Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Hi Mike, I love this. Yes, Samsara is the way to Nirvana. Both are labels, in a second, it will reverse. JM On 5/29/2013 6:29 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill!, All dualities, contradictions and paradoxes are reconciled in buddhahood, so I don't see a problem. Doesn't Mahayana say that Samsara is no different to Nirvana? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad *From: * Bill! ; *To: * ; *Subject: * Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion *Sent: * Wed, May 29, 2013 11:45:31 AM Edgar and Mike, So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her thoughts. I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. And they are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think there is a different set of reality for each person on this planet that they make and terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you can get. Are you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd could call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but reality. And as you know I call them all illusions. If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them what you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, temporary realities. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Mike, > > Correct. > > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but illusion taken for reality is illusion. > > The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. > > Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. > > Edgar > > > On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > Edgar, Bill!, > > > > I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things I'd like your feedback. > > When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. > > > > Mike > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > To: ; > > Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Philosophy and illusion > > [edit] > > > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in spirituality the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate illusion from truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, Illusion is something which is not true and not false. Whereas in general usage it is common to assume that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes a distinction between Maya (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this philosophy maya is true in itself but it is not true in comparison with the truth. As per this philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of truth or reality. Based on these assumptions Vedas declare that the world as humans normally see is illusion (Maya). It does not mean the world is not real. The world is only so much real as the image of a person in a mirror. The world is not real/true when compared to the reality. But the world is also not false. Falsehood is something which does not exist. if we apply this philosophy to the above example, the illusion is not actually illusion but is false. This is because in general usage people tend to consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per adishankar's a guru of monist teachings the world we think is not true but is an illusion (not true not false). The truth of the world is something which can only be experienced by removing the identity (ego). > > > > Edgar > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Yes, Mike, Everything that I posted, as well as, those from my Teacher and Buddha, and everything been discussed in this forum, are what we called in our school, as "formed dharma". "Formed dharma" only describes the dharma and not the dharma itself. Thus "formed dharma" are empty by nature. Dharma itself is formless and can only be synced to, can not be understood, grasped, practiced, etc. The word illusory been discussed so far really mean "do not attach to all forms and phenomena", because they are impermanent by nature, thus empty. Yet during their short life span, they still existed. I believe that's what Edgar's "reality" mean. Most of these discussions are on par. Because each of us are attached to a particular logic and definition, that's why we have these discussion. The key to discuss is not whether I am right and you are wrong. But is to see the truth is everything that is posted here in the forum. Each of us are right from our own perspective. Chan is to see all perspectives and not just our own. After all, opinions are empty, illusory forms in the first place. By saying everything is Chan, I meant to say that all forms and formlessness existed in the world are caused by the wisdom and life force of the universe. When we are ONE with it, we will be able to accept it, understand it, see its wisdom, feel its life force and fulfill it, at each moment. When we are separate, then we loose our connection with it, then we are driven by our ego. With palms together, JM On 5/29/2013 12:28 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill!, I also meant to add that saying everything is illusory is just as problematic as Edgar's (and JMJM) saying everything is Zen. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad ---------------- *From: * Bill! ; *To: * ; *Subject: * Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion *Sent: * Wed, May 29, 2013 6:44:48 AM Mike, I have always believed 'dharma' as used in this 3rd part of the Bodhisattva Vow refers to 'the teachings of Buddha'. I agree that teachings are thoughts, so I do agree the use of the term 'dharma' in this vow refers to thoughts. The 1st part of that vow refers to 'sentient beings'. The 2nd part of that vow refers to 'desires'. The 4th and last part of that vow refers to 'the Buddha way'. I consider all of these thoughts, and I consider all of them illusions. We can 'save all sentient beings', 'put an end to all desires', 'master all the dharmas (teachings) and 'attain/accomplish the Buddha Way' all at one and the same time by doing just one thing - dissolving the attachments we have to these illusions by ceasing the arising of dualism which is the function of our human intellect. This doesn't mean we never have illusions or never use our intellect, or never form attachments again. We do. But now we realize 'sentient beings', 'desires', 'dharmas' and the 'Buddha Way' are illusory and can better resist forming attachments to them. We grow stronger at keeping this balance through continued practice - and that for me means zazen. That's the way this all fits together for me. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Edgar, Bill!,I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things I'd like your feedback.When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Bill!, This is from Zen. Zen is full of such stories. 'Tell me you have nothing and I'll take it away from you'. Etc etc etc ad nauseum. MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Bill!,The reason I posted the description of maya by Nagarjuna was to show that he recognised the impracticality of just naming all phenomena as "illusion" and 'that's the end of the story'. If all it takes is to understand that the material and immaterial are illusory, then why do you still continue to practice? Wouldn't all your problems and questions be resolved? That's why this topic doesn't interest me that much. Whether thought is illusory or not doesn't answer much. That thoughts (whether real or unreal) lead to craving and aversion is much more relevant. However, it still makes sense to me that a thought exists in time and space even though the object of that thought (that Bill! is a beautiful Thai ladyboy) is a falsehood. Maybe.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Chris,
I agree with your correction. I don't stop my thoughts, as in forcefully stop
them, but I allow them to stop (quiesce)...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Bill! wrote:
>
> >
> > I can will myself to think about the things I want to think about. There
> > are also a lot of times I think about things spontaneously and even
> > involuntarily. I can halt my thinking. That's what zazen/shikantaza is.
