing a source that says pretty much the same thing would be: Mark 10:14-15 Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. ...and: Matthew 18:2-4 Jesus called a little child to come to him. Jesus stood the child before the followers. Then Jesus said, I tell you the truth. You must change and become like little children. If you don't do this, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. I interpret Jesus' term 'kingdom of heaven' as the same as Buddha Nature. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ààplease clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle àKG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: Ãâ take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle Ãâ Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils Ãâ Ãâ that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils Ãâ This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? What appears, appears. What of it? Clarity,
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Bill!, I appreciate that you began your post with a caveat that the meaning of Joshu's 'wash your bowls' was just your opinion. However, isn't what you wrote (rice-gruel = Buddhism) just a secondary meaning to the koan, and worse, an intellectual overlay giving it a meaning in order to be understood. Joshu's instruction to the monk to wash his bowl was exactly that - to go and wash his bowl. Nothing added necessary because washing your bowl, with nothing added, manifests Buddha Nature. Reminds me of the Watts quote where he states that spirituality in Christianity is washing the dishes while thinking about God. Spirituality in Zen isjust washing the dishes. Mike From: Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 10:02 Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle  Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Bill! and Merle, It is impossible to empty your bowl. Empty it and reality immediately refills it with Buddha Nature... The bowl is ALWAYS full! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle  Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils   that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils  This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? What appears, appears. What of it? Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such conceptual contortions required. Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no effort. KG On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:  Kris, There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation from it. Clarity here reads as insight. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils  Then you still know too much. ;) If it so clear as that, there is nothing to see. The 'obscuration' all that may show the way. What you are seeing as separate only appears to be. All a matter of how you see it. So who is leading who? Who suffers? In seeking perfection, it forever eludes. The clear minded are equally empty headed. Don't throw the Buddha out with the bathwater. KG PS - Expresses simpler/more
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Bill! and Merle, Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen consists of using information because even after realization you are still living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the world of forms is still there exactly as it was before, you just now realize it for what it really is - the manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle  Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: Â take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle Â
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill! and Merle, Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen consists of using information because even after realization you are still living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the world of forms is still there exactly as it was before, you just now realize it for what it really is - the manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle  Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ààplease clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle àKG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
It's not the bowl, or it's fullness, it's those skinny hungry ghost necks! *L* KG On 9/5/2012 7:35 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill! and Merle, It is impossible to empty your bowl. Empty it and reality immediately refills it with Buddha Nature... The bowl is ALWAYS full! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle  Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils   that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils  This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? What appears, appears. What of it? Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such conceptual contortions required. Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no effort. KG On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:  Kris, There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation from it. Clarity here reads as insight. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils  Then you still know too much. ;) If it so clear as that, there is nothing to see. The 'obscuration' all that may show the way. What you are seeing as separate only appears to be. All a matter of how you see it. So who is leading
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
So simple, right up to that seemly part at the end anyway. ;) On 9/5/2012 7:48 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill! and Merle, Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen consists of using information because even after realization you are still living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the world of forms is still there exactly as it was before, you just now realize it for what it really is - the manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe... Edgar
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Mike, You're absolutely right. I plead guilty...but I did as you noticed state all that with a caveat...for whatever that's worth. I knew I was skating on thin ice when I wrote that but it was the best I could do to try to reach Merle. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!, I appreciate that you began your post with a caveat that the meaning of Joshu's 'wash your bowls' was just your opinion. However, isn't what you wrote (rice-gruel = Buddhism) just a secondary meaning to the koan, and worse, an intellectual overlay giving it a meaning in order to be understood. Joshu's instruction to the monk to wash his bowl was exactly that - to go and wash his bowl. Nothing added necessary because washing your bowl, with nothing added, manifests Buddha Nature. Reminds me of the Watts quote where he states that spirituality in Christianity is washing the dishes while thinking about God. Spirituality in Zen isjust washing the dishes. Mike From: Bill! BillSmart@... To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 10:02 Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl  Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle àMerle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÃâàÃâàplease clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle ÃâàKG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
