Re: [Zen] Quantum Physics or Zen?
Bill there was no attachment attached... Edgar On Oct 1, 2013, at 5:56 AM, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Especially for Edgar... ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Test for Graphic...
NO... Edgar On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:03 AM, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: This is a graphic... Do you see it?
Re: [Zen] RE: Test for Graphic...
I see it only when I click on it... Edgar On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:12 AM, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Second Try... img src=https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/s720x720/1184838_10202240585519798_1292807694_n.jpg; height=50 width=100 Do you see it now? ---In zen_forum@yahoogroups.com, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: I don't... ---In zen_forum@yahoogroups.com, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: This is a graphic... Do you see it?
Re: [Zen] Is There Anybody Out There?
got it Edgar On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:58 AM, billsm...@hhs1963.org billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Whoever reads this post please REPLY. I'm requesting this as a test of the new Yahoo! Group format. Thanks...Bill!
Re: [Zen] New Yahoo! Group Format
Bill, Don't change it! It's the most wonderful Zen photo I've seen and it is still viewable from certain entrances. Edgar On Sep 24, 2013, at 7:38 AM, billsm...@hhs1963.org billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: Okay! I finally figured out how to get into the management area and changed the Kremlin Home Page photo. We're going to have to try to find another picture though. One which has a different orientation and is more wide than tall to fit better. I'm requesting suggestions on this. Also I see the whole format has changed. I've got tomorrow off (that means I'm not playing golf) so I'll navigate through it and try to learn how to use it more efficiently. Please keep posting... ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] RE: Re: changed appearance and functionality
Bill, I'm using Mac Safari browser. When I click on 'visit your group' at the bottom of a post I am taken to http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Zen_Forum/info with Kremlin photo. When I try to go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ I get page doesn't exist error. When I go to yahoo groups and search for Zen_forum I see a listing come up with a little thumbnail of the Daruma image but when I click on it I'm taken back to the Kremlin again. Edgar On Sep 12, 2013, at 3:58 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, et al... This is very strange. When I view the Home Page using my regular browser I am taken to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ and it's the old Home Page. This page seems unchanged to me. When I view the Home Page using the a different browser I'm taken to http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Zen_Forum/info and it's the new Home Page with a view of tops of buildings in the Kremlin. This page has changed but looks like it's a page that's given me before I sign in to the group, but I'm really not even sure about that. I have no explanation for this. When you go to the web page who sees the old page (with a likeness of Bodhidharma)? And who sees the new Kremlin page? And what browser are you using? And what is the URL (web address) located at the top of your browser? Thanks...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill, Yes, the homepage has been totally screwed up by somebody. The great Daruma image is replaced by RedSquare. Do you think this is something we can fix? Edgar On Sep 11, 2013, at 3:08 AM, Merle Lester wrote: hi joe..no rain, early spring..hot yesterday herald first fires... in this hawkesbury/ blue mountains area...cheers merle Hi, Bill!, and thank you for the kind welcome. I don't see the usual Zen Forum masthead: I see a view of the onion-domes of the Kremlin, an image set to serve to represent all YAHOO! Groups. Something's changed while I've been snoozing... . ;-) I suspect that YAHOO! has been dithering-about around the corners. If you don't see this, then I may just have to puzzle-out the strange change myself. I've made no changes to the laptop, other than of course the famous bi-weekly Tuesday morning Microsoft Windows updates: I run XP on this main machine, and have a couple others running Windows 8 on touchscreen Dell 'mosheens', which I use for science, and optical-design mostly, at home. Wishing you and everyone Strong practice, and a good Indian -- Native-American? -- Summer. And, to Merle, a good soon-to-be-Spring. Equinox in 11 days, or so. Celebrate! Or, get ready to. To dance around the September-Pole... . ;-) Be well! Take good care of your realization, --Joe --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, zen_forum@yahoogroups.com wrote: Joe, Welcome back. Traffic on the forum has been slow and muted lately. Is that what you mean? ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Body awareness strengthens the immune system
I have a section on Chi and Energy Body in my new book on Reality... Edgar On Aug 28, 2013, at 6:00 AM, Merle Lester wrote: thanks for sharing..good advice...am ill at the moment... lung infection...merle FEELING THE INNER BODY Although body identification is one of the most basic forms of ego, the good news is that it is also the one that you can most easily go beyond. This is done not by trying to convince yourself that you are not your body, but by shifting your attention from the external form of your body and from thoughts about your body – beautiful, ugly, strong, weak, too fat, too thin – to the feeling of aliveness inside it. No matter what your body's appearance is on the outer level, beyond the outer form it is an intensely alive energy field. If you are not familiar with “inner body” awareness, close your eyes for a moment and find out if there is life inside your hands. Don't ask your mind. It will say, “ I can't feel anything.” Probably it will also say, “Give me something more interesting to think about.” So instead of asking your mind, go to the hands directly. By this I mean become aware of the subtle feeling of aliveness inside them. It is there. You just have to go there with your attention to notice it. you may get a slight tingling sensation at first, then a feeling of energy or aliveness. If you hold your attention in your hands for a while, the sense of aliveness will intensify. Some people won't even have to close their eyes. They will be able to feel their “inner hands” at the same times as they read this. Then go to your feet, keep your attention there for a minute or so, and begin to feel your hands and feet at the same time. Then incorporate other parts of the body – legs, arms, abdomen, chest, and so on – into that feeling until you are aware of the inner body as a global sense of aliveness. What I call the “inner body” isn't really the body anymore but life energy, the bridge between form and formlessness. Make it a habit to feel the inner body as often as you can. After a while, you won't need to close your eyes anymore to feel it. For example, see if you can feel the inner body whenever you listen to someone. It almost seems like a paradox: When you are in touch with the inner body, you are not identified with your body anymore, nor are you identified with your mind. This is to say, you are no longer identified with form but moving away from form identification toward formlessness, which we may also call Being. It is your essence identity. Body awareness not only anchors you in the present moment, it is a doorway out of the prison that is the ego. It also strengthens the immune system and the body's ability to heal itself. ECKHART TOLLE -- Thanks and best regards J.Suresh New No.3, Old No.7, Chamiers road - 1st Lane, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600018 Ph: 044 42030947 Mobile: 91 9884071738 Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] My book on Reality is now available on Amazon.com
Hi Chris and thanks for ordering my book. I have now got it available on Kindle but there are still a few formatting problems I'm trying to resolve that Kindle doesn't make easy... Edgar On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Cool! I ordered it - should be here soon. I was surprised that there is no kindle edition - do you have a story to tell about that? Thanks, Chris Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Dear All, After several years of work my book on the deep nature of reality is now published and available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Sweeping-Existence-Information-Consciousness/dp/0615869459/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8qid=1377032180sr=8-3keywords=edgar+l.+owen Edgar Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: the human body
Larry, Bill and me, Edgar, are co-moderators of the group... Edgar On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:32 PM, larry maher wrote: Can anyone help me? I'm new here. I was just wondering who the forum head was? If the answer is no one could I please find out who Merle or Bill is? The one with the 45 yrs of meditation. I won't bother anyone, am just trying to figure this out. Thank you Larry On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: bill...so you are still telling me pain is a delusion?... tell me next time when you are in deep pain..try a very bad toothache..see it as a delusion and don't visit the dentist...how long will you last before you realise it is real and needs attention?...merle Merle, As you should very well know by now I don't identify with being a Buddhist. I do however practice zen and have for over 45 years; but just because I practice zen doesn't mean I don't feel pain, or have other delusions. What it means is that (most of the time) I am not attached to those delusions. ...Bill! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:  bill...acceptance is the key...what sort odf a zen buddhist are you?..merle  Merle, Yes! Why me? Why not someone else? Someone I don't like? Someone who doesn't look like me or is the same color as me or speaks the same language as I do. Someone ELSE! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  bill...not why me...that's plain silly..why not you?...merle  Merle, I have been in pain before. When I am in pain I don't think of pain as a judgmental delusion, I think of it as pain and judge it to be bad; and maybe even think Poor, poor me! Why do I have to suffer all this pain? What did I do to deserve this? I just want it to go away!. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  have you been in pain bill..and thought it was judgemental delusion?...merle  Merle, I don't know how you got from what I said earlier to your post below. The experience of feeling/touch is real. That experience is Buddha Nature. The classification of it as 'pain' is the judgmental delusion. Just as the experience of sight is real. The classification of it as 'a red bird' is the delusion. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÃÆ'‚ bill...i see...so if one is in pain..this is an illusion..try telling that to someone bowled over and in agony...merle ÃÆ'‚ Merle, I also want to add that experiencing Buddha Nature, such as through zazen, does not involve a disconnection with the body. It involves a disconnection with the illusion of self and all dualism. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Merle, No, the body is not a restraint. It is a gateway - at least as far as zen is concerned. The body, or at least its ability to afford awareness of reality, is the necessary component of Buddha Nature for not only humans but all beings as we know them. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: i know this is a little crazy..however here i go..ÃÆ'‚ the human body..can we exist without it?...we do when we are in cyber space although we need the body to get the messages out there...mm that has me stumped! would this body less be liken to the meditation ÃÆ'‚ state that can be achieved once one has surpassed the breath counting saga? ÃÆ'‚ i have belief that monks can practise a form of meditation whereby the can slow the whole body/ mind totally down to an almost non existent state in all the many previous post there has been much focus on slowing the mind down..however the body..does it have a mind of it's own so to speak? after all there are millions of tiny organisms..rummaging in the body that we do not have any control over what so ever... (meditate as long and hard as you want, they do their own thing regardless)... a whole eco system...one could say a universe lies in the gut ÃÆ'‚ my zen question is thus: ÃÆ'‚ to be totally free ..the human body is it a restraint? ÃÆ'‚ merle ÃÆ'‚ Merle www.wix.com/merlewiitpom/1
Re: [Zen] My book on Reality is now available on Amazon.com
Thanks Siska! Edgar On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:01 PM, siska_...@yahoo.com wrote: Congrats, Edgar! I'm happy for you :) Siska From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:07:36 -0400 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; 4dwor...@yahoogroups.com; evolutionary-psychol...@yahoogroups.com; physical_scien...@yahoogroups.com ReplyTo: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] My book on Reality is now available on Amazon.com Dear All, After several years of work my book on the deep nature of reality is now published and available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Sweeping-Existence-Information-Consciousness/dp/0615869459/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8qid=1377032180sr=8-3keywords=edgar+l.+owen Edgar
[Zen] My book on Reality is now available on Amazon.com
Dear All, After several years of work my book on the deep nature of reality is now published and available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Sweeping-Existence-Information-Consciousness/dp/0615869459/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8qid=1377032180sr=8-3keywords=edgar+l.+owen Edgar Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * 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] well done!
Thanks Merle... On Aug 20, 2013, at 7:43 PM, Merle Lester wrote: edgar..congratulations your book is now published...well done!...cheers merle Merle www.wix.com/merlewiitpom/1
Re: [Zen] Re: My book on Reality is now available on Amazon.com
Thanks Bill... Edgar On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Bill! wrote: CONGRATULATIONS --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Dear All, After several years of work my book on the deep nature of reality is now published and available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Sweeping-Existence-Information-Consciousness/dp/0615869459/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8qid=1377032180sr=8-3keywords=edgar+l.+owen Edgar
Re: [Zen] Re: i am here
Will do. Thanks Bill... Edgar On Aug 16, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, THAT'S GREAT! Let us know when it's available on Amazon.com...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Merle, Don't know about Bill but I've just finished my book It will be published shortly and available on Amazon The Title will be 'Reality, a Sweeping New Vision of the Unity of Existence, Physical Reality, Information, Consciousness, Mind and Time' Edgar On Aug 14, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Merle Lester wrote: bill..finished the book yet bill? attention attention cheers merle Merle, To 'be here now' is the same thing as the ISLAND's reminders of Attention! Attention!...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: where else would i be?...merle Yes, but are you here now? ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: i am here
Yes, and formatting it for publication has been a bear also though it's now almost done too... Thanks, Edgar On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:17 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, Congratulations! You must be relieved to have finally finished it. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: i am here Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2013 12:22:35 AM Merle, Don't know about Bill but I've just finished my book It will be published shortly and available on Amazon The Title will be 'Reality, a Sweeping New Vision of the Unity of Existence, Physical Reality, Information, Consciousness, Mind and Time' Edgar On Aug 14, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Merle Lester wrote: bill..finished the book yet bill? attention attention cheers merle Merle, To 'be here now' is the same thing as the ISLAND's reminders of Attention! Attention!...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: where else would i be?...merle Yes, but are you here now? ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: i am here
Thanks Merle, yes first... Edgar On Aug 15, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Merle Lester wrote: edgar..congratulations...a published book..your first?...merle Merle, Don't know about Bill but I've just finished my book It will be published shortly and available on Amazon The Title will be 'Reality, a Sweeping New Vision of the Unity of Existence, Physical Reality, Information, Consciousness, Mind and Time' Edgar On Aug 14, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Merle Lester wrote: bill..finished the book yet bill? attention attention cheers merle Merle, To 'be here now' is the same thing as the ISLAND's reminders of Attention! Attention!...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: where else would i be?...merle Yes, but are you here now? ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: i am here
Merle, Don't know about Bill but I've just finished my book It will be published shortly and available on Amazon The Title will be 'Reality, a Sweeping New Vision of the Unity of Existence, Physical Reality, Information, Consciousness, Mind and Time' Edgar On Aug 14, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Merle Lester wrote: bill..finished the book yet bill? attention attention cheers merle Merle, To 'be here now' is the same thing as the ISLAND's reminders of Attention! Attention!...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: where else would i be?...merle Yes, but are you here now? ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Original Mind
Bill, Bill takes the illusion of a nice photo as reality. The reality is exploitation of the pictured cormorants and overfishing of fish. Edgar On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:35 PM, Bill! wrote: Studying texts and stiff meditation can make you lose your Original Mind. A solitary tune by a fisherman, though, can be an invaluable treasure. Dusk rain on the river, the moon peeking in and out of the clouds; Elegant beyond words, he chants his songs night after night. ~ Ikkyu ~
Re: [Zen] Return to Emptiness: from nervous nellie
Bill, Bore yourself into enlightenment? That's a new one! Edgar On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:02 AM, Bill! wrote: Mike and M, Counting breaths (and chanting, bowing, koans, etc...) are just techniques used to focus the mind on repetitive thoughts to the point where it shuts down (usually out of boredom) which allows the experience of Buddha Nature. Any way you can halt the creation of dualism (intellectualizations) and enter into samadhi (or what I call shikantaza) is fine. Do whatever works for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: M,br/br/I began practicing Zen 10 years, or so, ago. I discovered Vipassana meditation about 5 years ago. I have found that Vipassana explains things that Zen leaves empty (pun noted). My (Zen) practice has deepened considerably since discovering Vipassana and one of the factors is focusing on bodily sensations as the doorway into reality. The sutras talk about this a lot and Buddha himself said that within this fathom long body will you discover the truth. No where in the sutras does it say to observe thoughts or count the breath. Since dropping both my meditation has changed considerably. For me, when my mind wanders I just come back to the sensation of air on the entrance of my nostrils. Very grounding.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Is not coconut a miracle?
Joe, Yes, most of the upward pumping force of sap in trees is due to capillary action. The calculated maximum is a little over 400 feet, which is in fact the height of the highest historically recorded trees. Edgar On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:22 PM, Joe wrote: Suresh, The water travels against gravity up into the heights of the tree, but is assisted of course by the upward-drawing force of capillary action of the phloem and xylem tissue(s) of the tree cell structure, the conducting and supporting tissues of the wood, respectively. Otherwise, 32 feet high, or about 10 meters high, would be the maximum height that one could pump water upwards in height, even with a VACUUM at the top end. The reason is that earth's atmospheric pressure at sea-level will support a column of water 32 feet high, and no higher. Hail! --Joe SURESH JAGADEESAN varamtha@... wrote: The plain water has to climb against gravitational force for a 20 meters height and start growing flowers, then make small form of coconut and keep infusing the water into it. And at the end when we open a coconut you see white kernel, and water.
Re: [Zen] The Single Unison...
Bill, Reminds me of when I was living in San Francisco and spending a lot of time in Golden Gate park I used to write Buddhist maxims and haiku on eucalyptus leaves and leave them around the park for people to find. Edgar On Jul 21, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Bill! wrote: I clean my teeth in water drawn from a cold well; And while I brush my clothes, I purify my mind; Then, slowly turning pages in the Tree-Leaf Book, I recite, along the path to the eastern shelter. ...The world has forgotten the true fountain of this teaching And people enslave themselves to miracles and fables. Under the given words I want the essential meaning, I look for the simplest way to sow and reap my nature. Here in the quiet of the priest's temple courtyard, Mosses add their climbing colour to the thick bamboo; And now comes the sun, out of mist and fog, And pines that seem to be new-bathed; And everything is gone from me, speech goes, and reading, Leaving the single unison. Art by Zhao Wuchao (1944 ~) ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Sound Familar?