> >
>
> Perhaps my distinction is silly, but I'm not talking about the subject of
> the thought ("I need to think about tomorrow's schedule now -- ok go")
> but about the thought itself - "Oh god, I have to talk to X, can't stand
> them."
>
> As far as stopping your thinking, I will take your word for it. When I
> sit, my thinking can halt, but it is not me stopping it, it is me relaxing
> and the natural quiet coming to the fore. Trying to will myself into
> no-thinking isn't too useful.
>
>
> > I agree that thoughts are perceptions, but then again in my terminology
> > perceptions and illusions are pretty much the same thing.
> >
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Chris
> chris@...
> +1-301-270-6524
>
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] Nature of Illusion
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Bill! wrote:
>
> I can will myself to think about the things I want to think about. There
> are also a lot of times I think about things spontaneously and even
> involuntarily. I can halt my thinking. That's what zazen/shikantaza is.
>
Perhaps my distinction is silly, but I'm not talking about the subject of
the thought ("I need to think about tomorrow's schedule now -- ok go")
but about the thought itself - "Oh god, I have to talk to X, can't stand
them."
As far as stopping your thinking, I will take your word for it. When I
sit, my thinking can halt, but it is not me stopping it, it is me relaxing
and the natural quiet coming to the fore. Trying to will myself into
no-thinking isn't too useful.
> I agree that thoughts are perceptions, but then again in my terminology
> perceptions and illusions are pretty much the same thing.
>
Thanks,
--Chris
ch...@austin-lane.net
+1-301-270-6524
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
The false idea pointed to by thoughts of "self" included such things as choice. I think thoughts arise without volition, without much choice as we normally conceive of it. One chooses to think a given thought in roughly the same way a person who smokes chooses to have lung cancer. If by "Make" you mean something not involving volition, then I agree (assuming you also mean "body/mind" by "you"). "My whole being" != "me" There is nothing whatsoever to be clung to as me or mine; my whole being is just one bit of the great stream of the universe flowing on. The thing that causes a specific though rather than some other thought or non-thinking t is what I refer to as the whole history of the universe, balanced with exquisite sensitivity by the balance measuring devices, neuronal junctions and neuronal networks. Post hoc sometimes one can see what led up to a given thought, but not always. And before the thought happens, it can't really be caused or even predicted with great confidence. Maybe really good marketers can get 10% of their memes spread successfully, but in general humans are not that good at predicting what groups of humans will think and do in the future. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 29, 2013 1:53 PM, "Edgar Owen" wrote: > > > Chris, > > You have a strange idea of what the 'you' is. > > Of course 'you' make your thoughts. Your whole organism is your 'you', not > just your consciousness. Your whole being obviously generates your > thoughts... Where else would they come from? > > Edgar > > > > On May 29, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > You don't make your thoughts, you merely perceive them. At least, not only > is the idea of "you" who could make the thoughts a limited idea, but I > personally can't force myself to think a certain thought, to stop thinking > some certain thought, or to stop thinking altogether. It is true that > zazen seems to increase the ability to focus attention instead of having it > fly off, but the content of the attention is not so volitional, at least > for me. I find I can notice repetitive patterns in my thoughts by paying > attention, and that knowing what type of thoughts are clamoring for my > attention is useful. > > Chris, who finds writing to the Zen forum effortless and my actual work > task impossible to think about. > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On May 29, 2013 4:45 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > >> Edgar and Mike, >> >> So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her >> thoughts. I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. >> And they are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think >> there is a different set of reality for each person on this planet that >> they make and terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you >> can get. Are you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? >> >> What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd >> could call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but >> reality. >> >> And as you know I call them all illusions. >> >> If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them >> what you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, >> temporary realities. >> >> ...Bill! >> >> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: >> > >> > Mike, >> > >> > Correct. >> > >> > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, >> but illusion taken for reality is illusion. >> > >> > The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a >> perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. >> > >> > Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE >> GOT IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of >> your mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. >> > >> > Edgar >> > >> > >> > On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: >> > >> > > Edgar, Bill!, >> > > >> > > I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few >> things I'd like your feedback. >> > > When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas >> are numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, >> means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought >> isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy >> band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional >> thought. >> > > >> > > Mike >> > > >> > > >> > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >> > > >> > > From: Edgar Owen ; >> > > To: ; >> > > Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion >> > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM >> > > >> > > >> > > Bill, >> > > >> > > >> > > Philosophy and illusion >> > > [edit] >> > > >> > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in >> spirituality the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in >> Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies c