I'm off to bed now. I'll catch up with any subsequent posts in my tomorrow morning (your this evening if you're in the USA)...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Mike, You're absolutely right. I plead guilty...but I did as you noticed state all that with a caveat...for whatever that's worth. I knew I was skating on thin ice when I wrote that but it was the best I could do to try to reach Merle. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusuboyo@ wrote: Bill!, I appreciate that you began your post with a caveat that the meaning of Joshu's 'wash your bowls' was just your opinion. However, isn't what you wrote (rice-gruel = Buddhism) just a secondary meaning to the koan, and worse, an intellectual overlay giving it a meaning in order to be understood. Joshu's instruction to the monk to wash his bowl was exactly that - to go and wash his bowl. Nothing added necessary because washing your bowl, with nothing added, manifests Buddha Nature. Reminds me of the Watts quote where he states that spirituality in Christianity is washing the dishes while thinking about God. Spirituality in Zen isjust washing the dishes. Mike From: Bill! BillSmart@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 10:02 Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl  Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle àMerle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÃâàÃâàplease clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle ÃâàKG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Bill!, Read Lao Tse. The bowl's usefulness is in its emptiness... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Bill! wrote: --BfD3b3XoZLrm8ULEs65dKkxGL0L4HCs5O3qrWRW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Edgar, Following the analogy, when you empty your bowl you find you no longer need= a bowl. It is THEN that you can experience Buddha Nature. You do not exp= erience Buddha Nature in the bowl. ...Bill!=20=20 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill! and Merle, =20 It is impossible to empty your bowl. Empty it and reality immediately ref= ills it with Buddha Nature... =20 The bowl is ALWAYS full! =20 Edgar =20 =20 =20 On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Bill! wrote: =20 Merle, =20 I forgot to respond to your second question. =20 You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of = the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the con= tents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you = want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least= temporarily. =20 ...Bill! =20 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: =20 =20 =C2=20 =C2 please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the b= owl shared with others?...merle =C2=20=20 KG, =20 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl.= Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and puttin= g more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way = or the other. =20 If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Natu= re) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choic= e to be made. =20 ...Bill! =20 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying = your=20 bowl. =20 KG =20 =20 On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do hav= e a=20 choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become=20 attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not = to do=20 and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill= ! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.= com,=20 Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: =C3=82 take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choic= e ..merle =C3=82 Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the d= ay Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.= com=20 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils =C3=82 =C3=82 that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through= the=20 day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the= =20 story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things ar= e=20 going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming cras= hing=20 down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or you= r=20 girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as = being=20 mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the worl= d in=20 such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here = quite=20 easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on = 'real=20 world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.c= om Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils =C3=82 This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffe= r is=20 all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. W= hat=20 is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? Wh= at=20 appears, appears. What of it? Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No suc= h conceptual contortions required. Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes = no effort. KG On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote: =C3=82 Kris, There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation th= at=20 there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liber= ation=20 from it. Clarity here reads as insight. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.= com Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils =C3=82 Then you still know too much. ;) If it so clear as that, there is nothing to see.
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill! and Merle, Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen consists of using information because even after realization you are still living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the world of forms is still there exactly as it was before, you just now realize it for what it really is - the manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle  Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Of the two of us, only you claim to know know Bill!'s delusions. What's your excuse? If there is no attachment to a position, there is no disagreement, there are only apparent differences in expression. KG On 9/5/2012 11:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Kristopher, Total nonsense in your second sentence... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Of the two of us, only you claim to know know Bill!'s delusions. What's your excuse? If there is no attachment to a position, there is no disagreement, there are only apparent differences in expression. KG On 9/5/2012 11:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Such is your position. KG On 9/5/2012 12:41 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, Total nonsense in your second sentence... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Of the two of us, only you claim to know know Bill!'s delusions. What's your excuse? If there is no attachment to a position, there is no disagreement, there are only apparent differences in expression. KG On 9/5/2012 11:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Bill!, Never doubted you! Mike From: Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 15:01 Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl Mike, You're absolutely right. I plead guilty...but I did as you noticed state all that with a caveat...for whatever that's worth. I knew I was skating on thin ice when I wrote that but it was the best I could do to try to reach Merle. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!, I appreciate that you began your post with a caveat that the meaning of Joshu's 'wash your bowls' was just your opinion. However, isn't what you wrote (rice-gruel = Buddhism) just a secondary meaning to the koan, and worse, an intellectual overlay giving it a meaning in order to be understood. Joshu's instruction to the monk to wash his bowl was exactly that - to go and wash his bowl. Nothing added necessary because washing your bowl, with nothing added, manifests Buddha Nature. Reminds me of the Watts quote where he states that spirituality in Christianity is washing the dishes while thinking about God. Spirituality in Zen isjust washing the dishes. Mike From: Bill! BillSmart@... To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 10:02 Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl  Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle  Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