Bill, Funny! Einstein clearly states that he agrees with me and Buddha there is a real external world completely independent of Bill's imagination... This quote disagrees with Bill's core belief so why does Bill post it? Edgar On Jul 18, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Bill! wrote: ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Sound Familar?
Bill, PS: And btw Buddha lived long before Bill was born. So how could he have even existed if Bill's imagination wasn't around to create him since like everything else Bill believes Buddha is a product of his imagination? Not to mention the universe that Bill created back at the big bang in his imagination! Hmmm, does Bill believe he is God? I think the DSM has a name for that condition Hey, I'm older than Bill. So maybe I didn't really exist before Bill's imagination created me when he was born? Strange I don't notice any change in my existence when Bill goes to sleep.. Bill's core belief is just all too too ridiculous! Is anyone here really dumb enough to believe they are figments of Bill's imagination? Bill can't distinguish between experience and reality. He MISTAKES his experience for reality and can't understand that his experience is PART of reality (which every school boy knows) instead of reality being part of his experience. Edgar On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill, Funny! Einstein clearly states that he agrees with me and Buddha there is a real external world completely independent of Bill's imagination... This quote disagrees with Bill's core belief so why does Bill post it? Edgar On Jul 18, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Bill! wrote: ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Sound Familar?
Joe, Laughable that you call Einstein's view of reality naive as compared to your own when he was responsible for one of the two greatest advances in understanding reality of the 20th century... Go figure. I'd wager that at least 99.999% of intelligent people would agree his realization of reality was superior to yours... But of course I know you consider intelligence a handicap so it's worthless to argue the obvious. Edgar On Jul 18, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, Einstein may have been a pretty effective one-trick-pony hard scientist, but he did not have the Awakened Eye: he had never practiced. He was born 50 years too soon to have had the opportunity. This explains why he uses naive Realist and Dualist language. No fault of his own! And in fact, he actually exemplifies the Naive Realist perspective and expression just *PERFECTLY*, in a beautifully quaint Nineteenth Century sort of way. Kudos! (or, Good on him!, Merle might say). But let's read Bill!'s reply. I just had to jump in and compliment the Relativist on his perfect and probably unparalleled exemplification and advocacy of Naive Realism: it probably surpasses even your own. --Joe PS See the teachings of the Mind-Only School, a.k.a., Yogacara. It only died out in India because of the Muslim Conquests. It did not die out elsewhere. Ch'an and Zen have incorporated it, along with Madhyamika. The Consciousness-(Mind-) Only School is an entire philosophical system with no naive establishment of a belief in a physical world. Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Funny! Einstein clearly states that he agrees with me and Buddha there is a real external world completely independent of Bill's imagination... This quote disagrees with Bill's core belief so why does Bill post it?
Re: [Zen] Sound Familar?
Joe, Your reply is an intellectualization of the very type you condemn... Edgar On Jul 18, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, quoting: He MISTAKES his experience for reality and can't understand that his experience is PART of reality (which every school boy knows) instead of reality being part of his experience. THAT'S a metaphysical statement, and an establishment of a metaphysics. Now, worse things have been done, and said, in history. But, establishing a metaphysics is not a part of the program of Zen training, nor does it come into being at or following Awakening in Zen practice. THAT'S the difference you always evidence here between your emphases about Zen and Bills!: you create and tenaciously cling to a View; Bill! notes Experience as primary, not a view. I note that Zen notes what Bill! notes. --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, PS: And btw Buddha lived long before Bill was born. So how could he have even existed if Bill's imagination wasn't around to create him since like everything else Bill believes Buddha is a product of his imagination? Not to mention the universe that Bill created back at the big bang in his imagination! Hmmm, does Bill believe he is God? I think the DSM has a name for that condition Hey, I'm older than Bill. So maybe I didn't really exist before Bill's imagination created me when he was born? Strange I don't notice any change in my existence when Bill goes to sleep.. Bill's core belief is just all too too ridiculous! Is anyone here really dumb enough to believe they are figments of Bill's imagination? Bill can't distinguish between experience and reality. He MISTAKES his experience for reality and can't understand that his experience is PART of reality (which every school boy knows) instead of reality being part of his experience. Edgar On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: Bill, Funny! Einstein clearly states that he agrees with me and Buddha there is a real external world completely independent of Bill's imagination... This quote disagrees with Bill's core belief so why does Bill post it? Edgar
Re: [Zen] Re: Worried Sick..illusions
Bill, Yes, you are correct that my example does NOT establish anything external to the space. However it is 100% self-evident that your view that I am a figment of your imagination is 100% wrong. Why? Because here I am sitting here on the other side of the world whether you or anyone else is alive or dead doing things you have no idea whether I'm doing or not. So if anything it's YOU that is figment of MY imagination. So because we can both say this about the other it is clear that there is an external reality common to both our experience, and it is clear that external reality has a logical structure that accommodates both our experiences... This is incontrovertible reality and thus it is Zen... Edgar On Jul 16, 2013, at 3:15 AM, Bill! wrote: --J0Wn7g-Kgwnbh53pQHyl91Q8Xzhg-mgC2a929rM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Edgar, I probably am much more proficient in math than you think, but I don't unde= rstand the relevance of your example below. For example I understand you can determine the shape of a space from inside= that space, but I fail to see how that could prove there is something outs= ide of that space. Can you? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, =20 I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. For example it is pos= sible to determine the shape of a space from inside that space by measuring= what the angles of triangles add up to. You don't have to be outside of yo= ur experience to understand there is something else outside it. I don't kno= w whether you know enough math for this to make sense to you. Maybe Joe or = Mike can explain it... =20 Edgar =20 =20 =20 On Jul 14, 2013, at 10:09 PM, Bill! wrote: =20 Edgar, =20 I experience what I experience. You experience what you experience. Tha= t is the only reality that either of us have available to us. =20 All the rest that you claim to exist is speculation, intellectualizatio= ns; in other words delusions. =20 ...Bill! =20 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, =20 Yes, you experience what you experience whatever. But it isn't realit= y because it's different between observers... =20 There is an actual external reality that each observer experiences it= differently... =20 But why O why am I wasting my time trying to teach you the obvious, a= teaching that every Zen master from Buddha onward agrees with me on? =20 Edgar =20 =20 =20 On Jul 14, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Bill! wrote: =20 Merle, =20 If you are color-blind or totally blind it makes no difference. You= experience what you experience. That which you experience is real. That wh= ich you perceive (think about, intellectualize) is not. =20 We do interpret our experiences with our mind. That's called percei= ving. And just as you say we interpret them to make sense out of them, but = it's WE, our human intellect, that 'makes the sense'. It's not as many beli= eve that our intellect 'discovers' the sense which is inherent in experienc= e. We create it and we superimpose it, force-fit it, onto our experience. =20 And yes, you're correct again that we perceive (apply our intellect= )in order to survive. That doesn't make our perceptions real, it only makes= them useful. =20 Our intellect does not make things real. Our intellect takes our ex= perience of reality and forces it into a little logical box so we can under= stand it. Our intellect distorts reality. That's called perception and is a= delusion (or illusion). =20 I'm not sure what you mean by 'and then there is a consensus' so I = cannot comment on that. =20 ...Bill! =20 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrot= e: =20 =20 =C2 so if one was colour blind...how would that fit into the sche= me of things? ..it would not be the correct interpretation of the world..for in= stance traffic lights..=C2=20 =20 i do not believe one can totally trust our senses as being the on= ly real experience...what ever you mean by real...we see =C2 we hear we tou= ch we smell we taste...=C2=20 =C2 one interpret this with our mind... otherwise this world would make no sense what so ever...=C2=20 =C2 one must in order to survive make meaning out of what we see,= hear, touch, smell and taste... what other experiences are there apart from the sensory?...=C2=20 i'd say they are the starting point not the all end to understand= ing the world... we need our minds to make sense of the world surely?...and hence = an intellect... =C2 then it becomes real real real... and one is able to communic= ate that reality to others =C2 and then there is a consensus =20 merle =20 =C2=20 Merle, =20 IMO only experience is real, and by that 'experience' I mean sens= ory experience (sight, sound, touch, smell, taste). =20 That's it. That's all. =20 ...Bill! =20 --- In Zen_Forum
Re: [Zen] CASE STUDY - SACKING A STAFF
Suresh, Was this sent to the wrong group? It's OT here with nothing to do with Zen... Edgar On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:52 AM, SURESH JAGADEESAN wrote: Dear all, I am going to present you a case study and I request to give me your point of view and how a solution should be drawn. What Owner/MD should take decision, what HR has to do? -- Case study consist of four letters. -- From Branch Manager -- Dear AAA / BBB, Mr.XXX has resigned from our office. From now onwards YYY and ZZZ will handle our ship related works at Kandla. At Mundra MMM and ZZZ as earlier. The load planning of coming ship has to be prepared from your end and forward to vessel Master and Chief. We will give you the break of the containers 20 and 40 with weight. From Cochin office also the same details will be forwarded to you. Best Regards Branch Manager -- From DGM (BBB) -- Dear Branch Manager, When he is getting relieved? Is today last day for him? Then why it was not informed us before? Do there is any policy of HR to give one month Notice? Is it followed? When any person gives notice of resignation it is the duty of HR to decide whom it will hand over his responsibilities and ask the leaving person to give proper training on the person who will take over his responsibilities as identified by HR What HR has done for this? All of sudden one fine day if you say you do ship planning how can I do? I may be Master but not have ship load program, how can I do. I am not a magician. Now also it is not late. Call XXX let him come down to Chennai with his laptop and let him give me training on ship planning and then I can do. At least this much you have to do to expect me to carry on his work. Best wishes BBB -- From MD/Owner -- Branch Manager Why do we have such a change without notice? -- From the (affected) staff -- To: MD/Owner CC: GM CC: DGM CC: DGM CC: HR Respected Sir, This is Mr.XXX (Company - Gandhidham branch). I presume your good self will be surprised that I am sending this message from my personal id, due to the incidents that took place today. I was refrained to use my desk by my superiors in Gandhidham. I am not sure what was the reason behind the scenario, as no explanation of any sorts was given to me. I was bluntly asked to stay away from my desk and that my tenure at Company was over. I would like to present the events that took place chronologically: On Sunday, the 7th of July pm hours I had sent the load plan for ship (Kandla) and after discussion with the master of the vessel, the plan was approved. On the 8th morning I was feeling uneasy but still I went to the office as we were expecting ship to berth at Kandla. Unfortunately our office server was out of service that day and I still managed the communication flow with the master/chief officer/terminal through my mobile single handedly. After lunch Mr YYY (who was on half day leave) arrived at the office and I requested him to handle the rest of the job/email exchanges through his personal id, since I was not feeling well and wanted to go home to rest. But to my surprise Mr. YYY left the office and the same was conveyed to Branch Manager through sms, since he was not in office at that time. After Branch manager arrived he instructed me to manage all the work through personal id anyhow, without considering my health conditions. After attending the urgent job related to ship I informed Branch Manager that I was not in a position to continue any more work due to my health condition (feeling dizzy n having chest pain). The whole next day I was not in a condition to get up and was taken to the hospital by my father in a semi conscious state. After taking the medicines I had gone to sleep and woke up in the evening only. Immediately I realized and accordingly sent an sms to Branch Manager, updating him the reason for my absence and that I would join the office on 10.07.2013. But I received a reply saying Now not possible, your time is over. I was confused so I tried to call him but he did not respond and so I called up GM sir / HR head sir to guide me. In turn they advised me to wait till the next day. The next day I reached office as per official timing, but surprisingly was asked to sit in the visitors lounge by Asst. Manager as instructed by Branch Manager. Later when Branch Manager arrived at 10.30 am, I had a discussion with him and
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Joe, I'll try to explain it simply. In a reality which operates according to actual laws of nature usefulness means something actually works. To actually work it must in accord with the actual laws of reality.. Edgar On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, quoting: Usefulness is a criterion that something IS real. That is a specious remark. Consider, instead, that it all depends on ...Humans. NOT The World! Wittgenstein -- for what he's worth -- asserts and reminds us in his TRACTATUS, that: The World is all that is the case. (but that's viewing it from the realm of thought, only). Going backwards, for example, consider: Boolean Algebra was pretty *USE*less, until other Humans found a use for it. Your cognitive theory and practice of Zen is limited to the realm or applicability of thought, or other cognition. But Zen has nothing to do with that. Except that it subsumes it. You appear unfortunately to working only on a special case, and barking up a tree without bark. Limiting, and limited. But, have at it. And, you *may* have it. Your pragmatism is good as near as it goes, but I like Charles Peirce's instance of it much more, because he does not cloud it with associations with Zen, or with anything else. He is clear. And, I like Zen's emphasis on practice and awakening, because it naturally has no dependence on linear or associative thought: instead, it is founded on realization, awakening, and the recognition of regaining our original Human inheritance. No small matter, nor distinction. These are personal preferences of good taste and correct practice, though, and I mean no disrespect in dismissing your views as in any way touching upon our topic of Zen. I'm glad, too, that we are friends. I like having friends who span the spectrum of Human fallibility. --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Usefulness is a criterion that something IS real. Usefulness means it's in synch with the actual logic of the world of forms and thus IS accurately part of reality... Edgar
Re: [Zen] Shunryu Suzuki's on Ego
Joe, I was merely saying that Suzuki had a sense of humor and he was showing it with that statement which was a clever commentary on the comic book Zen of the person who asked the question.. Edgar On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, That's not ego. That's Wisdom. Would you know about that? That's what it's all about, however. Well, Compassion is another word for it. They are not separate or separable. They arise simultaneously. In perfect accord with conditions or circumstances. As I say, you can't even get a piece of straw between that brickwork. And, I say, Hail!. For good reason; and good effect. --J. Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Funny, funny, funny. Here Suzuki himself is engaging in comic book Zen. Looks like he also had enough ego to remember to put his clothes on in the morning and pose for the photographer with his little stick!
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Joe, How does nature operate according to the laws of nature if there is no math out there? It obviously couldn't and because it does nature is obviously a computational process based on the logic and math of reality... Edgar On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, There is no math out there. She would be very upset if she heard that you really believe or insist personally upon this. In fact, you may begin to experience negative effects soon, considering your views expressed here/there, which seem firm, inflexible, uninformed, or insular. Caution, on all fronts. --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, This appears to be part of your problem in understanding the nature of the world of forms. The math out there doesn't consist of ideal circles, squares, and lines as some of the ancient Greeks thought. The math our there is like software that continually computes the current state of reality in the present moment. It has nothing to do with idealized geometry...
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises in your mind if not your self's? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV also) is 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you are ignoring. 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a belief in a 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is just one example: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also: extreme . - Merriam-Webster Online My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the 'self' is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it is the only existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, monisitic) and denies the existence of a 'self' - except as a delusion. I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your own definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been saying is an example of 'solipsism'. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Mike, PS, I agree it is the Buddhist line that I've been defending against Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM Mike, Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you completely disagreeing with me? I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that just THIS! isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only be known within this fathom long body. If someone shows Dave and John a picture of a nude woman they will both have totally different reactions to it depending on a multitude of personal factors. The photo stays the same, but the reactions are what counts. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM Mike, That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and delusions... That's another reason that Bill and your just this just doesn't cut it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that just this is somehow direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how enlightened you may or may not be... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This iPad in front of me creates many sensations and perceptions, yet for you it doesn't exist. But my previous point is that you can't know if something is what you perceive it to be. The perception is more crucial than the apparent reality of what it is (eg the snake and rope). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:35:42 AM Mike, There is no our reality. There is only one reality. You can't define reality as YOU like. It is self defining... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, You still haven't answered. You seem to be far more interested in metaphysical entanglements than reality. Like I said previously, reality has many definitions, but the one that counts
Re: [Zen] Re: Experience
Bill, How can there be the brain of a sentient being if there is no self? You keep trapping yourself in inconsistencies because your basic belief is inconsistent... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Again, using your language below which talks about the brain's functions which would not be my choice of analogy...so please don't quote me on this outside of this thread. The way I see it experience is one of the most basic and fundamental functions of the brain of a sentient being. In zen literature it has been called such names as 'Original Mind' and 'Your Face Before Your Mother Was Born'. I am saying experience precedes the processing of any experience by the intellect which in zen literature has been called such names as 'Small Mind' and 'Monkey Mind'. When the intellect arises it creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism. This is the key. The delusion of a separate, unique 'self' is probably one of the first delusions that arises, but is quickly followed by all the other subject/object delusions that Edgar calls 'forms' and some Buddhist sects refer to as 'dharma' (small 'd' - phenomena). I don't see experience as slightly at an angle to... the arising of duality and perception, but just preceding it. Experience is not-beginning and not-ending, sometimes referred to as 'in the moment' or 'only now'. I do associate experience with what you call the wonder of presence which I think I would just call 'awareness' which is monisitic - as contrasted with 'consciousness' which is dualistic. Perceiving only is the normal human condition. Experiencing only is Buddha Nature. Perceiving and experiencing is what I believe many refer to as 'awakening' or 'enlightenment'. What you 'awaken' to is the realization that perceptions are delusions and only experience is real. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: Bill, One more question on this: Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in the brains normal functioning of responding to the environment in whatever way that the brain does that, or something slightly at an angle to the work of transforming sensory stimulation into mental stimulation? Something of which it could be said to be not-beginning and not-ending? Something to akin to what some people talk about as the wonder of presence? This very moment. That sort of thing. Right here, right now. Or perhaps some third thing I'm not seeing, a step in the subjective side of the brains functioning - something which is not from an eternal perspective but is also not intended to be a description of the body/mind functioning but a description of the way the human notices the absolute along side the perception?