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Chris, I can will myself to think about the things I want to think about. There are also a lot of times I think about things spontaneously and even involuntarily. I can halt my thinking. That's what zazen/shikantaza is. I agree that thoughts are perceptions, but then again in my terminology perceptions and illusions are pretty much the same thing. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > You don't make your thoughts, you merely perceive them. At least, not only > is the idea of "you" who could make the thoughts a limited idea, but I > personally can't force myself to think a certain thought, to stop thinking > some certain thought, or to stop thinking altogether. It is true that > zazen seems to increase the ability to focus attention instead of having it > fly off, but the content of the attention is not so volitional, at least > for me. I find I can notice repetitive patterns in my thoughts by paying > attention, and that knowing what type of thoughts are clamoring for my > attention is useful. > > Chris, who finds writing to the Zen forum effortless and my actual work > task impossible to think about. > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On May 29, 2013 4:45 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > > > Edgar and Mike, > > > > So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her > > thoughts. I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. > > And they are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think > > there is a different set of reality for each person on this planet that > > they make and terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you > > can get. Are you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? > > > > What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd could > > call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but reality. > > > > And as you know I call them all illusions. > > > > If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them > > what you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, > > temporary realities. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > Correct. > > > > > > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, > > but illusion taken for reality is illusion. > > > > > > The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a > > perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. > > > > > > Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT > > IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your > > mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > Edgar, Bill!, > > > > > > > > I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few > > things I'd like your feedback. > > > > When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas > > are numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, > > means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought > > isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy > > band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional > > thought. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > > > To: ; > > > > Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion > > > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > Philosophy and illusion > > > > [edit] > > > > > > > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in > > spirituality the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in > > Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate > > illusion from truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, > > Illusion is something which is not true and not false. Whereas in general > > usage it is common to assume that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes > > a distinction between Maya (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this > > philosophy maya is true in itself but it is not true in comparison with the > > truth. As per this philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of truth or > > reality. Based on these assumptions Vedas declare that the world as humans > > normally see is illusion (Maya). It does not mean the world is not real. > > The world is only so much real as the image of a person in a mirror. The > > world is not real/true when compared to the reality. But the world is also > > not false. Falsehood is something which does not exist. if w > > e apply this philosophy to the above example, the illusion is not > > actually illusion but is false. This is because in general usage people > > tend to consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per adishankar's > > a guru of monist
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Mike, I've never heard that before, but could kind of see what it means. However at some point I do start discounting Buddhist doctrine and dogma. I've told you that before. I think Buddhist teachings are useful up to a point, as a general metaphor which tries to explain all these things, but if taken 'as gospel' (pardon the pun) they are just more attachments that you're eventually going to have to deal with. ...Bill@ --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,All dualities, contradictions and paradoxes are reconciled in > buddhahood, so I don't see a problem. Doesn't Mahayana say that Samsara is no > different to Nirvana?MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for > iPad > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Mike, I could accept the word 'distortions'. To me as you've explained it below 'distortions' seems to carry the same meaning for me as the term 'perceptions'. The important part for me is that they are clearly distinguished from experience. For now I will continue to use the word 'illusions'. I would only caution though that if you call them 'distortions' be careful not to assume they are always based on reality (experience). 'Distortions' for me carries the implication that there is something actually 'real' out there that is the source of the distortion. Some of what I call 'illusions' are pure fantasy. That's just an FYI (IMO of course). I don't doubt that illusions can be correlated with physical measurements within the brain. I hope we're not now going to go down some scientific measurement road to explain, support or refute zen or zen practices. That's a closed loop and goes nowhere. The bone-pointing description as you've pointed out only works on someone who believes those powers are real. Believing they are real doesn't make them real, although yes there is power in belief - if you are locked-in to the dualistic illusion that your self is real. If you realize your self is illusory and are able to recognize that in your daily activities I am sure bone-pointing wouldn't have that same effect. I only half-agree with your ambivalence about what these are called. I agree the name means nothing, but since they are associated directly with attachment and suffering I think it's helpful to point out that they are only present in dualistic thought and as such are 'distortions' that can at least be recognized and 'brought into clearer focus' through zen practice. (Which is the equivalent of me saying: ...and as such are 'illusions' that can at least be recognized and 'made more transparent' through zen practice. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,I have no stake in this topic at all because I don't see the > problem with thoughts as being whether they are illusory or not, but rather > that the following of them leads to craving/aversion and thus suffering. The > 20 year old Edgar is a falsehood and he clearly isn't real, but the the > thought itself - however delusional and empty - still exists. It arises from > previous conditions and is itself a condition for further effects. Tests in > neuroscience show that thoughts need energy and create vibrations. The body > can suffer major pathology from a thought. In Australia Aborigines die from > having a bone pointed at them and being cursed. The demon might be a > falsehood and not exist, but the thought does and has dire > consequences.I found this on wiki regarding > 'maya':NÄgÄrjuna, of the MahÄyÄna MÄdhyamika (i.e., "Middle > Way") school, discusses nirmita, or illusion closely related to mÄyÄ. In > this example, the illusion is > a self-awareness that is, like the magical illusion, mistaken. For > Nagarjuna, the self is not the organizing command center of experience, as we > might think. Actually, it is just one element combined with other factors and > strung together in a sequence of causally connected moments in time. [[[As > such, the self is not substantially real, but neither can it be shown to be > unreal]]].The continuum of moments, which we mistakenly understand to be > a solid, unchanging self, still performs actions and undergoes their results. > "As a magician creates a magical illusion by the force of magic, and the > illusion produces another illusion, in the same way the agent is a magical > illusion and the action done is the illusion created by another > illusion."[16] What we experience may be an illusion, but we are living > inside the illusion and bear the fruits of our actions there. We undergo the > experiences of the illusion. What we do affects what we experience, so it > matters.[17] In this example, Nagarjuna uses the magician's illusion to show > that the self is not as real as it thinks, yet, to the extent it is inside > the illusion, real enough to warrant respecting the ways of the > world. The Theravada interpretation of maya works better for > me. Instead of meaning 'illusion' they use the word vipallasa which > translates as 'distortion'. This works better for me because it retains the > meaning of 'things not being as they appear' without relegating them to > non-existence.Hope that helps!MikeSent > from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_f
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Edgar, Yet, it's standard ignorant cognition. And has nothing to do with Zen. You heard it here Second. Your teachers told you this First. Not that they are proud of you. ;-) ...deceased as they are, and not aware of your mis-representing even the long-hand (non-practicing), words-only teaching )of theirs, not yours). Paltry. Less. All Readers here can do better, --Joe > Edgar Owen wrote: > > Mike, > > Correct. > > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but > illusion taken for reality is illusion. 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] Nature of Illusion
Bill!, Rest! Wishes, --Joe > "Bill!" wrote: > > Mike, > > I'm getting very, very weary of all this. 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] Nature of Illusion
mike...yes yes yes... you have it down to a T... well said merle Edgar, To be honest, whether you are right or wrong makes no difference to my practice. Many people realise that the world 'out there' is just a process of the brain created in the head. BUT that doesn't necessarily lead them to living an awakened life (just as a scientist specialising quantum mechanics doesn't become enlightened from the knowledge that solid objects aren't really solid and are impermanent). For me, it's more a question of how we recognise that thoughts lead to actions that are either wholesome or unwholesome. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Edgar Owen ; To: ; Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 11:17:37 AM Mike, Correct. As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but illusion taken for reality is illusion. The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. Edgar On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >Edgar, Bill!, > >I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things I'd >like your feedback. >When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are >numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means >that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. >For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, >then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. > >Mike > > >Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; >To: ; >Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion >Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM > > > >Bill, > > >Philosophy and illusion >[edit]Just like many other words often used in a different sense in >spirituality the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in Hindu >Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate illusion from >truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, Illusion is something >which is not true and not false. Whereas in general usage it is common to >assume that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes a distinction between >Maya (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this philosophy maya is true in >itself but it is not true in comparison with the truth. As per this >philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of truth or reality. Based on these >assumptions Vedas declare that the world as humans normally see is illusion >(Maya). It does not mean the world is not real. The world is only so much real >as the image of a person in a mirror. The world is not real/true when compared >to the reality. But the world is also not false. Falsehood is something which does not exist. if we apply this philosophy to the above example, the illusion is not actually illusion but is false. This is because in general usage people tend to consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per adishankar's a guru of monist teachings the world we think is not true but is an illusion (not true not false). The truth of the world is something which can only be experienced by removing the identity (ego). > > >Edgar > > >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
excellent mike... take a look at all the illusions or distortions our own western society lives under... what the hell is real? merle Bill!, I have no stake in this topic at all because I don't see the problem with thoughts as being whether they are illusory or not, but rather that the following of them leads to craving/aversion and thus suffering. The 20 year old Edgar is a falsehood and he clearly isn't real, but the the thought itself - however delusional and empty - still exists. It arises from previous conditions and is itself a condition for further effects. Tests in neuroscience show that thoughts need energy and create vibrations. The body can suffer major pathology from a thought. In Australia Aborigines die from having a bone pointed at them and being cursed. The demon might be a falsehood and not exist, but the thought does and has dire consequences. I found this on wiki regarding 'maya': Nāgārjuna, of the Mahāyāna Mādhyamika (i.e., "Middle Way") school, discusses nirmita, or illusion closely related to māyā. In this example, the illusion is a self-awareness that is, like the magical illusion, mistaken. For Nagarjuna, the self is not the organizing command center of experience, as we might think. Actually, it is just one element combined with other factors and strung together in a sequence of causally connected moments in time. [[[As such, the self is not substantially real, but neither can it be shown to be unreal]]]. The continuum of moments, which we mistakenly understand to be a solid, unchanging self, still performs actions and undergoes their results. "As a magician creates a magical illusion by the force of magic, and the illusion produces another illusion, in the same way the agent is a magical illusion and the action done is the illusion created by another illusion."