yes so true edgar..merle Read Lao Tse. The bowl's usefulness is in its emptiness... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Bill! wrote: --BfD3b3XoZLrm8ULEs65dKkxGL0L4HCs5O3qrWRW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Edgar, Following the analogy, when you empty your bowl you find you no longer need= a bowl. It is THEN that you can experience Buddha Nature. You do not exp= erience Buddha Nature in the bowl. ...Bill!=20=20 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill! and Merle, =20 It is impossible to empty your bowl. Empty it and reality immediately ref= ills it with Buddha Nature... =20 The bowl is ALWAYS full! =20 Edgar =20 =20 =20 On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Bill! wrote: =20 Merle, =20 I forgot to respond to your second question. =20 You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of = the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the con= tents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you = want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least= temporarily. =20 ...Bill! =20 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: =20 =20 =C2=20 =C2 please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the b= owl shared with others?...merle =C2=20=20 KG, =20 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl.= Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and puttin= g more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way = or the other. =20 If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Natu= re) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choic= e to be made. =20 ...Bill! =20 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying = your=20 bowl. =20 KG =20 =20 On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do hav= e a=20 choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become=20 attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not = to do=20 and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill= ! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.= com,=20 Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: =C3=82 take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choic= e ..merle =C3=82 Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the d= ay Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.= com=20 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils =C3=82 =C3=82 that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through= the=20 day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the= =20 story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things ar= e=20 going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming cras= hing=20 down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or you= r=20 girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as = being=20 mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the worl= d in=20 such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here = quite=20 easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on = 'real=20 world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.c= om Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils =C3=82 This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffe= r is=20 all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. W= hat=20 is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? Wh= at=20 appears, appears. What of it? Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No suc= h conceptual contortions required. Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes = no effort. KG On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote: =C3=82 Kris, There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation th= at=20 there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liber= ation=20 from it. Clarity here reads as insight. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.= com Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils =C3=82 Then you still know too much. ;) If it so clear as that, there
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Edgar, Please don't patronize me. We have been talking in metaphors and my post and statmemts are just a continuation of that. When I say 'after enlightenment you do not need to eat' I am extending the metaphor of the rice gruel and bowl. I'll say it a little plainer for you: 'After enlightenment you don't need to study Buddhist sutras or try to understand anything, because you realize then Buddha Nature is not about understanding.' Understand? Want more tea? ...or can you see your cup is overflowing already? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill! and Merle, Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen consists of using information because even after realization you are still living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the world of forms is still there exactly as it was before, you just now realize it for what it really is - the manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'. There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle  Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
They're not 'delusions', they are accounts of 'experience'. They are writing using logic in an attempt to get you to understand my experience, but I obviously am not doing a very good job. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
JMJM, You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide what's best for her. I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺å¦ç²¾æ ï¼JMJMï¼ chan.jmjm@... wrote: I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Mike, I agree especially with your statement below that ...the ultimate understanding of a koan as experiential and visceral - similar to the understanding of a joke. The total personality is involved. If a joke is explained intellectually, then much of it's humour is lost. I wince a little bit with the word 'understand', because 'understand' usually refers to intellection, and it is not that. It is as is said 'experiential and visceral'. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusuboyo@... wrote: Kris, I'm not qualified to teach koan practice, so you could well be correct, however, my understanding about koans differs from yours somewhat. There are many different ways a koan can be interpreted, but if the the 'answer' is only realised cognitively, and not experienced, then it'll not be accepted. Alan Watts' puts it well, as he usually does, when he claims the ultimate understanding of a koan as experiential and visceral - similar to the understanding of a joke. The total personality is involved. If a joke is explained intellectually, then much of it's humour is lost. From: Kristopher Grey kris@... To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 14:20 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl  Such is the nature of koans. Some will experience the story as an example of a metaphor (mind). Some will experience the metaphoric story as none other than a direct example of itself in action (no-mind). Some will experience recognition of them as both (ordinary mind as original mind). Some realize that however they appear, these experiences are only stories (original mind) The koan, only a reflection of this. KG PS - Mountain - no mountain - mountain again. Mind wanders mountains, yet never moves. No-mind wanders no mountain, yet is free to move. Buddha mind moves mountains, effortlessly. 