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, Thanks for denying my existence! That's the height of delusion... The test of true knowledge is internal consistency across its entire scope. Your view leads to numerous inconsistencies... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Again you misinterpret what I say presumably to support your charge of 'solipsism'. In the picture you paint below (2 people and one dog seeing a rabbit) you have already imposed a dualistic/pluralistc POV. So it follows that as you have suggested each of these delusive individuals may indeed have different perceptions. In a monisitc POV there are not two separate people, a separate dog and a separate rabbit. There is Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Merle, (and Bill) Of course reality changes all the time and people change reality, but it's always the real reality that is being changed not just some arbitrary imagined view of what reality is... Take two people standing side by side and a dog also. Each sees a rabbit but each sees it differently. Does that mean the rabbit is actually 3 different things? No. The rabbit is still the rabbit is the reality. It's just interpreted differently by the 3 observers. Each imposes his own interpretation of the rabbit on the actual real rabbit. So contrary to Bill's solipsism there is a real rabbit out there or the 3 observers wouldn't even be able to come up with their 3 different interpretations of it. The rabbit does not exist in Bill's mind as an illusion. It exists as a real rabbit out there in the world of forms Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Merle Lester wrote: really edgar..is that so many a human has changed the course of reality by imposing their will on others..e.g hitler, stalin... george w bush...etc... so how can you come up with that assumption edgar that there is only one reality.. so what is it?... you will have to define it...and it comes from your mind so it will be your interpretation of reality... are you the master of reality? are you the game changer?.. have you by chance read the seven story mountain by thomas merton? who is the master? buddha, christ? you need to give concrete examples reality too is a mind game that often in the wrong hands..gets all wound up and hit's folk right between the eyes when they least suspect some things are very very real and other things are unreal if there was only ONE reality human life would be heaps heaps simpler..though saying that of course life is simple..we humans make it far to complicated the question is how can we make life simpler.. how can we live with a kind and loving heart? gracious and filled with light? in this world of chaos and confusion? where is that reality? i see..it's as plain as the nose on my face? i knew a boy who was born without a nose..no kidding so how does that figure in this nose essay? merle Mike, There is no our reality. There is only one reality. You can't define reality as YOU like. It is self defining... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: The point is that Bill's just this is something produced by complex sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. That's why Bill's just this is actually just this ILLUSION mistaken for reality True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! Edgar
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, How can perception of a self in a brain even arise is there is really just pure experience absent any experiencer? Obviously it can't For perception and illusion to arise there must be something for it to arise IN. Again your view is inconsistent... Edgar On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Good question! Experience (as I define it - monistic) is just experience - Just THIS! Since it is monistic there is not a pluralism of me, you, the dog, the rabbit, etc... Perception is dualistic/pluralistic. Each intellect that creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism creates its own perception. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises in your mind if not your self's? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV also) is 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you are ignoring. 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a belief in a 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is just one example: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also: extreme . - Merriam-Webster Online My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the 'self' is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it is the only existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, monisitic) and denies the existence of a 'self' - except as a delusion. I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your own definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been saying is an example of 'solipsism'. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, PS, I agree it is the Buddhist line that I've been defending against Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar, When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM Mike, Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you completely disagreeing with me? I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar, I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that just THIS! isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only be known within this fathom long body. If someone shows Dave and John a picture of a nude woman they will both have totally different reactions to it depending on a multitude of personal factors. The photo stays the same, but the reactions are what counts. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM Mike, That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and delusions... That's another reason that Bill and your just this just doesn't cut it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that just this is somehow direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how enlightened you may or may not be... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar, How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Experience
Bill, If there is only monistic experience, then where do all the dualistic delusions that arise IN YOUR MIND come from? Where do I come from since you think I'm only a delusion in your mind? And where does the delusion of your mind come from if there is only monistic experience? Something just isn't kosher here Edgar On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, When I wrote about the brain and these concepts below I said this was not my choice of analogy. It is inconsistent but was not my choice of analogies. I would never equate 'brain' and 'mind' or 'brain' and 'sentient'. For all I know there are sentient beings that don't have eyes, ears, noses, tongues or skin. And there may be intellectual beings that don't have brains. BUT...your question below is puzzling. You're jumbling up 'brain' and 'sentient being' and 'delusions' (self). Please rephrase your question and I'll try to answer it. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, How can there be the brain of a sentient being if there is no self? You keep trapping yourself in inconsistencies because your basic belief is inconsistent... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Again, using your language below which talks about the brain's functions which would not be my choice of analogy...so please don't quote me on this outside of this thread. The way I see it experience is one of the most basic and fundamental functions of the brain of a sentient being. In zen literature it has been called such names as 'Original Mind' and 'Your Face Before Your Mother Was Born'. I am saying experience precedes the processing of any experience by the intellect which in zen literature has been called such names as 'Small Mind' and 'Monkey Mind'. When the intellect arises it creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism. This is the key. The delusion of a separate, unique 'self' is probably one of the first delusions that arises, but is quickly followed by all the other subject/object delusions that Edgar calls 'forms' and some Buddhist sects refer to as 'dharma' (small 'd' - phenomena). I don't see experience as slightly at an angle to... the arising of duality and perception, but just preceding it. Experience is not-beginning and not-ending, sometimes referred to as 'in the moment' or 'only now'. I do associate experience with what you call the wonder of presence which I think I would just call 'awareness' which is monisitic - as contrasted with 'consciousness' which is dualistic. Perceiving only is the normal human condition. Experiencing only is Buddha Nature. Perceiving and experiencing is what I believe many refer to as 'awakening' or 'enlightenment'. What you 'awaken' to is the realization that perceptions are delusions and only experience is real. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: Bill, One more question on this: Do you envision what you are calling experience to be a step in the brains normal functioning of responding to the environment in whatever way that the brain does that, or something slightly at an angle to the work of transforming sensory stimulation into mental stimulation? Something of which it could be said to be not-beginning and not-ending? Something to akin to what some people talk about as the wonder of presence? This very moment. That sort of thing. Right here, right now. Or perhaps some third thing I'm not seeing, a step in the subjective side of the brains functioning - something which is not from an eternal perspective but is also not intended to be a description of the body/mind functioning but a description of the way the human notices the absolute along side the perception?
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, That doesn't cut it. Where does the human intellect come from if all is monistic experience? Edgar On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, To answer you question the delusion of self arises in the intellect. The human intellect (and you can assume that resides in the brain if you want) creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism. That's it's job. I can speculate 'why' it does this but have no idea 'how' and I don't see 'how' as important. Once the delusion of dualism/pluralism arises a plethora of delusions quickly follow the most problematic of which (IMO)is the delusion of a separate self. These delusions often obscure experience. Zen practice first assists you in suspending the creation of delusions by halting the activity of the intellect. When that happens you have an opportunity to experience (Buddha Nature). After that zen practice helps you to reintroduce the activities of your intellect (delusions) and balance them with experience (Buddha Nature). That's it. That's all it is. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, How can perception of a self in a brain even arise is there is really just pure experience absent any experiencer? Obviously it can't For perception and illusion to arise there must be something for it to arise IN. Again your view is inconsistent... Edgar On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Good question! Experience (as I define it - monistic) is just experience - Just THIS! Since it is monistic there is not a pluralism of me, you, the dog, the rabbit, etc... Perception is dualistic/pluralistic. Each intellect that creates the delusion of dualism/pluralism creates its own perception. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises in your mind if not your self's? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV also) is 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you are ignoring. 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a belief in a 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is just one example: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also: extreme . - Merriam-Webster Online My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the 'self' is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it is the only existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, monisitic) and denies the existence of a 'self' - except as a delusion. I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your own definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been saying is an example of 'solipsism'. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, PS, I agree it is the Buddhist line that I've been defending against Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar, When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM Mike, Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you completely disagreeing with me? I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar, I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that just THIS! isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only be known within this fathom long body. If someone shows Dave and John a picture of a nude
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Mike, There is no our reality. There is only one reality. You can't define reality as YOU like. It is self defining... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, You still haven't answered. You seem to be far more interested in metaphysical entanglements than reality. Like I said previously, reality has many definitions, but the one that counts is the one that affects our mental processes and how we respond to them. Trying to figure out whether an external object is what you think it is is beside the point because It's impossible to determine in all cases. However, how you react is real in 100% of cases and how you react will determine whether you suffer, or not, from that reaction. This is our reality. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk; To: zen group Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:32:37 AM Edgar, Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How would I know if it's a snake and not a piece of rope - especially if my reaction was to avoid it believing it to be poisonous? What if i killed it believing it was a snake I believed to be poisonous, but it turned out to be someone's harmless pet snake? Again, my reactions are central - not what it actually is - if that is all I have to go on at that time. They're all I have 'control' over. It's really not a difficult point to grasp. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: yonyon...@gmail.com yonyon...@gmail.com; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10:39:57 PM you could try that, but it'd just be more of the same. 10,000 things and counting... Hong On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Mike, OK, I finally managed to pick myself up off the floor! What difference does it make?? OK, I hope I really have managed to stop laughing now. Try stepping on a piece of rope and then a rattlesnake and maybe, just maybe, you might understand the difference! Jz Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:44 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a snake or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely perceive at the time? It's my reaction that is important. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:25:37 PM Mike, Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) just this at night would have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! That's why just this JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the magic show yelling just this as every illusion is performed believing they are all real because they are his direct experience! By claiming the immediate experience of just this is reality you mistake illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY TIME Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning realising it was just a piece of old rope. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM Bill, The point is that Bill's just this is something produced by complex sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. That's why Bill's just this is actually just this ILLUSION mistaken for reality True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the endocrine system to take a pee? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Mike, That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and delusions... That's another reason that Bill and your just this just doesn't cut it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that just this is somehow direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how enlightened you may or may not be... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This iPad in front of me creates many sensations and perceptions, yet for you it doesn't exist. But my previous point is that you can't know if something is what you perceive it to be. The perception is more crucial than the apparent reality of what it is (eg the snake and rope). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:35:42 AM Mike, There is no our reality. There is only one reality. You can't define reality as YOU like. It is self defining... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, You still haven't answered. You seem to be far more interested in metaphysical entanglements than reality. Like I said previously, reality has many definitions, but the one that counts is the one that affects our mental processes and how we respond to them. Trying to figure out whether an external object is what you think it is is beside the point because It's impossible to determine in all cases. However, how you react is real in 100% of cases and how you react will determine whether you suffer, or not, from that reaction. This is our reality. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk; To: zen group Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:32:37 AM Edgar, Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How would I know if it's a snake and not a piece of rope - especially if my reaction was to avoid it believing it to be poisonous? What if i killed it believing it was a snake I believed to be poisonous, but it turned out to be someone's harmless pet snake? Again, my reactions are central - not what it actually is - if that is all I have to go on at that time. They're all I have 'control' over. It's really not a difficult point to grasp. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: yonyon...@gmail.com yonyon...@gmail.com; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10:39:57 PM you could try that, but it'd just be more of the same. 10,000 things and counting... Hong On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Mike, OK, I finally managed to pick myself up off the floor! What difference does it make?? OK, I hope I really have managed to stop laughing now. Try stepping on a piece of rope and then a rattlesnake and maybe, just maybe, you might understand the difference! Jz Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:44 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a snake or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely perceive at the time? It's my reaction that is important. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:25:37 PM Mike, Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) just this at night would have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! That's why just this JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the magic show yelling just this as every illusion is performed believing they are all real because they are his direct experience! By claiming the immediate experience of just this is reality you mistake illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY TIME Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, how I react
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Mike, Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you completely disagreeing with me? I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that just THIS! isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only be known within this fathom long body. If someone shows Dave and John a picture of a nude woman they will both have totally different reactions to it depending on a multitude of personal factors. The photo stays the same, but the reactions are what counts. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM Mike, That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and delusions... That's another reason that Bill and your just this just doesn't cut it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that just this is somehow direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how enlightened you may or may not be... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This iPad in front of me creates many sensations and perceptions, yet for you it doesn't exist. But my previous point is that you can't know if something is what you perceive it to be. The perception is more crucial than the apparent reality of what it is (eg the snake and rope). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:35:42 AM Mike, There is no our reality. There is only one reality. You can't define reality as YOU like. It is self defining... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, You still haven't answered. You seem to be far more interested in metaphysical entanglements than reality. Like I said previously, reality has many definitions, but the one that counts is the one that affects our mental processes and how we respond to them. Trying to figure out whether an external object is what you think it is is beside the point because It's impossible to determine in all cases. However, how you react is real in 100% of cases and how you react will determine whether you suffer, or not, from that reaction. This is our reality. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk; To: zen group Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:32:37 AM Edgar, Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How would I know if it's a snake and not a piece of rope - especially if my reaction was to avoid it believing it to be poisonous? What if i killed it believing it was a snake I believed to be poisonous, but it turned out to be someone's harmless pet snake? Again, my reactions are central - not what it actually is - if that is all I have to go on at that time. They're all I have 'control' over. It's really not a difficult point to grasp. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: yonyon...@gmail.com yonyon...@gmail.com; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10:39:57 PM you could try that, but it'd just be more of the same. 10,000 things and counting... Hong On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Mike, OK, I finally managed to pick myself up off the floor! What difference does it make?? OK, I hope I really have managed to stop laughing now. Try stepping on a piece of rope and then a rattlesnake and maybe, just maybe, you might understand the difference! Jz Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:44 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a snake or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Mike, I said it in the post you responded to saying you disagreed with it completely. Reread my post... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM Mike, Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you completely disagreeing with me? I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that just THIS! isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only be known within this fathom long body. If someone shows Dave and John a picture of a nude woman they will both have totally different reactions to it depending on a multitude of personal factors. The photo stays the same, but the reactions are what counts. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM Mike, That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and delusions... That's another reason that Bill and your just this just doesn't cut it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that just this is somehow direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how enlightened you may or may not be... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This iPad in front of me creates many sensations and perceptions, yet for you it doesn't exist. But my previous point is that you can't know if something is what you perceive it to be. The perception is more crucial than the apparent reality of what it is (eg the snake and rope). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:35:42 AM Mike, There is no our reality. There is only one reality. You can't define reality as YOU like. It is self defining... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, You still haven't answered. You seem to be far more interested in metaphysical entanglements than reality. Like I said previously, reality has many definitions, but the one that counts is the one that affects our mental processes and how we respond to them. Trying to figure out whether an external object is what you think it is is beside the point because It's impossible to determine in all cases. However, how you react is real in 100% of cases and how you react will determine whether you suffer, or not, from that reaction. This is our reality. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk; To: zen group Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:32:37 AM Edgar, Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How would I know if it's a snake and not a piece of rope - especially if my reaction was to avoid it believing it to be poisonous? What if i killed it believing it was a snake I believed to be poisonous, but it turned out to be someone's harmless pet snake? Again, my reactions are central - not what it actually is - if that is all I have to go on at that time. They're all I have 'control' over. It's really not a difficult point to grasp. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: yonyon...@gmail.com yonyon...@gmail.com; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Mike, PS, I agree it is the Buddhist line that I've been defending against Bill's solipsism ad infinitum.. Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my stance. I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here and you've just about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just got basic Buddhist principles plain wrong). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 1:28:51 PM Mike, Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you completely disagreeing with me? I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that just THIS! isn't really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. Yes, there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but absolutely none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only be known within this fathom long body. If someone shows Dave and John a picture of a nude woman they will both have totally different reactions to it depending on a multitude of personal factors. The photo stays the same, but the reactions are what counts. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM Mike, That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and delusions... That's another reason that Bill and your just this just doesn't cut it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that just this is somehow direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how enlightened you may or may not be... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This iPad in front of me creates many sensations and perceptions, yet for you it doesn't exist. But my previous point is that you can't know if something is what you perceive it to be. The perception is more crucial than the apparent reality of what it is (eg the snake and rope). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:35:42 AM Mike, There is no our reality. There is only one reality. You can't define reality as YOU like. It is self defining... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, You still haven't answered. You seem to be far more interested in metaphysical entanglements than reality. Like I said previously, reality has many definitions, but the one that counts is the one that affects our mental processes and how we respond to them. Trying to figure out whether an external object is what you think it is is beside the point because It's impossible to determine in all cases. However, how you react is real in 100% of cases and how you react will determine whether you suffer, or not, from that reaction. This is our reality. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk; To: zen group Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:32:37 AM Edgar, Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How would I know if it's a snake and not a piece of rope - especially if my reaction was to avoid it believing it to be poisonous? What if i killed it believing it was a snake I believed to be poisonous, but it turned out to be someone's harmless pet snake? Again, my reactions are central - not what it actually is - if that is all I have to go on at that time. They're all I have 'control' over. It's really not a difficult point to grasp. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: yonyon...@gmail.com yonyon...@gmail.com; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Merle, (and Bill) Of course reality changes all the time and people change reality, but it's always the real reality that is being changed not just some arbitrary imagined view of what reality is... Take two people standing side by side and a dog also. Each sees a rabbit but each sees it differently. Does that mean the rabbit is actually 3 different things? No. The rabbit is still the rabbit is the reality. It's just interpreted differently by the 3 observers. Each imposes his own interpretation of the rabbit on the actual real rabbit. So contrary to Bill's solipsism there is a real rabbit out there or the 3 observers wouldn't even be able to come up with their 3 different interpretations of it. The rabbit does not exist in Bill's mind as an illusion. It exists as a real rabbit out there in the world of forms Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Merle Lester wrote: really edgar..is that so many a human has changed the course of reality by imposing their will on others..e.g hitler, stalin... george w bush...etc... so how can you come up with that assumption edgar that there is only one reality.. so what is it?... you will have to define it...and it comes from your mind so it will be your interpretation of reality... are you the master of reality? are you the game changer?.. have you by chance read the seven story mountain by thomas merton? who is the master? buddha, christ? you need to give concrete examples reality too is a mind game that often in the wrong hands..gets all wound up and hit's folk right between the eyes when they least suspect some things are very very real and other things are unreal if there was only ONE reality human life would be heaps heaps simpler..though saying that of course life is simple..we humans make it far to complicated the question is how can we make life simpler.. how can we live with a kind and loving heart? gracious and filled with light? in this world of chaos and confusion? where is that reality? i see..it's as plain as the nose on my face? i knew a boy who was born without a nose..no kidding so how does that figure in this nose essay? merle Mike, There is no our reality. There is only one reality. You can't define reality as YOU like. It is self defining... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The point is that Bill's just this is something produced by complex sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. That's why Bill's just this is actually just this ILLUSION mistaken for reality True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! Edgar
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, Useful and effective are good criteria for knowing something IS real... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, The explanation you gave below is a good example of pluralistic thinking. You have explained the act perception using pluralistic logical concepts which includes dividing the world up into many separate and distinct parts. This is what human intellect does. Discrimination is it's job. I have no argument with these any more than I have an argument with the many rules of chess...as long as you don't form attachments to them by believing they are real - useful and effective, maybe; but not real. Experience on the other hand is real. It is monistic which means there is no discrimination, no divisions, no logical concepts; just pure awareness - not consciousness which is pluralistic, but awareness which is monistic. You ended your comment below with You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works What's ironic about that statement is biology is not how things 'actually work'. Biology is an explanation (and usually a temporary one) of how scientist think things 'really work'. It's actually science and scientists who 'make up things' using discrimination and logic to describe what they perceive; and they call that 'how things really work' - that is until someone else comes along and develops a better logical model. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's internal model of reality. You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would have no awareness. There would be nothing. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Panda, Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: Are you wearing glasses right now? Can you see the frames in your periphery? Did you see them before I asked? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, So what's your experience of the rattlesnake you just stepped on thinking it was a rope that bit you? Will you exclaim just this or will you call the ambulance? Which is real? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, The experience of what you'd later call 'mistaking a rope for a snake' is an act of perception. Your experience is not what alarms you, it's your perception. It's the very same at a magic show. It's not experience that fools you, it's your perception of experience that fools you; and that is a very good analogy for EVERYTHING you perceive and believe - like scientific 'facts'. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Mike, Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) just this at night would have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! That's why just this JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the magic show yelling just this as every illusion is performed believing they are all real because they are his direct experience! By claiming the immediate experience of just this is reality you mistake illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY TIME Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning realising it was just a piece of old rope. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM Bill, The point is that Bill's just this is something produced by complex sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. That's why Bill's just this is actually just this ILLUSION mistaken for reality True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the endocrine system to take a pee? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's internal model of reality. You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, O for God's sakes Bill. It doesn't make Santa Claus real, it makes the approach real... Edgar On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Using the 'carrot and stick' approach with children by telling them if they're good Santa Claus will bring them presents Christmas Eve but if they're bad they'll get none (or it used to be a lump of coal). That's usually a useful and effective approach. Does that make Santa Claus real? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Useful and effective are good criteria for knowing something IS real... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, The explanation you gave below is a good example of pluralistic thinking. You have explained the act perception using pluralistic logical concepts which includes dividing the world up into many separate and distinct parts. This is what human intellect does. Discrimination is it's job. I have no argument with these any more than I have an argument with the many rules of chess...as long as you don't form attachments to them by believing they are real - useful and effective, maybe; but not real. Experience on the other hand is real. It is monistic which means there is no discrimination, no divisions, no logical concepts; just pure awareness - not consciousness which is pluralistic, but awareness which is monistic. You ended your comment below with You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works What's ironic about that statement is biology is not how things 'actually work'. Biology is an explanation (and usually a temporary one) of how scientist think things 'really work'. It's actually science and scientists who 'make up things' using discrimination and logic to describe what they perceive; and they call that 'how things really work' - that is until someone else comes along and develops a better logical model. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's internal model of reality. You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would have no awareness. There would be nothing. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Panda, Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: Are you wearing glasses right now? Can you see the frames in your periphery? Did you see them before I asked?
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Panda, Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: Are you wearing glasses right now? Can you see the frames in your periphery? Did you see them before I asked?
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would have no awareness. There would be nothing. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Panda, Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: Are you wearing glasses right now? Can you see the frames in your periphery? Did you see them before I asked?
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's internal model of reality. You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would have no awareness. There would be nothing. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Panda, Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: Are you wearing glasses right now? Can you see the frames in your periphery? Did you see them before I asked?
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Bill, The point is that Bill's just this is something produced by complex sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. That's why Bill's just this is actually just this ILLUSION mistaken for reality True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the endocrine system to take a pee? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's internal model of reality. You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would have no awareness. There would be nothing. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Panda, Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: Are you wearing glasses right now? Can you see the frames in your periphery? Did you see them before I asked?
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Mike, Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) just this at night would have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! That's why just this JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the magic show yelling just this as every illusion is performed believing they are all real because they are his direct experience! By claiming the immediate experience of just this is reality you mistake illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY TIME Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning realising it was just a piece of old rope. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM Bill, The point is that Bill's just this is something produced by complex sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. That's why Bill's just this is actually just this ILLUSION mistaken for reality True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the endocrine system to take a pee? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's internal model of reality. You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would have no awareness. There would be nothing. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Panda, Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses? With or without corneas? With or without eyes? After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of 'things' Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote: Are you wearing glasses right now? Can you see the frames in your periphery? Did you see them before I asked?
Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that?
Mike, OK, I finally managed to pick myself up off the floor! What difference does it make?? OK, I hope I really have managed to stop laughing now. Try stepping on a piece of rope and then a rattlesnake and maybe, just maybe, you might understand the difference! Jz Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:44 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a snake or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely perceive at the time? It's my reaction that is important. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:25:37 PM Mike, Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) just this at night would have been the snake that was really a piece of rope! That's why just this JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the magic show yelling just this as every illusion is performed believing they are all real because they are his direct experience! By claiming the immediate experience of just this is reality you mistake illusion for reality. In the cases above it's obvious, but if you understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY TIME Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night, how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning realising it was just a piece of old rope. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM Bill, The point is that Bill's just this is something produced by complex sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of processes. That's why Bill's just this is actually just this ILLUSION mistaken for reality True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL! Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the endocrine system to take a pee? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] It's as plain as the nose on your face ... but how plain is that? Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM Bill, That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of one's internal model of reality. You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology actually works... Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just experience - Just THIS! It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience; BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a person who sees and hears well. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs glasses, or a blind person? Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality? Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises? Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call senses. If you were not sentient
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, Usefulness is a criterion that something IS real. Usefulness means it's in synch with the actual logic of the world of forms and thus IS accurately part of reality... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Bill! wrote: PBS, Math, logic, reason like all delusions should come with the caveat 'suitable for everyday use'. As a universal human language to communicate our logical concepts it's very useful, but it should never be mistaken for reality. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, Sure that's true. Just tell it to the freezing man out in the woods in the middle of a blizzard that would like to get warm. The sad fact is that humans ARE NOT AT HOME in most natural environments... Of course our fully enlightened Bill would just die happily of freezing to death Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, You're not lost if you're already home wherever you are. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, You are't lost until you try to get home and can't! Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, One only needs a map or considers themselves 'lost' if they have a specific destination in mind. If you are just wandering around enjoying the woods with no destination in mind you don't need a map, and how could you be lost? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  musical notes are the language  used to communicate to others the music score or plan or map... it is like a map...without a map or a path one would be lost in the woods...merle  Mike, That's a pretty good analogy. Music notation is a way to intellectually communicate a musical score. I guess that would be much like the sutras. Listening would be the sensual way to communicate music. That would be more like zen. IMO...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@ wrote: br/Bill!,br/br/The Beatles were arguably the best band in the world and none of them could read music. Perhaps, therefore, we should discard with formal music notation?br/br/Mikebr/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Shunryu Suzuki's on Ego
Bill, Funny, funny, funny. Here Suzuki himself is engaging in comic book Zen. Looks like he also had enough ego to remember to put his clothes on in the morning and pose for the photographer with his little stick! Edgar I can't remember who it is that always asks me about stepping in front of a bus when talking about delusions. I think it is Edgar, but it might have been Anthony or even someone else. Anyway I've found a good reply to that from Shunryu Suzuki: Q: How much ego do you need? A: Just enough so that you don't step in front of a bus. - Shunryu Suzuki ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, This appears to be part of your problem in understanding the nature of the world of forms. The math out there doesn't consist of ideal circles, squares, and lines as some of the ancient Greeks thought. The math our there is like software that continually computes the current state of reality in the present moment. It has nothing to do with idealized geometry... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:35 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, I fundamentally disagree with you. Math is no difference than logic or reason. I know many think that math represents reality, exists 'out there' and we 'discover it'. IMO math is just a projection of human intellect. We project it on reality the very same way we project all delusions. In reality there are no integers, no straight line, no circles, etc... That's the way I see it anyway... --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote: The math's an analogy. But I will speak up for math by stating math does something different than mirror the small individual's intellect. Perhaps it mirrors the essential uncreated mind :) Like reality it has a certain independence from thoughts and selves. Unlike reality, it's not reality. --Chris Thanks, --Chris chris@... +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, Yes, that's what reality is! Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, No, 'usefulness' only means something gives you the results you want. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Usefulness is a criterion that something IS real. Usefulness means it's in synch with the actual logic of the world of forms and thus IS accurately part of reality... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Bill! wrote: PBS, Math, logic, reason like all delusions should come with the caveat 'suitable for everyday use'. As a universal human language to communicate our logical concepts it's very useful, but it should never be mistaken for reality. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, Math is a subset of logic. Think of software which incorporates both. Would it work for you if I said that the world of forms is a logico-mathematical computational system? Human math and logic are approximations of that in human mental models of reality. They work because they do, in the large part, accurately model the external reality of the world of forms Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, Actually you need to know much much more to function well in reality of the world of forms which you seem to do quite well. By denying that is reality you deny the reality of most of your existence - all of it other than the 3 hours a week you spend sitting... Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I know math is based on logic. That's all I need to know. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, This appears to be part of your problem in understanding the nature of the world of forms. The math out there doesn't consist of ideal circles, squares, and lines as some of the ancient Greeks thought. The math our there is like software that continually computes the current state of reality in the present moment. It has nothing to do with idealized geometry... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:35 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, I fundamentally disagree with you. Math is no difference than logic or reason. I know many think that math represents reality, exists 'out there' and we 'discover it'. IMO math is just a projection of human intellect. We project it on reality the very same way we project all delusions. In reality there are no integers, no straight line, no circles, etc... That's the way I see it anyway... --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The math's an analogy. But I will speak up for math by stating math does something different than mirror the small individual's intellect. Perhaps it mirrors the essential uncreated mind :) Like reality it has a certain independence from thoughts and selves. Unlike reality, it's not reality. --Chris Thanks, --Chris chris@ +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, True, but everyone DOES have intentions and purposes. That's what real life is like in the REAL world of forms... Why, for God's sake, do you think there is something wrong with that or it isn't real? Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:26 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, No, I don't think so. It's kind of like the discussion Merle and I were having about having a map and being lost. Something is only 'useful' if you have an intention, a purpose to fulfill, much like having destination. An example is a hammer is useful for pounding in a nail, but its not useful for screwing in a screw. If you have no intentions, no purpose - then 'useful' doesn't really have much meaning. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Yes, that's what reality is! Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, No, 'usefulness' only means something gives you the results you want. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Usefulness is a criterion that something IS real. Usefulness means it's in synch with the actual logic of the world of forms and thus IS accurately part of reality... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Bill! wrote: PBS, Math, logic, reason like all delusions should come with the caveat 'suitable for everyday use'. As a universal human language to communicate our logical concepts it's very useful, but it should never be mistaken for reality. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, Thanks, from you I do take that as a compliment! :-) Best, Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I'll return the compliment by acknowledging that you have some of the most complex and persistent delusions I have ever come across. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Actually you need to know much much more to function well in reality of the world of forms which you seem to do quite well. By denying that is reality you deny the reality of most of your existence - all of it other than the 3 hours a week you spend sitting... Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I know math is based on logic. That's all I need to know. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, This appears to be part of your problem in understanding the nature of the world of forms. The math out there doesn't consist of ideal circles, squares, and lines as some of the ancient Greeks thought. The math our there is like software that continually computes the current state of reality in the present moment. It has nothing to do with idealized geometry... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:35 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, I fundamentally disagree with you. Math is no difference than logic or reason. I know many think that math represents reality, exists 'out there' and we 'discover it'. IMO math is just a projection of human intellect. We project it on reality the very same way we project all delusions. In reality there are no integers, no straight line, no circles, etc... That's the way I see it anyway... --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The math's an analogy. But I will speak up for math by stating math does something different than mirror the small individual's intellect. Perhaps it mirrors the essential uncreated mind :) Like reality it has a certain independence from thoughts and selves. Unlike reality, it's not reality. --Chris Thanks, --Chris chris@ +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Merle and Bill, No, a fully enlightened being like Bill would let himself get eaten by a tiger with no problem at all. After all he claims the tiger eating him is just another of his constant mental delusions... And God forbid he'd dare to have any purpose of trying to escape the tiger. That would let his ego ruin his Zen mind! :-) Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, I agree! But if it's getting dark and that makes you uncomfortable, and you're hungry, and your getting scared of (what?) the dark and the jungle sounds - then you probably have suddenly adopted a destination - out of here. Now that you have a destination or goal then yes, you might consider yourself lost, and you might wish you had a map. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:   bill cause it's getting dark one is hungry...and fear is taking over what was a nice day out in the jungle/ bush... merle  Merle, Okay. If you have no specific destination how can you tell that you are lost? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  bill ... you are spitting hairs..you can get lost believe you me..destination or no destination..merle  Merle, You've missed my point. I'll try again. You can only be lost if you have a destination in mind - a particular place to which you want to go. If you don't have any particular destination in mind then you can't be lost. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote:  bill ...ever been in the australian bush...trust me you could get lost..and people have been lost and some not found..you do need a map..merle  Merle, One only needs a map or considers themselves 'lost' if they have a specific destination in mind. If you are just wandering around enjoying the woods with no destination in mind you don't need a map, and how could you be lost? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: ÃÆ'‚ musical notes are the language ÃÆ'‚ used to communicate to others the music score or plan or map... it is like a map...without a map or a path one would be lost in the woods...merle ÃÆ'‚ Mike, That's a pretty good analogy. Music notation is a way to intellectually communicate a musical score. I guess that would be much like the sutras. Listening would be the sensual way to communicate music. That would be more like zen. IMO...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@ wrote: br/Bill!,br/br/The Beatles were arguably the best band in the world and none of them could read music. Perhaps, therefore, we should discard with formal music notation?br/br/Mikebr/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Merle, A funny Freudian slip. Are you DUELing with Bill? :-) Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Merle Lester wrote: bill..many things have duel purposes... what you believe and think may not be useful today will be humans cannot do without without it scenario tomorrow... one must keep the door opened so to speak.. for you never know.. merle Edgar, No, I don't think so. It's kind of like the discussion Merle and I were having about having a map and being lost. Something is only 'useful' if you have an intention, a purpose to fulfill, much like having destination. An example is a hammer is useful for pounding in a nail, but its not useful for screwing in a screw. If you have no intentions, no purpose - then 'useful' doesn't really have much meaning. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Yes, that's what reality is! Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, No, 'usefulness' only means something gives you the results you want. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Usefulness is a criterion that something IS real. Usefulness means it's in synch with the actual logic of the world of forms and thus IS accurately part of reality... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Bill! wrote: PBS, Math, logic, reason like all delusions should come with the caveat 'suitable for everyday use'. As a universal human language to communicate our logical concepts it's very useful, but it should never be mistaken for reality. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Merle, and Bill, But Merle, Bill can't do that because he'd be using delusion to explain delusion! :-) Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Merle Lester wrote: bill you need to state these delusions clearly and logically so all of us on this forum know precisely what you mean... merle Edgar, I'll return the compliment by acknowledging that you have some of the most complex and persistent delusions I have ever come across. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Actually you need to know much much more to function well in reality of the world of forms which you seem to do quite well. By denying that is reality you deny the reality of most of your existence - all of it other than the 3 hours a week you spend sitting... Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I know math is based on logic. That's all I need to know. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, This appears to be part of your problem in understanding the nature of the world of forms. The math out there doesn't consist of ideal circles, squares, and lines as some of the ancient Greeks thought. The math our there is like software that continually computes the current state of reality in the present moment. It has nothing to do with idealized geometry... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:35 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, I fundamentally disagree with you. Math is no difference than logic or reason. I know many think that math represents reality, exists 'out there' and we 'discover it'. IMO math is just a projection of human intellect. We project it on reality the very same way we project all delusions. In reality there are no integers, no straight line, no circles, etc... That's the way I see it anyway... --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The math's an analogy. But I will speak up for math by stating math does something different than mirror the small individual's intellect. Perhaps it mirrors the essential uncreated mind :) Like reality it has a certain independence from thoughts and selves. Unlike reality, it's not reality. --Chris Thanks, --Chris chris@ +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural
Re: [Zen] Re: Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Merle, and Bill, Yes, a simple truth. Very strange that Bill continually denies exactly what has made him a success in real life! Something very weird about that don't you think? Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Merle Lester wrote: bill...what fear do you have of the intellect?.. without the human brain and intellect yes based on logic you would not be typing this message to edgar .. merle Edgar, I'd agree with every word you say below if you would just erase the three-word phrase the external reality in the last sentence. Or if you want to keep the word count constant you could substitute the phrase the intellectual delusion... ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Math is a subset of logic. Think of software which incorporates both. Would it work for you if I said that the world of forms is a logico-mathematical computational system? Human math and logic are approximations of that in human mental models of reality. They work because they do, in the large part, accurately model the external reality of the world of forms Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if you said 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based perception of reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately model the actual logic of reality. Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote: Chris, Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only mirrors the human intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote: The thing I like about math as a source of analogies for zen is that it shows how two different things csn br exactly the same. Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are linear equations. Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the eternal unity is seen. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Bill, Total C..P! (censored in compliance with the new guidelines)... The person who wrote the poem CLEARLY has plenty of purpose in life. Like writing the poem, like eating so he has the energy to write the poem, and like coming in out of the rain back home... We can disagree about which purposes are meaningful and useful or which are excessive, but there MUST be lots of purpose without which nothing could even survive to deny purpos... G, this is really frustrating and a big waste of time. Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, FINALLY! A good really, really good question! It's so good I'll respond line-by-line: ...but everyone DOES have intentions and purposes. No, everyone does not. A Buddha does not. And becoming a Buddha (or more correctly stated, 'realizing Buddha Nature') is what zen practice is all about. Here is an example I gave recently of a Buddha who has no intentions or purposes: Too lazy to be ambitious, I let the world take care of itself. Ten days' worth of rice in my bag; a bundle of twigs by the fireplace. Why chatter about delusion and enlightenment? Listening to the night rain on my roof, I sit comfortably, with both legs stretched out. - Ryokan That's what real life is like in the REAL world of forms... Having intentions and purposes (and logic and judgments and classifications, etc...) is what a delusive life is like in the pluralistic, delusive World of Forms. But this is not real. All this is delusion. Why, for God's sake, do you think there is something wrong with that or it isn't real? There's nothing wrong with that, unless you really believe (are attached to) these delusions. They are not real because they are delusions. Zen practice first enables you to halt your intellect's creation of pluralism and all the other delusions so you may experience reality (Buddha Nature). It then helps you re-integrate your delusions without attachments by recognizing them for what they are - delusions. This process is IMO the meaning of the zen aphorism First there is a mountain; then there is no mountain; then there is. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, True, but everyone DOES have intentions and purposes. That's what real life is like in the REAL world of forms... Why, for God's sake, do you think there is something wrong with that or it isn't real? Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:26 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, No, I don't think so. It's kind of like the discussion Merle and I were having about having a map and being lost. Something is only 'useful' if you have an intention, a purpose to fulfill, much like having destination. An example is a hammer is useful for pounding in a nail, but its not useful for screwing in a screw. If you have no intentions, no purpose - then 'useful' doesn't really have much meaning. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Yes, that's what reality is! Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, No, 'usefulness' only means something gives you the results you want. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Usefulness is a criterion that something IS real. Usefulness means it's in synch with the actual logic of the world of forms and thus IS accurately part of reality... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Bill! wrote: PBS, Math, logic, reason like all delusions should come with the caveat 'suitable for everyday use'. As a universal human language to communicate our logical concepts it's very useful, but it should never be mistaken for reality. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3
Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma
Chris, It's really dumb to say math doesn't communicate! Of course it does... Edgar On Jul 4, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: I have to share Bill's disagreement of math being a language or even being communicative. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 3, 2013 10:48 PM, Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com wrote: mathematics is a universal language as is art and music..merle PBS, Math, logic, reason like all delusions should come with the caveat 'suitable for everyday use'. As a universal human language to communicate our logical concepts it's very useful, but it should never be mistaken for reality. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!: You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said you were looking for an impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D The thing about using math that way is that eventually it leads you back to the beginning. We use mathematics as an expression of the model, then we use the model as an expression of the math. Then we realize that both are models of each other and the same, and experience encompasses all -- no need for anything else. Rivers and mountains become rivers and mountains again! ~PeeBeeEss On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of Cause-and-Effect and Karma To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now on)... I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF there is such a think that could be called 'karma' it's not so much a moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic quality of the act itself. But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock@ wrote: Most people think of 1+1=2 as procedural, that is, that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it becomes 2. They would regard 2=1+1 and 2=2 to be different equations, but they are not in the least bit different. The equal-sign is the present. 1+1 is already 2! And the effect IS the cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something bad is you doing that bad thing. Your karmic reward for doing something good is you doing that good thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS! -- On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote: ...Bill! Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Bill, I agree with that but that is not the way you say it. You nearly always say it's OUR experience and illusions are in YOUR mind... That's solipsism, not Zen... The true view is that experience PRIOR TO THE DUALISM OF EXPERIENCER AND EXPERIENCED is the only truth and the only reality. Thus experience is NOT in YOUR mind. And illusions are NOT in your mind. They both just appear, and one of those illusions is a you having a mind Do we now agree on that at least? However the additional truth and reality that you can't seem to grasp is that this means that everything without exception is real including all illusions but only recognized as the illusions they are. Only in this way do mountains become mountains again which is a core teaching in Zen Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, No, I'm not assuming it's a pluralistic experience as I know you do. I may use language and sentence structures that describe it pluralistically, but I try conscientiously to avoid that. I looked in my post below and didn't see anywhere that I'd used the phrase our experience of, but I'm not claiming I never have. I try to just use the word 'experience' without assigning any modifiers or objects. I also try to do this with 'Buddha Nature'. For example I don't say 'our Buddha Nature', I just say 'Buddha Nature'. But back to 'experience'. Experience is just experience. Since it monistic there is no subject or object. - You shouldn't use the adjective pronouns 'my' or 'your' or 'ours'. If you did you'd be creating a pluralistic group of subjects. - Similarly you shouldn't use a following conjunction like 'of' which expects an object. It's just 'experience'. I know I have in the past used the phrase 'experience of Buddha Nature', but that should just be 'experience' or 'Buddha Nature', but not even 'experience Buddha Nature' because even that does imply a subject (an experiencer) and an object (Buddha Nature). Most of these difficulties come up because of trying to describe monism using a language that's based on dualism. Language is based on dualism because it's evolved to communicate intellectually. If you wanted to communicate sensually (which is the sole basis of experience) and avoid intellectualizations (which is the sole basis of desusions) you'd have to do so sensually - like a slap on the face or a shout. And I haven't figured out how to do that yet on a text-based forum such as this. As always thanks for your comment and question...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, But what is 'our' experience 'of'? That seems to be the core problem... You don't seem to get the point that by claiming it's 'our' experience you already assume the dualism you reject... Edgar On Jul 2, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Yes, I understand that yours is definitely the pluralistic* point-of-view on this. You believe you are 'in here' and everything else is 'out there'. That is how I perceive things also, but I know that is delusion. You have again mis-characterized my description on this. I don't think all our delusions arise 'spontaneously' in our mind. Many are post-processing of our experience. Some are spontaneous or at least self-propagating like logic and reason, memories, projections and just pure fantasy. You are correct however that I do not think our delusions can be tied to any 'external' source; but as I said above many of them, perceptions, are a pluralistic-based result of experience. *Pluralistic - I've stared using the word 'pluralism' where I used to use the word 'dualism', just as I've started using the word 'delusion' where I used to use the word 'illusion'. I mean the same thing as I did before but think these terms better describe the concept. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually was a SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. You deny there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and believe your delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external source. That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. ~ Sunryu Suzuki I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. ...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
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill and Merle, Actually if you Bill understood the true nature of music you'd see my point proved. Music is a total illusion created by mind because music is entirely the relationship between notes. However your experience occurs only in the exact present moment which has a vanishingly small duration so there is no actual comparison between notes in raw experience. Comparison between notes happens only in mind's internal model of reality, not in direct experience itself. Therefore music is illusion and if you accept the existence of music as real you are accepting that illusion is part of reality as I continually tell you. Aw well, I don't expect anyone here to get this. It's too intellectual. Doesn't matter whether it reveals the truth of reality or not so that it can then be directly experienced! Sigh... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:35 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill!,br/br/Let's not forget the Composer heard the music before the notes were laid down.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill and Mike, There IS no mountain that needs to be climbed! Reality is in every grass shoot at the bottom of the mountain and everywhere else. Just open your eyes and look around wherever you are and you've got Zen! Climbing the mountain is comic book Zen... Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Bill! wrote: Mike, I again like your analogy. The only thing is I don't see many people at the 'top' who follow the long and winding Buddhist path. IMO they get hung-up along the way, stopping here and there at roadside rest areas, getting comfortable and thinking they are at the summit. I'd also equate zen not so much as a steep cliff-face that you have to climb with a great effort, but a Star Trek-like transporter. One second you're at the bottom of the mountain and the next you're on top. The paragraph above was to follow your analogy. I really see zen as just 'blowing away of a fog' that allows you to enjoy the vista from where you are, and realize that where you are is just as good, and even no different than the top or anywhere else on the mountain. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!,br/br/It's just two sides of the same coin. Zen just gets you to awaken with very little explanation and instruction - The sutras explain the processes of the mind that create a self and suffering and the steps necessary to awaken and be liberated. Both work. Zen is a steep cliff-face that can get you to the top quickly, but you'll see few at the top. 'Buddhism' is a less steep and longer winding route that takes longer to reach the summit, but is more accessible and will see more people reach the top.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, You are't lost until you try to get home and can't! Edgar On Jul 3, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Bill! wrote: Merle, One only needs a map or considers themselves 'lost' if they have a specific destination in mind. If you are just wandering around enjoying the woods with no destination in mind you don't need a map, and how could you be lost? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote:  musical notes are the language  used to communicate to others the music score or plan or map... it is like a map...without a map or a path one would be lost in the woods...merle  Mike, That's a pretty good analogy. Music notation is a way to intellectually communicate a musical score. I guess that would be much like the sutras. Listening would be the sensual way to communicate music. That would be more like zen. IMO...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@ wrote: br/Bill!,br/br/The Beatles were arguably the best band in the world and none of them could read music. Perhaps, therefore, we should discard with formal music notation?br/br/Mikebr/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * 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] Intellectualizing -
Joe, My point was that your long post consisted entirely of large scale intellectualization The so called intellectualization of my post was two concise sentences. Your intellectualization was 20 some often run-on sentences Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, Nope, I'm not talking about intellectualizing. I'm talking about our subject. I know you're up to it, so c'mon! When you have a chance; if you want. --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Joe, Boy, talk about intellectualizing! :-) Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, I wouldn't know about bad English. But I suspect that philosophizing by someone not native to or rigorously trained in a language is fraught with the possibility or near occasion of misinterpretation. Even a good language translator cannot give a good translation if the translator is not also a Zen adept. It's dicey. So is making any firm or confident interpretation. And, the Roshi is dead. No one has identified the Translator (if there was one). In any case, the Roshi would remind you: There is no fixed Dharma, anyway, so don't hang on my words, nor anyone's: ours is not the Teaching School But my interpretation is not subject to any doubt, just as I wrote in my reply. I am confident in my interpretation of the wording as I have modified it. In fact, the wording then speaks for itself, and need not be dubiously interpreted. I append it again, below, for review: As soon as there is seeing, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer the sight. Again, though, the second clause of the first sentence does not follow, if one is awake. So note, again, too, that the Roshi is not speaking about the experience of his few current or past awakened disciples -- nor even about himself -- but about the experience of the majority of his students, in the state they are in now, and as they work toward entering the door of Ch'an, perhaps for the first time. To those people, what he says is spot on, yes. And, again, his is not a metaphysical statement. He is not establishing objects, or things. Re-read the re-wording. I think that Bill!, not being the one with the soundness of the thesis of a 300-page unedited manuscript to defend in advance, will see the reasonableness of my interpretation, and the clarity and correctness of my observations on these points. You should also! --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Joe, If you really think this is matter of bad English then he shouldn't write something in English that wasn't correct. That would be unbecoming of a Zen teacher. But the statement is both good English AND good Zen. It's your's and Bill's interpretation that seems to be off.
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Bill, But what is 'our' experience 'of'? That seems to be the core problem... You don't seem to get the point that by claiming it's 'our' experience you already assume the dualism you reject... Edgar On Jul 2, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Yes, I understand that yours is definitely the pluralistic* point-of-view on this. You believe you are 'in here' and everything else is 'out there'. That is how I perceive things also, but I know that is delusion. You have again mis-characterized my description on this. I don't think all our delusions arise 'spontaneously' in our mind. Many are post-processing of our experience. Some are spontaneous or at least self-propagating like logic and reason, memories, projections and just pure fantasy. You are correct however that I do not think our delusions can be tied to any 'external' source; but as I said above many of them, perceptions, are a pluralistic-based result of experience. *Pluralistic - I've stared using the word 'pluralism' where I used to use the word 'dualism', just as I've started using the word 'delusion' where I used to use the word 'illusion'. I mean the same thing as I did before but think these terms better describe the concept. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually was a SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. You deny there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and believe your delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external source. That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. ~ Sunryu Suzuki I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Joe, LOL! Bill is the asteroid bent on destroying Buddhism! :-) Edgar On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Joe wrote: Bill!, quoting: I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. Face it: it cannot be. It is a living thing. Living things evolve. I see no asteroid coming to smack it. Zen practice is a personal choice for a person who can cut to the chase, ...or who can embrace nothing else. Other practice is available for folks with a different bent. I think, again, that your view of need is a personal one. If it's a more extensive view, then I say, get on with accomplishing it. Remember the objection against considering to end the war in Vietnam?: What are you going to replace it with? But I think you have personally already discarded Buddhism; you call your practice Zen, not Zen Buddhism. It would seem already that Buddhism should not annoy you. Where else do you mean you would like to see it discarded? And, for what PRACTICAL purpose? Is it like a swarm of mosquitoes that annoys you? Or do you, as a Bodhisattva, feel that it is causing sentient beings to suffer? coffee time, best!, --Joe Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. Zen, on the other hand, as it's presented in a lot of zen literature is presented very simply and very effectively. There is some zen literature that is complex also, but most of that is either trying to resolve zen with Buddhism or explain in an almost technical style the experience of Buddha Nature. Anyway, I'm just more supportive of the KISS school - and the simpler the better.