[16] What we experience may be an illusion, but we are living inside the illusion and bear the fruits of our actions there. We undergo the experiences of the illusion. What we do affects what we experience, so it matters.[17] In this example, Nagarjuna uses the magician's illusion to show that the self is not as real as it thinks, yet, to the extent it is inside the illusion, real enough to warrant respecting the ways of the world. The Theravada interpretation of maya works better for me. Instead of meaning 'illusion' they use the word vipallasa which translates as 'distortion'. This works better for me because it retains the meaning of 'things not being as they appear' without relegating them to non-existence. Hope that helps! Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad ________ From: Bill! ; To: ; Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 10:14:01 AM Mike, I'm getting very, very weary of all this. I could go through your quote below phrase by phrase, line by line to tell you why I think it is either wrong or why you are misinterpreting it, but what good would that do? If you and Edgar won't or can't recognize the difference between thought and experience, between illusion and Buddha Nature, between theology and zen practice then there is just really nothing more I can say. If you can recognize the difference but just don't want to use the word illusion then come up with a different word, but a word that discriminates thoughts from experience. YOU (your illusory self) creates thoughts. YOU terminate them. Do you really think YOU (illusory or not) can actually create and terminate reality? No! YOU can create and terminate thoughts because they are illusions. You (your illusory self) can only PERCEIVE (form thoughts about) reality. Buddha Nature is the experience of reality. And one more thing...the word 'dharma' was brought to you by the same folks that also brought to you the word 'maya'. Do you think they would have two very specific words for what you are claiming is the same thing? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,Just looked up a definition of 'dharma', too. > Buddhism.about.comDefinition:Dharma in both Hinduism and > Buddhism refers to the principle or law that orders the universe. In > Buddhism, the word in particular points to the law of karma and > rebirth.Because this law was recognized and formulated by the > historical Buddha, dharma is most commonly used in Buddhism to mean "the > teachings of the Buddha."Dharma is also used in Mahayana Buddhism > to mean "manifestation of reality." This sense can be found in the Heart > Sutra, which refers to the voidness or emptiness (shunyata) of all > dharmas.In Theravada Buddhism, dharma is a term for the factors of > existence, or the transitory conditions that cause phenomena to come into > being.Dhar
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Chris, You have a strange idea of what the 'you' is. Of course 'you' make your thoughts. Your whole organism is your 'you', not just your consciousness. Your whole being obviously generates your thoughts... Where else would they come from? Edgar On May 29, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > You don't make your thoughts, you merely perceive them. At least, not only is > the idea of "you" who could make the thoughts a limited idea, but I > personally can't force myself to think a certain thought, to stop thinking > some certain thought, or to stop thinking altogether. It is true that zazen > seems to increase the ability to focus attention instead of having it fly > off, but the content of the attention is not so volitional, at least for me. > I find I can notice repetitive patterns in my thoughts by paying attention, > and that knowing what type of thoughts are clamoring for my attention is > useful. > > Chris, who finds writing to the Zen forum effortless and my actual work task > impossible to think about. > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On May 29, 2013 4:45 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > Edgar and Mike, > > So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her thoughts. > I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. And they > are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think there is a > different set of reality for each person on this planet that they make and > terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you can get. Are > you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? > > What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd could > call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but reality. > > And as you know I call them all illusions. > > If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them what > you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, temporary > realities. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > Correct. > > > > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but > > illusion taken for reality is illusion. > > > > The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a > > perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. > > > > Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT > > IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your > > mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > > Edgar, Bill!, > > > > > > I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few > > > things I'd like your feedback. > > > When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are > > > numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, > > > means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that > > > thought isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a > > > famous boy band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is > > > a delusional thought. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > > To: ; > > > Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion > > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > Philosophy and illusion > > > [edit] > > > > > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in > > > spirituality the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in > > > Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate > > > illusion from truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, > > > Illusion is something which is not true and not false. Whereas in general > > > usage it is common to assume that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy > > > makes a distinction between Maya (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of > > > this philosophy maya is true in itself but it is not true in comparison > > > with the truth. As per this philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of > > > truth or reality. Based on these assumptions Vedas declare that the world > > > as humans normally see is illusion (Maya). It does not mean the world is > > > not real. The world is only so much real as the image of a person in a > > > mirror. The world is not real/true when compared to the reality. But the > > > world is also not false. Falsehood is something which does not exist. if w > e apply this philosophy to the above example, the illusion is not actually > illusion but is false. This is because in general usage people tend to > consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per adishankar's a guru of > monist teachings the world we think is not true but is an illusion (not true > not false). The truth of the world is something which can only be experienced > by re