9/5/2012 5:56 AM, mike brown wrote:  Bill!, I appreciate that you began your post with a caveat that the meaning of Joshu's 'wash your bowls' was just your opinion. However, isn't what you wrote (rice-gruel = Buddhism) just a secondary meaning to the koan, and worse, an intellectual overlay giving it a meaning in order to be understood. Joshu's instruction to the monk to wash his bowl was exactly that - to go and wash his bowl. Nothing added necessary because washing your bowl, with nothing added, manifests Buddha Nature. Reminds me of the Watts quote where he states that spirituality in Christianity is washing the dishes while thinking about God. Spirituality in Zen isjust washing the dishes. Mike From: Bill! BillSmart@... To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 10:02 Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl  Merle, A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again: A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, I have just entered the monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. Joshu asked, Have you eaten your rice gruel yet? The monk answered, Yes, I have. Joshu said, Then wash your bowls. The monk attained some realization. In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You
Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Hello Bill and all, Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do. The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the first place. All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out who is who, but for each of us to reflect on. This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect inwardly and wake up from our dream. The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness. We argue, because we don't have the whole picture. jm On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote: JMJM, You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide what's best for her. I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） chan.jmjm@... wrote: I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to help Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL :-) On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Kristopher, You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! Disagreement is not a form of suffering unless you are attached to it... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of have to - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering. Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of recognition. Same. KG On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: O, for God's sakes Bill! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh! Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar (no longer and Merle), After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real). ...Bill!
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Merle, That's an interesting question. I'm going way out on a limb here but I actually believe the size of your bowl does matter. The larger the bowl you have (like Edgar) the more rice gruel it takes to fill it up. And if many cases people with very large bowls never get full. They always want more. People with smaller bowls to start with have less to empty, less attachments. It's probably easier for them to empty their bowl and experience Buddha Nature. The closest I could come to citing a source that says pretty much the same thing would be: Mark 10:14-15 Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. ...and: Matthew 18:2-4 Jesus called a little child to come to him. Jesus stood the child before the followers. Then Jesus said, I tell you the truth. You must change and become like little children. If you don't do this, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. I interpret Jesus' term 'kingdom of heaven' as the same as Buddha Nature. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: à take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle à Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils à à that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils à This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? What appears, appears. What of it? Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such conceptual contortions required. Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no effort. KG On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote: à Kris, There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation from it. Clarity here reads as insight. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils à Then you still know too much. ;) If it so
[Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
Merle, I forgot to respond to your second question. You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared with others?...merle  KG, 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the other. If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be made. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote: Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your bowl. KG On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: Merle, You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: à take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle à Merle, that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; ) Mike From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils à à that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day...merle Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real world' here].. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils à This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What is this notion of liberation from but self relating to self? What appears, appears. What of it? Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such conceptual contortions required. Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no effort. KG On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote: à Kris, There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation from it. Clarity here reads as insight. Mike From: Kristopher Grey kris@ To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: dancing with the daffodils à Then you still know too much. ;) If it so clear as that, there is nothing to see. The 'obscuration' all that may show the way. What you are seeing as separate only appears to be. All a matter of how you see it. So who is leading who? Who suffers? In seeking perfection, it forever eludes. The clear minded are equally empty headed. Don't throw the Buddha out with the bathwater. KG PS - Expresses simpler/more obviously wordlessly - see: 'Wabi Sabi' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi On 9/2/2012 12:32 PM, mike brown wrote: à Kris, I might point out that apparent obscuration is no less reality than apparent clarity Reality is certainly there regardless, but reality seen with obscuration