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Joe, How your mind changes with the wind of convenience! First intellectualization is critically important when you claim I do it in two lines, and then of no importance at all as you do it in 20 or more? Edgar On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about form and style, not about substance and content. Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go. tnx, --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: My point was that your long post consisted entirely of large scale intellectualization The so called intellectualization of my post was two concise sentences. Your intellectualization was 20 some often run-on sentences
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, I use a PC laptop also. And I prefer Bing to Google... Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Bill! wrote: I, on the other hand, am a dedicated Intel-PC, Microsoft OS and apps user - and I Bing...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Mike, I use a Power Mac, so I must be on the right Path! :-) Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 11:49 PM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, No worries. Btw, Buddha would've been an Apple user. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage Sent: Sun, Jun 30, 2013 12:40:13 AM Mike, Yes, you are right. I mistook Buddha Dharma for Buddha Nature which is another name for my ontological energy. As to the volume of work produced my book currently being finished up is over 300 pages which is a lot more than Buddha ever wrote though he might have written more if he had Microsoft Word! :-) Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:19 PM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar, They're not the same thing with a different name. 'Buddha Dharma' refers to the whole body of work developed and taught by the Buddha including the sutras and methods of meditation etc. I've yet to see anything resembling this from you (seeing illusion as reality doesn't really comprise a whole body of work). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgarowen@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage Sent: Sat, Jun 29, 2013 4:45:01 PM Mike, It's two names for the same thing, though understood differently by many of course... It's not the names that matter since the thing itself is nameless. It's the thing itself that matters... I wouldn't get hung up in the names for it Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 10:57 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar,br/br/The Buddhadharma in its present form has been around for 2,500 years and still applicable today. I wonder how long your ontological energy theory (or whatever it is) will be around?...br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, I agree with this in general.. Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Bill! wrote: Joe, Most religions are wisdom traditions. Their core beliefs may indeed be just as pertinent today as they were 2500 years ago. It's not their core beliefs I'm uncomfortable with, it's their method of communicating their core beliefs - their myths, parables and symbols. It's these I'd like to see updated. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Joe desert_woodworker@... wrote: Mike, I agree, sir. Religions are Wisdom-Traditions. Wisdom Traditions use the tools they have available. Then, and now. That, too, is what makes them Wise. They utilize fully what they have available, in service of True Compassion. For their times, and future times. Religions are not nonsense, as some hasty-pudding kitchen-workers say. Maybe they're just hopped-up on instant (soluble) Coffee. The wisdom-traditions purvey and convey wisdom, and preserve wisdom, and the path to it. As traditions, they also keep on changing, as generations pass, and come. That's another part of what makes them Wise. Hasty people live for the next thing, not for Now. And don't see where Now has *graciously* come from. But, they are to be forgiven! That's why Wisdom and Compassion are preserved, and transmitted. For them, and fo all. Anyway, a new generation is born TODAY. --Joe uerusuboyo@ wrote: Bill!, I can tell by the completely misrepresented view of things like The Noble Eightfold Path on this forum that people criticise even though it's obvious they haven't even bothered to study them. They're absolutely beautiful and sublime teachings. Even though they're over 2,500 years old they still can be applied to life today. To criticise them also shows a complete ignorance of upaya (skilful means) to teach the Dharma. Different people, with different personalities and temperaments will always require a variety of different teaching methods. Otherwise we get into the bigotry of believing that only my way is the correct way.
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Bill, Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually was a SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. You deny there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and believe your delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external source. That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. ~ Sunryu Suzuki I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Another Nice Quote on the Absence of Intellectualizations
Bill, I can tell this guy wasn't writing the book I am! I can only envy him! Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Bill! wrote: Hermit wisdom from Ryokan: Too lazy to be ambitious, I let the world take care of itself. Ten days' worth of rice in my bag; a bundle of twigs by the fireplace. Why chatter about delusion and enlightenment? Listening to the night rain on my roof, I sit comfortably, with both legs stretched out. ― Ryokan 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: Social responsibility
Bill and Suresh, One person's social responsibility is another person's fun... Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 1:08 AM, Bill! wrote: Suresh, Nice story, but I think it's not just Indian people that show no 'social responsibility'. I'm sure everyone of us on this Forum see acts like this every day in every part of the world. From a zen perspective I would say this is just a lack of compassion. These people are two attached to their delusion of self and only concerned about what is 'best' or 'easiest' for them (their self) that they don't consider what the consequences of their actions are for others. Cultivation of Buddha Nature allows you to recognize delusions such as that of having a separate and distinct 'self' which in turn helps you to dissolve attachments. When this process has started, and well before it has been completely accomplished, compassion is a by-product. Compassion is not something you consciously do, it's just an expression of who you are. Of course there are many compassionate people who do not practice zen. They do think of others before or at least as well as they think of themselves. Culture has a lot to do with this. From what I've seen of the Indian culture it is very competitive and vying for limited resources against others is just an ingrained way of life. I think you were right to point this out to these other people but might consider judging them less harshly. Just the fact you pointed it out to them will probably cause them to re-think what they're doing a little - even if they won't admit that to you. I don't know that much about Autism so I looked it up on Wikipedia.com. Here's what I found: Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and verbal and non-verbal communication, and by restricted, repetitive or stereotyped behavior. There was of course a much more detailed explanation than this but I was just looking for something that I thought I might be able to relate back to zen practice. Nothing jumped out at me other than how zen practice might help someone interact with Autistic children - and that's just to accept them for who they are and not who you would like them to be. But I'm sure you already do that. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, SURESH JAGADEESAN varamtha@... wrote: Dear Sir, Yesterday evening I went to Semmozhi Poonga at around 5.PM in my bike with my two children, there not much two wheelers where there I parked at the very beginning of parking so that I can easily take out and leave. Then I went inside the park. My children played, there after for my younger son I bought one ice cream and for elder son Pao bhaji. This younger son after eating Ice cream, he took both spoon and empty box ran from the restaurant and dropped in the litter box well away from the restaurant, which even not appeared to be a litter box, almost closed and different shaped box. I have found many empty ice cream boxes and other litters, were just thrown as it is either on the table or where ever one can see. I clapped for this action of my son, and he enjoyed and smiled for my clap. There after we spent some more time at Park and when I came to park, I saw there are three rows of two wheelers with no gap. Mine was first row, I had to move at least 6 or more two wheelers to take out my bike. Mean time where I made space, people in two wheeler came and try to park there. I got very angry. And asked them, don't you see how this first row fellow will take out their two wheelers? why there is no thinking? Why there is no social responsibility? For that one family with two children on bike, both came to argue with me, why haven't you asked so many who were already parked like this? I said, ok, they have made mistake, but why can't you behave sensibly? For that they got angry, they said both husband and wife, then you sit down in a chair and regulate The security there was very old man; he was looking at me so helplessly. Mean time three more two wheelers came to park where I made space for each one I had to say, go to last and park, why are you parking like this, can't see how the first row fellow will take out? Then they said, you should not tell this? Then I said, we Indians why have no social responsibility? Why can't we ourselves behave well instead of someone to correct us? By this time, I could remove my vehicle and started the bike. Behind me one fellow was saying, India will be like this, if you don't like, then leave India was his answer. None like to be pointed out of their mistake. Everyone wants shortcuts. No thinking of future moments. While I just started moving in bike, I felt severe back pain right at the mooladhara. Then I had pay full attention on that point and take deep breath, somehow I have overcome that pain.
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Joe, Your saying that No one but a practitioner in a tradition can say that the tradition no longer has the best truth. is nonsense. All kinds of nutcase cult followers would claim their tradition is the best and only truth and that all the other ones didn't. There are objective standards of truth... Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, Wisdom is carried, through the work of the traditions. They are vessels, vehicles, and delivery-systems of methods, techniques. It's the teaching ways of the traditions that changes, nimbly, to suit the time and place. I think little basis changes. That is my view! No one but a practitioner in a tradition can say that the tradition no longer has the best truth. That's apples and oranges. Just because video games have been invented and have become popular with a certain set, that does not mean that Baseball is to be criticized, deprecated, or rejected. Both are systems of having fun, probably. One is also good physical exercise, social, and sportsman-ly. When I speak about practice in the Wisdom traditions, I mean specifically in the mystical wings or branches of the traditions. It's these I give my attention to, and my view is that it is through the mystical wings or branches of practice that Wisdom is contained, carried, and stimulated to be discovered, in PRACTITIONERS. I view Zen Buddhism as a particularly purified (in the sense of distilled and concentrated to a nearly neutral elixir, almost generically applicable by Humans of any culture) system of practice. Sufism is close to this, I feel. And certain streams of Christian Contemplative practice. I know too little about Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Hinduism, and have not myself practiced in their mystical wings. By the way, Elders and Teachers in the Wisdom traditions receive new knowledge, just as you and I do. And those folks roll with the times, too, and can incorporate the new knowledge into skilful means with which to continue to help students. My old Tai Chi teacher Da Liu was still doing this late into his 90's: he'd recite some articles in The Science Times section of THE NEW YORK TIMES to us during rest breaks between repetitions of the Tai Chi form, and always tied-in Taoist views with the new revelations of Medical science, etc., in the newspaper I'd say that the New invigorated the Old, and cast it in a local and contemporary light; and, I'd say the Old is never old when it's alive in a sincere practitioner. Wisdom does not go out of date, if it is Wisdom. Thanks!, for a good question. --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: First you say that ancient traditions as they were are to be respected. Then you say they are constantly changing implying they are different now. These are two clearly contradictory views. So which is it in your view? Actually I have a different take on it but which is largely in agreement. Ancient traditions are to be respected because they were the best truth of their times. However they are not to be slavishly adulated as if they still are the ultimate truth. This is because much has been learned in the couple thousand or so years since they were first formulated so they must be brought up to date and rethought in light of that new knowledge. Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Joe wrote: Mike, I agree, sir. Religions are Wisdom-Traditions. Wisdom Traditions use the tools they have available. Then, and now. That, too, is what makes them Wise. They utilize fully what they have available, in service of True Compassion. For their times, and future times. Religions are not nonsense, as some hasty-pudding kitchen-workers say. Maybe they're just hopped-up on instant (soluble) Coffee. The wisdom-traditions purvey and convey wisdom, and preserve wisdom, and the path to it. As traditions, they also keep on changing, as generations pass, and come. That's another part of what makes them Wise. Hasty people live for the next thing, not for Now. And don't see where Now has *graciously* come from. But, they are to be forgiven! That's why Wisdom and Compassion are preserved, and transmitted. For them, and fo all. Anyway, a new generation is born TODAY. --Joe
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Joe, If you really think this is matter of bad English then he shouldn't write something in English that wasn't correct. That would be unbecoming of a Zen teacher. But the statement is both good English AND good Zen. It's your's and Bill's interpretation that seems to be off. Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, You make a dubious interpretation; I'll make one that can't be doubted. It need not be that the Roshi means there is a something. The Roshi starts: As soon as you see something... . He need not have said it this way, and neither do we. He and we might have spoken as the Buddha did: As soon as there is Seeing... . If the Roshi meant this, the rest of what he says still fits. Where I think the quote is incomplete in its appreciation of experience is in the second clause. It need not be (happen) that one ...already starts to intellectualize. The Roshi taught ways of awakening so that this condition need not obtain. That is, so intellectualization need not follow from seeing, or upon seeing. Thus, his quote pertains to those who are not in the awakened condition. I claim his quote is not about Existence, or Metaphysics, and does NOT point beyond Experience; it is about phenomenology in persons who are not awake (i.e., most of his students, at any time). Read the line like this, and you will see that he is advising hearers NOT to do what you do: As soon as there is seeing, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer the sight. It's known that S. Suzuki's English was barely good enough for him to be understood in the Zendo during Teisho. I have some audio tapes, and I know this. There may be translation problems with what he said, if he spoke the quoted line in Japanese, and if he spoke it in English, well, his something might not be a Metaphysical inference, as you choose to interpret it, but may refer, as I recommend, to the seeing itself: the having of the experience of the seeing, which seems natural. --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually was a SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. You deny there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and believe your delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external source. That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. ~ Sunryu Suzuki I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'.
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Joe, Boy, talk about intellectualizing! :-) Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, I wouldn't know about bad English. But I suspect that philosophizing by someone not native to or rigorously trained in a language is fraught with the possibility or near occasion of misinterpretation. Even a good language translator cannot give a good translation if the translator is not also a Zen adept. It's dicey. So is making any firm or confident interpretation. And, the Roshi is dead. No one has identified the Translator (if there was one). In any case, the Roshi would remind you: There is no fixed Dharma, anyway, so don't hang on my words, nor anyone's: ours is not the Teaching School But my interpretation is not subject to any doubt, just as I wrote in my reply. I am confident in my interpretation of the wording as I have modified it. In fact, the wording then speaks for itself, and need not be dubiously interpreted. I append it again, below, for review: As soon as there is seeing, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer the sight. Again, though, the second clause of the first sentence does not follow, if one is awake. So note, again, too, that the Roshi is not speaking about the experience of his few current or past awakened disciples -- nor even about himself -- but about the experience of the majority of his students, in the state they are in now, and as they work toward entering the door of Ch'an, perhaps for the first time. To those people, what he says is spot on, yes. And, again, his is not a metaphysical statement. He is not establishing objects, or things. Re-read the re-wording. I think that Bill!, not being the one with the soundness of the thesis of a 300-page unedited manuscript to defend in advance, will see the reasonableness of my interpretation, and the clarity and correctness of my observations on these points. You should also! --Joe Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Joe, If you really think this is matter of bad English then he shouldn't write something in English that wasn't correct. That would be unbecoming of a Zen teacher. But the statement is both good English AND good Zen. It's your's and Bill's interpretation that seems to be off. Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Joe wrote: Edgar, You make a dubious interpretation; I'll make one that can't be doubted. It need not be that the Roshi means there is a something. The Roshi starts: As soon as you see something... . He need not have said it this way, and neither do we. He and we might have spoken as the Buddha did: As soon as there is Seeing... . If the Roshi meant this, the rest of what he says still fits. Where I think the quote is incomplete in its appreciation of experience is in the second clause. It need not be (happen) that one ...already starts to intellectualize. The Roshi taught ways of awakening so that this condition need not obtain. That is, so intellectualization need not follow from seeing, or upon seeing. Thus, his quote pertains to those who are not in the awakened condition. I claim his quote is not about Existence, or Metaphysics, and does NOT point beyond Experience; it is about phenomenology in persons who are not awake (i.e., most of his students, at any time). Read the line like this, and you will see that he is advising hearers NOT to do what you do: As soon as there is seeing, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer the sight. It's known that S. Suzuki's English was barely good enough for him to be understood in the Zendo during Teisho. I have some audio tapes, and I know this. There may be translation problems with what he said, if he spoke the quoted line in Japanese, and if he spoke it in English, well, his something might not be a Metaphysical inference, as you choose to interpret it, but may refer, as I recommend, to the seeing itself: the having of the experience of the seeing, which seems natural.