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
You don't make your thoughts, you merely perceive them. At least, not only is the idea of "you" who could make the thoughts a limited idea, but I personally can't force myself to think a certain thought, to stop thinking some certain thought, or to stop thinking altogether. It is true that zazen seems to increase the ability to focus attention instead of having it fly off, but the content of the attention is not so volitional, at least for me. I find I can notice repetitive patterns in my thoughts by paying attention, and that knowing what type of thoughts are clamoring for my attention is useful. Chris, who finds writing to the Zen forum effortless and my actual work task impossible to think about. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 29, 2013 4:45 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > Edgar and Mike, > > So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her > thoughts. I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. > And they are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think > there is a different set of reality for each person on this planet that > they make and terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you > can get. Are you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? > > What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd could > call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but reality. > > And as you know I call them all illusions. > > If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them > what you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, > temporary realities. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > Correct. > > > > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, > but illusion taken for reality is illusion. > > > > The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a > perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. > > > > Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT > IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your > mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > > Edgar, Bill!, > > > > > > I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few > things I'd like your feedback. > > > When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas > are numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, > means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought > isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy > band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional > thought. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > > To: ; > > > Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion > > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > Philosophy and illusion > > > [edit] > > > > > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in > spirituality the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in > Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate > illusion from truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, > Illusion is something which is not true and not false. Whereas in general > usage it is common to assume that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes > a distinction between Maya (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this > philosophy maya is true in itself but it is not true in comparison with the > truth. As per this philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of truth or > reality. Based on these assumptions Vedas declare that the world as humans > normally see is illusion (Maya). It does not mean the world is not real. > The world is only so much real as the image of a person in a mirror. The > world is not real/true when compared to the reality. But the world is also > not false. Falsehood is something which does not exist. if w > e apply this philosophy to the above example, the illusion is not > actually illusion but is false. This is because in general usage people > tend to consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per adishankar's > a guru of monist teachings the world we think is not true but is an > illusion (not true not false). The truth of the world is something which > can only be experienced by removing the identity (ego). > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
There is also a translation or interpretation of Dharma Gate as being a particular type of path. One might say I have entered the way by the dharma gate of pain, and now seek to enter the dharma gate of formal lay training. Or one travels through the dharma gate of rearing small children. The dharma gate of the tea ceremony, or of typing highly available network servers. The dharma gate of procrastination. Each moment the opportunity is renewed and we have a gate to enter or to avoid. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 29, 2013 1:00 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > Mike, > > 'Dharma' does have many meanings. I looked it up at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma and one of the meaning in Buddhist > Phenomenology is what you've said, however the most common meaning in > Buddhism is Buddha's teachings. > > Desire is attachment. The bottom line is you are attached to some thought > - some illusion. It doesn't matter if that thought is a thought of a > 'real' woman, a drawing or an outright fantasy. The OBJECT of the > attachment is not really the problem. It the SUBJECT of the attachment > which is the problem and that is your illusory self. If you dissolve the > illusion of self, the SUBJECT of the dualistic illusion, there is no longer > any OBJECT nor relationship between them. > > Now all I've said is an attempt at a logical explanation of what I believe > happens based on logical models (forms) and terms we both share. But as > has been said over and over on this forum explanations do not really have a > lot of authority in zen practice. The only real authority or source you > can depend on is experience. > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > Bill!,I agree with most of what you say, but I think you give > a limited account of what 'dharma' means. The Dharma is, of course, the > main body of Buddha's teaching as well as universal law. But 'dharmas' also > have another meaning related to how reality manifests (in this case - > thoughts). There are many dharma gates we have to master and seeing > thoughts as illusory is only part of the picture. We don't avoid attachment > to thoughts just because they are illusory, but because of the > craving/aversion they create. Desiring a beautiful woman that you've > painted on a piece of paper doesn't make the desire unreal even though the > woman is an illusion.