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Mike, I use a Power Mac, so I must be on the right Path! :-) Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 11:49 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, No worries. Btw, Buddha would've been an Apple user. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage Sent: Sun, Jun 30, 2013 12:40:13 AM Mike, Yes, you are right. I mistook Buddha Dharma for Buddha Nature which is another name for my ontological energy. As to the volume of work produced my book currently being finished up is over 300 pages which is a lot more than Buddha ever wrote though he might have written more if he had Microsoft Word! :-) Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:19 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, They're not the same thing with a different name. 'Buddha Dharma' refers to the whole body of work developed and taught by the Buddha including the sutras and methods of meditation etc. I've yet to see anything resembling this from you (seeing illusion as reality doesn't really comprise a whole body of work). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage Sent: Sat, Jun 29, 2013 4:45:01 PM Mike, It's two names for the same thing, though understood differently by many of course... It's not the names that matter since the thing itself is nameless. It's the thing itself that matters... I wouldn't get hung up in the names for it Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 10:57 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar,br/br/The Buddhadharma in its present form has been around for 2,500 years and still applicable today. I wonder how long your ontological energy theory (or whatever it is) will be around?...br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, Agreed with one addition. Right action does help decrease suffering which in turn makes it easier to attain realization. Of course with realization one naturally follows the 8 fold path which as you point out is somewhat arbitrary... Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 6:00 AM, Bill! wrote: Mike, The Noble Eightfold Path is a good guideline. So are the Ten Commandments. I have three problems with the Noble Eightfold Path: 1. There are 8 categories. Why are all the activities that are possible in life divided into 8 categories? Do the authors of this really think those 8 categories cover the whole of life? And if not why did they pick these 8? 2. All of them encourage you to do 'right'. How do you know what's right? The Eightfold Path doesn't tell you that. 3. Following this path is supposed to lead to the ...cessation of suffering (dukkha) and the achievement of self-awakening. - Wikipedia.com. I think this is all reversed. First you must awaken. Second, that awakening enables the recognition of delusion, then the dropping of attachments to delusions, and only then to the cessation of suffering. After all that's complete and only then are you able to really follow the Noble Eightfold Path, but by then you aren't really following anything, you are walking the path and the path is you, your life. You're never going to cease suffering and awaken just by following some set of rules like The Noble Eightfold Path. That's my opinion anyway...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!,br/br/I can tell by the completely misrepresented view of things like The Noble Eightfold Path on this forum that people criticise even though it's obvious they haven't even bothered to study them. They're absolutely beautiful and sublime teachings. Even though they're over 2,500 years old they still can be applied to life today. To criticise them also shows a complete ignorance of upaya (skilful means) to teach the Dharma. Different people, with different personalities and temperaments will always require a variety of different teaching methods. Otherwise we get into the bigotry of believing that only my way is the correct way.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Zen_Forum Posting Practices
Dear Pudgala, Don't worry about any harsh responses. Any personal attacks will result in the attacker being put on moderation to stop the attacks. However we encourage members to discuss the pros and cons on their beliefs and practices freely without hesitation. So please don't confuse someone's disagreement with an attack. Part of Zen is learning how not to get your ego hurt and that's a lesson others here need to learn as well. So, yes your postings are encouraged as are postings by all members... Also I'd encourage you to tell us a little about yourself and your practice so the other members can get to know you better Best, Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 2:56 PM, pudgala2 wrote: Hello to All Members of Zen_Forum, Posting my understanding of Zen on Buddhist forums became part of my Zen practice many years ago and it had a profound effect on my mind. It forced my mind to go deeper into zazen mixing Western psychological insights with Zen insights gleaned from the The Hsin Hsin Ming of the Third Patriarch and The Sutra Spoken by The Sixth Patriarch . My conceit became subjugated to expressing my insights of the BuddhaDharma in a modern Western English context and my postings are the results of this and zazen. So my postings are self sustaining meditations from my Zen practice and I post them on Buddhist forums as a sort of potluck thing—a gathering of people where each person or group of people may contribute a dish of food (posting) prepared by the person or the group of people, to be shared among the group. There were and are foreseeable consequences to doing this as famously expressed by a statement attributed to Jesus, Do not give what is holy [profound] to the dogs [cynics, faultfinders]; nor cast your pearls [insights] before swine [ignorance], lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. And the American mystic Vernon Howard once said, The primary motivation of the average human being is to hurt someone else in order to give himself a false thrill; so that he feels what he calls good which is self destruction. Bullies are problematic at message forums. Their immaturity can destroy a potluck party—they bring nothing to the table but disruption which they apparently relish—and intelligent guests wisely withdraw. Being with the immature is like going on a long trip with an enemy. ~ Buddha Bullies by default 'ban' interested intelligent seekers from posting. Who wants to watch ignorance flaunt itself and flout basic humane communications? Those who know don't argue—they have no need to. Those who argue don't know—if they did they wouldn't argue. I had posted at Zen_Forum before but my postings triggered such resentment that I left canceling the email notices but leaving the Special Notices button checked. I received the Special Notice Posting and Replying - Draft from Bill! that indicates a basic change in moderation is being implemented so I decided with this posting to try again at Zen_Forum. In one of the replies Edgar said, I also encourage all other lurker members to post also now that they needn't worry about overly harsh responses…. I had to look up lurker to find out what it meant and realized I wasn't lurking—I was gone. But now I'm curious as to how many actual viewers/lurkers/members there are at Zen_Forum? The Group Information Info lists 395 members when I'm in Messages and 632 members when I click Home. I count only eight user names in the replies to Bill!'s Posting and Replying Policy - Draft so I'd like to request all members of Zen_Forum viewing this posting right now to simply acknowledge this with a reply to this posting and any comments regarding this matter. The appropriateness of a potluck posting is indicated by what the other guests do with it—the message is the response you get—and there's no arguing with that! Thank you, pudgala2
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Joe, First you say that ancient traditions as they were are to be respected. Then you say they are constantly changing implying they are different now. These are two clearly contradictory views. So which is it in your view? Actually I have a different take on it but which is largely in agreement. Ancient traditions are to be respected because they were the best truth of their times. However they are not to be slavishly adulated as if they still are the ultimate truth. This is because much has been learned in the couple thousand or so years since they were first formulated so they must be brought up to date and rethought in light of that new knowledge. Edgar On Jun 30, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Joe wrote: Mike, I agree, sir. Religions are Wisdom-Traditions. Wisdom Traditions use the tools they have available. Then, and now. That, too, is what makes them Wise. They utilize fully what they have available, in service of True Compassion. For their times, and future times. Religions are not nonsense, as some hasty-pudding kitchen-workers say. Maybe they're just hopped-up on instant (soluble) Coffee. The wisdom-traditions purvey and convey wisdom, and preserve wisdom, and the path to it. As traditions, they also keep on changing, as generations pass, and come. That's another part of what makes them Wise. Hasty people live for the next thing, not for Now. And don't see where Now has *graciously* come from. But, they are to be forgiven! That's why Wisdom and Compassion are preserved, and transmitted. For them, and fo all. Anyway, a new generation is born TODAY. --Joe uerusuboyo@... wrote: Bill!, I can tell by the completely misrepresented view of things like The Noble Eightfold Path on this forum that people criticise even though it's obvious they haven't even bothered to study them. They're absolutely beautiful and sublime teachings. Even though they're over 2,500 years old they still can be applied to life today. To criticise them also shows a complete ignorance of upaya (skilful means) to teach the Dharma. Different people, with different personalities and temperaments will always require a variety of different teaching methods. Otherwise we get into the bigotry of believing that only my way is the correct way.
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, I think it's a matter of definition. In general I think excessive concern with 'stages' of realization is a distraction from realization... And that goes for standard Buddhism's obsessive with counting all sorts of things as well. The 7 this, the 5 that, the 8 this etc. etc. Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As you know I don't like to rely too much on Buddhist or Hindu terms either. 'Samadhi' is a meditative state of non-duality or monism. It's what I also call 'shikantazaza' if you're experiencing it during zazen. It can also be called no-thought. I associate it strongly with Buddha Nature since there is no dualism thus no delusion. I know you include delusions in Buddha Nature, but I'm just explaining my terminology. Anyway, if 'samadhi' is a state of pure non-duality how do you think that equates with 'nirvana'? I'm begining to think the only diffrence is 'samadhi' is temporary where 'nirvana' is permanent. What do you (or anyone else) think? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, I don't use the term and don't really get into all the interminable Buddhist and HIndu levels and counts of everything anyone could think of... Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As a follow-on to this, what do you consider the difference/distinction between samadhi and nirvana? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Edgar, I liked your description of the difference between enlightenment and nirvana: ...enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are... and In nirvana all forms cease permanently. I agree with that and use the term 'delusions' as a term for your ...see them for what they truly are ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil is total nonsense. Maybe slightly above 50% at best depending on who is doing the judging Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:07 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar,br/br/There is no confusion in what I said at all and it also depends on from which tradition you're talking about karma. As I've been taught, karma will indeed play itself out, but only as long as a person still identifies themselves with a self. Upon awakening to our Original Nature (which can happen at any time) karma is extinguished because where is the self for karma to attach to? Unless of course you're getting karma confused with the crazy notion that karma is fatalistic and/or deterministic which would make emancipation from karma impossible.br/br/Here are a few snippets on the subject. There are many, many more out there if you care to do the research..br/br/He who believes in Karma does not condemn even the most corrupt, for they, too, have their chance to reform themselves ***at any moment*** (buddhanet.net)br/br/Since basic nature transcends all duality and is ultimate, there is no one to receive the effect, whether it is good or bad, and no one to whom any effect can apply. Cause and effect, just
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Chris, Yes, that could well be... Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: Don't forget the eightfold way. I have heard it speculated that numbered lists make it easier in an oral tradition to remember stuff, and that the proliferation of numbered items in ancient spiritual traditions, especial Buddhism, are a normal result of a few hundred years of oral transmission. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 29, 2013 7:26 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bill, I think it's a matter of definition. In general I think excessive concern with 'stages' of realization is a distraction from realization... And that goes for standard Buddhism's obsessive with counting all sorts of things as well. The 7 this, the 5 that, the 8 this etc. etc. Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As you know I don't like to rely too much on Buddhist or Hindu terms either. 'Samadhi' is a meditative state of non-duality or monism. It's what I also call 'shikantazaza' if you're experiencing it during zazen. It can also be called no-thought. I associate it strongly with Buddha Nature since there is no dualism thus no delusion. I know you include delusions in Buddha Nature, but I'm just explaining my terminology. Anyway, if 'samadhi' is a state of pure non-duality how do you think that equates with 'nirvana'? I'm begining to think the only diffrence is 'samadhi' is temporary where 'nirvana' is permanent. What do you (or anyone else) think? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, I don't use the term and don't really get into all the interminable Buddhist and HIndu levels and counts of everything anyone could think of... Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As a follow-on to this, what do you consider the difference/distinction between samadhi and nirvana? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Edgar, I liked your description of the difference between enlightenment and nirvana: ...enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are... and In nirvana all forms cease permanently. I agree with that and use the term 'delusions' as a term for your ...see them for what they truly are ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil is total nonsense. Maybe slightly above 50% at best depending on who is doing the judging Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:07 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar,br/br/There is no confusion in what I said at all and it also depends on from which tradition you're talking about karma. As I've been taught, karma will indeed play itself out, but only as long as a person still identifies themselves with a self. Upon awakening to our Original Nature (which can happen at any time) karma is extinguished because where is the self for karma to attach to? Unless of course you're getting karma confused with the crazy notion that karma is fatalistic and/or deterministic which would make emancipation from karma impossible.br/br
Re: [Zen] A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE
Suresh, You have been warned before this subject is OT. Yet you continue to post 3 or 4 messages on the same thread. In fact this post appears to be a duplicate of one from you of a couple days ago. Please END THIS THREAD NOW. Edgar co-moderator On Jun 28, 2013, at 1:40 AM, SURESH JAGADEESAN wrote: A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE -- A LOOK AT HAARP We shall take a basic look at the technology involved in controlling the weather. We shall try to take a simple look so you can understand a most complex scientific subject. The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!! Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones! Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again. YOU ARE NOW ON THE CUTTING EDGE The idea behind Weather Control is simple, when you think about it simply. When you see and experience a strong thunderstorm, with a lot of lightening and thunder, what fact about this storm strikes you the most? Are you not impressed by the powerful display of energy that you witness? Energy is the primary ingredient behind nature's storms. Therefore, you must believe that, just perhaps, if energy is the most dominant outward factor in all kinds of storms, then energy might be the key factor in creating such storms in the first place. ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY So, you ask, how much energy is required to create, and then direct, storms? The answer to that question depends upon many factors, but let us tell you how much capability has been built into the newly created power transmission station in remote Alaska. These power transmission towers are not your typical towers, as they are designed to generate power in such a way that it is beamed up into the ionosphere in tremendous quantities. The $30 million [Pentagon] project, euphemistically named HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), is made to beam more than 1.7 gigawatts (billion watts) of radiated power into the ionosphere -- the electrically charged layer above Earth's atmosphere. Put simply, the apparatus is a reversal of a radio telescope -- just transmitting instead of receiving. It will 'boil the upper atmosphere'. After [heating] and disturbing the ionosphere, the radiations will bounce back onto the earth in for form of long waves which penetrate our bodies, the ground and the oceans. [Angels Don't Play This HAARP] Let us allow Dr. Begich explain this concept. .. . this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth's atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art ... the goal is to learn how to manipulate the ionosphere on a more grand scale than the the Soviet Union could do with its similar facilities. HAARP would be the largest ionospheric heater in the world, located in a latitude most conducive to putting Eastlund's invention into practice. Furthermore, from this northern latitude, the energy could be aimed into the ionosphere so that it would bounce back down to the earth so it would come down wherever the scientists wanted it to come down. The secret was to learn how and where to aim it to hit the earth where they wanted it to hit, creating the type of disaster or weather they desired. In a nutshell, this is the nucleus of the expertise just recently acquired to control the weather. By pouring measured energy that has been focussed into certain parts of the ionosphere, scientists can create all kinds of storms like hurricanes, thunderstorms, floods, tornadoes, and drought. In NEWS1198, U.N. Treaty Proves Weather Control Is Real, we report news articles that Malaysia actually contracted with a Russian Weather Modification company to create a hurricane that would be directed close enough to clear the smoke and smog from Malaysia's cities without actually coming on to land to create devastation. This Russian company delivered, and Malaysia had clear skies. Our information also tells us that, not only can hurricanes be created, they can be dismantled should scientists so desire. And, they certainly can be driven on the ocean much like we drive our cars on roadways. Therefore, one has to ask why American scientists have allowed unprecedented hurricanes, like Andrew, to ever come on shore. Why are American scientists allowing extensive damage and lives lost to recent unprecedented storms, since they have the capability to keep these storms away from us? Doesn't our own American Government have our best interests at heart? Keep that thought in mind as we examine
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, Yes, I suspect it was just all those monks got so terribly bored with the monastic life doing the same boring routine all day every day for their whole lives they desperately needed something to occupy their minds. Can you imagine a life of continually counting your prayer beads over and over and over ad infinitum? Not a very healthy lifestyle for most of them I fear... Maybe we see the results in the Buddhist monk persecution of the Muslim minority in Burma Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I agree 100% with that! Like the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Speech, Right Thought, Right Intentions, etc... Why do they name only 8 classes? Why do they name classes at all? Why not just: Live Right? And anyway the challenge isn't doing all the 'right' things. The challenge is determining what is right and what is not. I call this The Twelve Days Of Christmas Syndrome: You know...four calling birds, three French hens, two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear tree. ;) ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, I think it's a matter of definition. In general I think excessive concern with 'stages' of realization is a distraction from realization... And that goes for standard Buddhism's obsessive with counting all sorts of things as well. The 7 this, the 5 that, the 8 this etc. etc. Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As you know I don't like to rely too much on Buddhist or Hindu terms either. 'Samadhi' is a meditative state of non-duality or monism. It's what I also call 'shikantazaza' if you're experiencing it during zazen. It can also be called no-thought. I associate it strongly with Buddha Nature since there is no dualism thus no delusion. I know you include delusions in Buddha Nature, but I'm just explaining my terminology. Anyway, if 'samadhi' is a state of pure non-duality how do you think that equates with 'nirvana'? I'm begining to think the only diffrence is 'samadhi' is temporary where 'nirvana' is permanent. What do you (or anyone else) think? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, I don't use the term and don't really get into all the interminable Buddhist and HIndu levels and counts of everything anyone could think of... Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As a follow-on to this, what do you consider the difference/distinction between samadhi and nirvana? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: Edgar, I liked your description of the difference between enlightenment and nirvana: ...enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are... and In nirvana all forms cease permanently. I agree with that and use the term 'delusions' as a term for your ...see them for what they truly are ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Mike, It's two names for the same thing, though understood differently by many of course... It's not the names that matter since the thing itself is nameless. It's the thing itself that matters... I wouldn't get hung up in the names for it Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 10:57 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar,br/br/The Buddhadharma in its present form has been around for 2,500 years and still applicable today. I wonder how long your ontological energy theory (or whatever it is) will be around?...br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Mike, Yes, you are right. I mistook Buddha Dharma for Buddha Nature which is another name for my ontological energy. As to the volume of work produced my book currently being finished up is over 300 pages which is a lot more than Buddha ever wrote though he might have written more if he had Microsoft Word! :-) Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:19 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, They're not the same thing with a different name. 'Buddha Dharma' refers to the whole body of work developed and taught by the Buddha including the sutras and methods of meditation etc. I've yet to see anything resembling this from you (seeing illusion as reality doesn't really comprise a whole body of work). Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage Sent: Sat, Jun 29, 2013 4:45:01 PM Mike, It's two names for the same thing, though understood differently by many of course... It's not the names that matter since the thing itself is nameless. It's the thing itself that matters... I wouldn't get hung up in the names for it Edgar On Jun 29, 2013, at 10:57 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar,br/br/The Buddhadharma in its present form has been around for 2,500 years and still applicable today. I wonder how long your ontological energy theory (or whatever it is) will be around?...br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil is total nonsense. Maybe slightly above 50% at best depending on who is doing the judging Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:07 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar,br/br/There is no confusion in what I said at all and it also depends on from which tradition you're talking about karma. As I've been taught, karma will indeed play itself out, but only as long as a person still identifies themselves with a self. Upon awakening to our Original Nature (which can happen at any time) karma is extinguished because where is the self for karma to attach to? Unless of course you're getting karma confused with the crazy notion that karma is fatalistic and/or deterministic which would make emancipation from karma impossible.br/br/Here are a few snippets on the subject. There are many, many more out there if you care to do the research..br/br/He who believes in Karma does not condemn even the most corrupt, for they, too, have their chance to reform themselves ***at any moment*** (buddhanet.net)br/br/Since basic nature transcends all duality and is ultimate, there is no one to receive the effect, whether it is good or bad, and no one to whom any effect can apply. Cause and effect, just like birth and death, lose their significance at the Enlightened level because at the level of basic nature there is no one to receive the effect of the Karma, whether it is good or bad. Therefore, at the extreme, when one is Enlightened, the law of Karma is not applicable (angel-fire.com)br/br/In the Vajrayana tradition, it is believed that the effects of negative past karma can be purified through such practices as meditation on Vajrasattva.[91] The performer of the action, after having purified the karma, does not experience the negative results he or she otherwise would have.[92]br/(Wiki)br/br/The Japanese Tendai/Pure Land teacher Genshin taught that Amida Buddha has the power to destroy the karma that would otherwise bind one in saṃsāra.[89][90]br/br/br/Mikebr/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE
Suresh, and Bill, Though of some personal interest to me this thread is OT on this forum. Bill these posts are OT don't you think? Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 6:11 AM, SURESH JAGADEESAN wrote: A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE -- A LOOK AT HAARP We shall take a basic look at the technology involved in controlling the weather. We shall try to take a simple look so you can understand a most complex scientific subject. The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!! Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones! Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again. YOU ARE NOW ON THE CUTTING EDGE The idea behind Weather Control is simple, when you think about it simply. When you see and experience a strong thunderstorm, with a lot of lightening and thunder, what fact about this storm strikes you the most? Are you not impressed by the powerful display of energy that you witness? Energy is the primary ingredient behind nature's storms. Therefore, you must believe that, just perhaps, if energy is the most dominant outward factor in all kinds of storms, then energy might be the key factor in creating such storms in the first place. ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY So, you ask, how much energy is required to create, and then direct, storms? The answer to that question depends upon many factors, but let us tell you how much capability has been built into the newly created power transmission station in remote Alaska. These power transmission towers are not your typical towers, as they are designed to generate power in such a way that it is beamed up into the ionosphere in tremendous quantities. The $30 million [Pentagon] project, euphemistically named HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), is made to beam more than 1.7 gigawatts (billion watts) of radiated power into the ionosphere -- the electrically charged layer above Earth's atmosphere. Put simply, the apparatus is a reversal of a radio telescope -- just transmitting instead of receiving. It will 'boil the upper atmosphere'. After [heating] and disturbing the ionosphere, the radiations will bounce back onto the earth in for form of long waves which penetrate our bodies, the ground and the oceans. [Angels Don't Play This HAARP] Let us allow Dr. Begich explain this concept. .. . this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth's atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art ... the goal is to learn how to manipulate the ionosphere on a more grand scale than the the Soviet Union could do with its similar facilities. HAARP would be the largest ionospheric heater in the world, located in a latitude most conducive to putting Eastlund's invention into practice. Furthermore, from this northern latitude, the energy could be aimed into the ionosphere so that it would bounce back down to the earth so it would come down wherever the scientists wanted it to come down. The secret was to learn how and where to aim it to hit the earth where they wanted it to hit, creating the type of disaster or weather they desired. In a nutshell, this is the nucleus of the expertise just recently acquired to control the weather. By pouring measured energy that has been focussed into certain parts of the ionosphere, scientists can create all kinds of storms like hurricanes, thunderstorms, floods, tornadoes, and drought. In NEWS1198, U.N. Treaty Proves Weather Control Is Real, we report news articles that Malaysia actually contracted with a Russian Weather Modification company to create a hurricane that would be directed close enough to clear the smoke and smog from Malaysia's cities without actually coming on to land to create devastation. This Russian company delivered, and Malaysia had clear skies. Our information also tells us that, not only can hurricanes be created, they can be dismantled should scientists so desire. And, they certainly can be driven on the ocean much like we drive our cars on roadways. Therefore, one has to ask why American scientists have allowed unprecedented hurricanes, like Andrew, to ever come on shore. Why are American scientists allowing extensive damage and lives lost to recent unprecedented storms, since they have the capability to keep these storms away from us? Doesn't our own American Government have our best interests at heart? Keep that thought in mind as we examine still more aspects of this HAARP technology that is pouring such enormous quantities of energy into our upper
Re: [Zen] A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE
Suresh, Could you please end this thread on our Zen forum. It's Off topic. Additional posts on this thread may result in moderation of your posts Thanks, Edgar co-moderator of the group On Jun 28, 2013, at 7:49 AM, siska_...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Edgar, Bill, I think so... Siska -Original Message- From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:45:13 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE Suresh, and Bill, Though of some personal interest to me this thread is OT on this forum. Bill these posts are OT don't you think? Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 6:11 AM, SURESH JAGADEESAN wrote: A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE -- A LOOK AT HAARP We shall take a basic look at the technology involved in controlling the weather. We shall try to take a simple look so you can understand a most complex scientific subject. The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!! Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones! Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again. YOU ARE NOW ON THE CUTTING EDGE The idea behind Weather Control is simple, when you think about it simply. When you see and experience a strong thunderstorm, with a lot of lightening and thunder, what fact about this storm strikes you the most? Are you not impressed by the powerful display of energy that you witness? Energy is the primary ingredient behind nature's storms. Therefore, you must believe that, just perhaps, if energy is the most dominant outward factor in all kinds of storms, then energy might be the key factor in creating such storms in the first place. ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY So, you ask, how much energy is required to create, and then direct, storms? The answer to that question depends upon many factors, but let us tell you how much capability has been built into the newly created power transmission station in remote Alaska. These power transmission towers are not your typical towers, as they are designed to generate power in such a way that it is beamed up into the ionosphere in tremendous quantities. The $30 million [Pentagon] project, euphemistically named HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), is made to beam more than 1.7 gigawatts (billion watts) of radiated power into the ionosphere -- the electrically charged layer above Earth's atmosphere. Put simply, the apparatus is a reversal of a radio telescope -- just transmitting instead of receiving. It will 'boil the upper atmosphere'. After [heating] and disturbing the ionosphere, the radiations will bounce back onto the earth in for form of long waves which penetrate our bodies, the ground and the oceans. [Angels Don't Play This HAARP] Let us allow Dr. Begich explain this concept. .. . this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth's atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art ... the goal is to learn how to manipulate the ionosphere on a more grand scale than the the Soviet Union could do with its similar facilities. HAARP would be the largest ionospheric heater in the world, located in a latitude most conducive to putting Eastlund's invention into practice. Furthermore, from this northern latitude, the energy could be aimed into the ionosphere so that it would bounce back down to the earth so it would come down wherever the scientists wanted it to come down. The secret was to learn how and where to aim it to hit the earth where they wanted it to hit, creating the type of disaster or weather they desired. In a nutshell, this is the nucleus of the expertise just recently acquired to control the weather. By pouring measured energy that has been focussed into certain parts of the ionosphere, scientists can create all kinds of storms like hurricanes, thunderstorms, floods, tornadoes, and drought. In NEWS1198, U.N. Treaty Proves Weather Control Is Real, we report news articles that Malaysia actually contracted with a Russian Weather Modification company to create a hurricane that would be directed close enough to clear the smoke and smog from Malaysia's cities without actually coming on to land to create devastation. This Russian company delivered, and Malaysia had clear skies. Our information also tells us that, not only can hurricanes be created, they can be dismantled should scientists so desire. And, they certainly can
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Mike, You are confusing cause and effect which is obviously true (even though Bill denies it) and karma which is a pre-scientific moralistic view of cause and effect Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 9:23 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, You're certainly entitled to your opinion that karma is nonsense, but I agree with the Buddhadharma - that on observing the natural world there are laws that affect it. These laws govern the universe and as we are part of the universe those same laws govern us. Whether you see them as real, illusory or delusional doesn't really matter. You'll still grow old. Your hand will still burn if you put it in a fire. And your suffering or happiness will still depend on your thoughts and actions (happiness or suffering are not just random events, but are created by prior causes and conditions). If tomorrow morning you wake up as an elephant, then maybe I'll reconsider that the observable universe doesn't have an order. Of course, these laws are conceptual, so much of this will also depend on whether you recognise that there are two truths - the relative and the ultimate. Buddha did and that's what I also witness. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage Sent: Fri, Jun 28, 2013 11:40:32 AM Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil is total nonsense. Maybe slightly above 50% at best depending on who is doing the judging Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:07 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar,br/br/There is no confusion in what I said at all and it also depends on from which tradition you're talking about karma. As I've been taught, karma will indeed play itself out, but only as long as a person still identifies themselves with a self. Upon awakening to our Original Nature (which can happen at any time) karma is extinguished because where is the self for karma to attach to? Unless of course you're getting karma confused with the crazy notion that karma is fatalistic and/or deterministic which would make emancipation from karma impossible.br/br/Here are a few snippets on the subject. There are many, many more out there if you care to do the research..br/br/He who believes in Karma does not condemn even the most corrupt, for they, too, have their chance to reform themselves ***at any moment*** (buddhanet.net)br/br/Since basic nature transcends all duality and is ultimate, there is no one to receive the effect, whether it is good or bad, and no one to whom any effect can apply. Cause and effect, just like birth and death, lose their significance at the Enlightened level because at the level of basic nature there is no one to receive the effect of the Karma, whether it is good or bad. Therefore, at the extreme, when one is Enlightened, the law of Karma is not applicable (angel-fire.com)br/br/In the Vajrayana tradition, it is believed that the effects of negative past karma can be purified through such practices as meditation on Vajrasattva.[91] The performer of the action, after having purified the karma, does not experience the negative results he or she otherwise would have.[92]br/(Wiki)br/br/The Japanese Tendai/Pure Land teacher Genshin taught that Amida Buddha has the power to destroy the karma that would otherwise bind one in saṃsāra.[89][90]br/br/br/Mikebr/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, OK, then the only disagreement is that I maintain your 'delusions' are PART of reality since I define reality as everything that exists without exception and you think delusions are NOT part of reality... Without that additional step you don't realize the meaning of 'mountains are mountains again'. That's the realization that the illusions (delusions) are in fact the true nature of mountains but only as realized as the illusions they are Of course the true nature of mountains like everything is the formless Buddha Nature but that manifests as all the illusory forms, therefore the illusory forms are form manifestations of Buddha Nature rather than something standing apart from it. Without this realization you are stuck in the permanent dualism of a world consisting of Buddha Nature and of illusory forms. The true understanding is the non-dualistic realization that illusory forms manifest Buddha Nature and thus they are part of Buddha Nature Ah well, I don't expect you to get this but I keep trying... Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I liked your description of the difference between enlightenment and nirvana: ...enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are... and In nirvana all forms cease permanently. I agree with that and use the term 'delusions' as a term for your ...see them for what they truly are ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil is total nonsense. Maybe slightly above 50% at best depending on who is doing the judging Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:07 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Edgar,br/br/There is no confusion in what I said at all and it also depends on from which tradition you're talking about karma. As I've been taught, karma will indeed play itself out, but only as long as a person still identifies themselves with a self. Upon awakening to our Original Nature (which can happen at any time) karma is extinguished because where is the self for karma to attach to? Unless of course you're getting karma confused with the crazy notion that karma is fatalistic and/or deterministic which would make emancipation from karma impossible.br/br/Here are a few snippets on the subject. There are many, many more out there if you care to do the research..br/br/He who believes in Karma does not condemn even the most corrupt, for they, too, have their chance to reform themselves ***at any moment*** (buddhanet.net)br/br/Since basic nature transcends all duality and is ultimate, there is no one to receive the effect, whether it is good or bad, and no one to whom any effect can apply. Cause and effect, just like birth and death, lose their significance at the Enlightened level because at the level of basic nature there is no one to receive the effect of the Karma, whether it is good or bad. Therefore, at the extreme, when one is Enlightened, the law of Karma is not applicable (angel-fire.com)br/br/In the Vajrayana tradition, it is believed that the effects of negative past karma can be purified through such practices as meditation on Vajrasattva.[91] The performer of the action, after having purified the karma, does not experience the negative results he or she otherwise would have.[92]br/(Wiki)br/br/The Japanese Tendai/Pure
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill, I don't use the term and don't really get into all the interminable Buddhist and HIndu levels and counts of everything anyone could think of... Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, As a follow-on to this, what do you consider the difference/distinction between samadhi and nirvana? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Edgar, I liked your description of the difference between enlightenment and nirvana: ...enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are... and In nirvana all forms cease permanently. I agree with that and use the term 'delusions' as a term for your ...see them for what they truly are ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil is total nonsense. Maybe slightly above 50% at best depending on who is doing the judging Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:07 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Edgar,br/br/There is no confusion in what I said at all and it also depends on from which tradition you're talking about karma. As I've been taught, karma will indeed play itself out, but only as long as a person still identifies themselves with a self. Upon awakening to our Original Nature (which can happen at any time) karma is extinguished because where is the self for karma to attach to? Unless of course you're getting karma confused with the crazy notion that karma is fatalistic and/or deterministic which would make emancipation from karma impossible.br/br/Here are a few snippets on the subject. There are many, many more out there if you care to do the research..br/br/He who believes in Karma does not condemn even the most corrupt, for they, too, have their chance to reform themselves ***at any moment*** (buddhanet.net)br/br/Since basic nature transcends all duality and is ultimate, there is no one to receive the effect, whether it is good or bad, and no one to whom any effect can apply. Cause and effect, just like birth and death, lose their significance at the Enlightened level because at the level of basic nature there is no one to receive the effect of the Karma, whether it is good or bad. Therefore, at the extreme, when one is Enlightened, the law of Karma is not applicable (angel-fire.com)br/br/In the Vajrayana tradition, it is believed that the effects of negative past karma can be purified through such practices as meditation on Vajrasattva.[91] The performer of the action, after having purified the karma, does not experience the negative results he or she otherwise would have.[92]br/(Wiki)br/br/The Japanese Tendai/Pure Land teacher Genshin taught that Amida Buddha has the power to destroy the karma that would otherwise bind one in saṃsāra.[89][90]br/br/br/Mikebr/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Mike, Agreed. So? That has nothing to do with the naive Buddhist Hindu view of karma as doing good you'll get good in return and vice versa... Argue your point with Bill. He's the one that claims it's not true... Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:16 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, There really is no confusion in my post whatsoever. Buddha wanted to find out how to live happily and at peace in an ever changing world. His first premise was that from the actual you can deduce the practical. The actual are the laws I mentioned previously. His second premise was that to sit at the feet of the real he used his own body-mind as a laboratory - the answers to his questions live within. He observed that every time his body changed his thoughts changed - and that every time his thoughts changed his body sensations changed. Body-mind are constantly changing just as the universe does. These changes (micro-macro) aren't just random, but are lawful - everything in the body-mind is lawful. Every thought is caused and every change in the body is caused. And what causes thoughts? Our volitions. Craving for things we don't have and want and aversion for the things we have, but don't want. The (moral) action we take to satisfy our desires is what creates our karma. This is what Buddha discovered and taught and I see no reason to reject it as its truth can be directly experienced and observed. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage Sent: Fri, Jun 28, 2013 1:29:08 PM Mike, You are confusing cause and effect which is obviously true (even though Bill denies it) and karma which is a pre-scientific moralistic view of cause and effect Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 9:23 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar, You're certainly entitled to your opinion that karma is nonsense, but I agree with the Buddhadharma - that on observing the natural world there are laws that affect it. These laws govern the universe and as we are part of the universe those same laws govern us. Whether you see them as real, illusory or delusional doesn't really matter. You'll still grow old. Your hand will still burn if you put it in a fire. And your suffering or happiness will still depend on your thoughts and actions (happiness or suffering are not just random events, but are created by prior causes and conditions). If tomorrow morning you wake up as an elephant, then maybe I'll reconsider that the observable universe doesn't have an order. Of course, these laws are conceptual, so much of this will also depend on whether you recognise that there are two truths - the relative and the ultimate. Buddha did and that's what I also witness. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage Sent: Fri, Jun 28, 2013 11:40:32 AM Mike, First, the law of karma is nonsense. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Also as you can see your reply as received was garbled so don't have time to wade through it all.. Yes, karma plays itself out eventually. As to karma suddenly ceasing that's only when all forms cease in what is called nirvana which Buddhism in general (there are some variant beliefs) takes as cessation of all form. Nirvana is a state far beyond enlightenment in which one does not leave the world of forms but just sees them for what they truly are, empty forms of Buddha Nature. In nirvana all forms cease permanently. Standard Buddhist doctrine believes that one may eventually work through all one's karma through successive reincarnations and eventual escape form altogether. But since there is NO reincarnation the true understanding is that dying is equivalent to nirvana, because it is only in death that all forms cease (to the dead person) and only in death does one escape the world of forms and reach nirvana. At death one's karma automatically ceases whether one is good or bad, or enlightened or not. Sort of crazy that Buddhists take death as the ultimate salvation when seen in the proper light. That's the proper understanding of karma which properly understood is just cause and effect in the world of forms that ceases when one leaves the world of forms in death. And also believing that good always beget good and evil evil is total nonsense. Maybe slightly above 50% at best depending on who is doing the judging Edgar On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:07 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Edgar,br/br/There is no confusion in what I said at all and it also depends on from which tradition you're talking about karma. As I've been taught, karma will indeed play itself out, but only as long as a person still