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for > iPad > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Edgar,It makes no difference at all. Whether a thought is real or non-real, what is important is not attaching to that thought and the sensation of craving/aversion it raises.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Mike, It DOES make a difference. You just haven't realized that it does.. Edgar On May 29, 2013, at 9:22 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Edgar, > > To be honest, whether you are right or wrong makes no difference to my > practice. Many people realise that the world 'out there' is just a process of > the brain created in the head. BUT that doesn't necessarily lead them to > living an awakened life (just as a scientist specialising quantum mechanics > doesn't become enlightened from the knowledge that solid objects aren't > really solid and are impermanent). For me, it's more a question of how we > recognise that thoughts lead to actions that are either wholesome or > unwholesome. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Edgar Owen ; > To: ; > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 11:17:37 AM > > > Mike, > > > Correct. > > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but > illusion taken for reality is illusion. > > The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a perfect > example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. > > Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT IT! > Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your mind. > It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. > > Edgar > > > On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> >> Edgar, Bill!, >> >> I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things >> I'd like your feedback. >> When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are >> numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, >> means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought >> isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy >> band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional >> thought. >> >> Mike >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >> >> From: Edgar Owen ; >> To: ; >> Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion >> Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM >> >> >> Bill, >> >> >> Philosophy and illusion >> [edit] >> >> Just like many other words often used in a different sense in spirituality >> the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in Hindu Philosophy >> (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate illusion from truth and >> falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, Illusion is something which is >> not true and not false. Whereas in general usage it is common to assume that >> illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes a distinction between Maya >> (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this philosophy maya is true in itself >> but it is not true in comparison with the truth. As per this philosophy, >> illusion is not the opposite of truth or reality. Based on these assumptions >> Vedas declare that the world as humans normally see is illusion (Maya). It >> does not mean the world is not real. The world is only so much real as the >> image of a person in a mirror. The world is not real/true when compared to >> the reality. But the world is also not false. Falsehood is something which >> does not exist. if we apply this philosophy to the above example, the >> illusion is not actually illusion but is false. This is because in general >> usage people tend to consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per >> adishankar's a guru of monist teachings the world we think is not true but >> is an illusion (not true not false). The truth of the world is something >> which can only be experienced by removing the identity (ego). >> >> Edgar >> >> > > >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Bill!,All dualities, contradictions and paradoxes are reconciled in buddhahood, so I don't see a problem. Doesn't Mahayana say that Samsara is no different to Nirvana?MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Edgar,To be honest, whether you are right or wrong makes no difference to my practice. Many people realise that the world 'out there' is just a process of the brain created in the head. BUT that doesn't necessarily lead them to living an awakened life (just as a scientist specialising quantum mechanics doesn't become enlightened from the knowledge that solid objects aren't really solid and are impermanent). For me, it's more a question of how we recognise that thoughts lead to actions that are either wholesome or unwholesome. MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Bill!,I have no stake in this topic at all because I don't see the problem with thoughts as being whether they are illusory or not, but rather that the following of them leads to craving/aversion and thus suffering. The 20 year old Edgar is a falsehood and he clearly isn't real, but the the thought itself - however delusional and empty - still exists. It arises from previous conditions and is itself a condition for further effects. Tests in neuroscience show that thoughts need energy and create vibrations. The body can suffer major pathology from a thought. In Australia Aborigines die from having a bone pointed at them and being cursed. The demon might be a falsehood and not exist, but the thought does and has dire consequences.I found this on wiki regarding 'maya':Nāgārjuna, of the Mahāyāna Mādhyamika (i.e., "Middle Way") school, discusses nirmita, or illusion closely related to māyā. In this example, the illusion is a self-awareness that is, like the magical illusion, mistaken. For Nagarjuna, the self is not the organizing command center of experience, as we might think. Actually, it is just one element combined with other factors and strung together in a sequence of causally connected moments in time. [[[As such, the self is not substantially real, but neither can it be shown to be unreal]]]. The continuum of moments, which we mistakenly understand to be a solid, unchanging self, still performs actions and undergoes their results. "As a magician creates a magical illusion by the force of magic, and the illusion produces another illusion, in the same way the agent is a magical illusion and the action done is the illusion created by another illusion."[16] What we experience may be an illusion, but we are living inside the illusion and bear the fruits of our actions there. We undergo the experiences of the illusion. What we do affects what we experience, so it matters.[17] In this example, Nagarjuna uses the magician's illusion to show that the self is not as real as it thinks, yet, to the extent it is inside the illusion, real enough to warrant respecting the ways of the world. The Theravada interpretation of maya works better for me. Instead of meaning 'illusion' they use the word vipallasa which translates as 'distortion'. This works better for me because it retains the meaning of 'things not being as they appear' without relegating them to non-existence.Hope that helps!MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Edgar and Mike, So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her thoughts. I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. And they are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think there is a different set of reality for each person on this planet that they make and terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you can get. Are you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd could call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but reality. And as you know I call them all illusions. If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them what you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, temporary realities. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Mike, > > Correct. > > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but > illusion taken for reality is illusion. > > The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a perfect > example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. > > Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT IT! > Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your mind. > It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. > > Edgar > > > On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > Edgar, Bill!, > > > > I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things > > I'd like your feedback. > > When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are > > numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, > > means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought > > isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy > > band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional > > thought. > > > > Mike > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > To: ; > > Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Philosophy and illusion > > [edit] > > > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in spirituality > > the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in Hindu Philosophy > > (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate illusion from truth and > > falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, Illusion is something which is > > not true and not false. Whereas in general usage it is common to assume > > that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes a distinction between Maya > > (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this philosophy maya is true in > > itself but it is not true in comparison with the truth. As per this > > philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of truth or reality. Based on > > these assumptions Vedas declare that the world as humans normally see is > > illusion (Maya). It does not mean the world is not real. The world is only > > so much real as the image of a person in a mirror. The world is not > > real/true when compared to the reality. But the world is also not false. > > Falsehood is something which does not exist. if we apply this philosophy to > > the above example, the illusion is not actually illusion but is false. This > > is because in general usage people tend to consider lllusion to be the same > > as falsehood. As per adishankar's a guru of monist teachings the world we > > think is not true but is an illusion (not true not false). The truth of the > > world is something which can only be experienced by removing the identity > > (ego). > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> 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] Nature of Illusion
Mike, Correct. As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but illusion taken for reality is illusion. The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. Edgar On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Edgar, Bill!, > > I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things > I'd like your feedback. > When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are > numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means > that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. > For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, > then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Edgar Owen ; > To: ; > Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM > > > Bill, > > > Philosophy and illusion > [edit] > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in spirituality > the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in Hindu Philosophy > (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate illusion from truth and > falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, Illusion is something which is > not true and not false. Whereas in general usage it is common to assume that > illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes a distinction between Maya > (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this philosophy maya is true in itself > but it is not true in comparison with the truth. As per this philosophy, > illusion is not the opposite of truth or reality. Based on these assumptions > Vedas declare that the world as humans normally see is illusion (Maya). It > does not mean the world is not real. The world is only so much real as the > image of a person in a mirror. The world is not real/true when compared to > the reality. But the world is also not false. Falsehood is something which > does not exist. if we apply this philosophy to the above example, the > illusion is not actually illusion but is false. This is because in general > usage people tend to consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per > adishankar's a guru of monist teachings the world we think is not true but is > an illusion (not true not false). The truth of the world is something which > can only be experienced by removing the identity (ego). > > Edgar > > >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Mike, I'm getting very, very weary of all this. I could go through your quote below phrase by phrase, line by line to tell you why I think it is either wrong or why you are misinterpreting it, but what good would that do? If you and Edgar won't or can't recognize the difference between thought and experience, between illusion and Buddha Nature, between theology and zen practice then there is just really nothing more I can say. If you can recognize the difference but just don't want to use the word illusion then come up with a different word, but a word that discriminates thoughts from experience. YOU (your illusory self) creates thoughts. YOU terminate them. Do you really think YOU (illusory or not) can actually create and terminate reality? No! YOU can create and terminate thoughts because they are illusions. You (your illusory self) can only PERCEIVE (form thoughts about) reality. Buddha Nature is the experience of reality. And one more thing...the word 'dharma' was brought to you by the same folks that also brought to you the word 'maya'. Do you think they would have two very specific words for what you are claiming is the same thing? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,Just looked up a definition of 'dharma', too. > Buddhism.about.comDefinition:Dharma in both Hinduism and > Buddhism refers to the principle or law that orders the universe. In > Buddhism, the word in particular points to the law of karma and > rebirth.Because this law was recognized and formulated by the > historical Buddha, dharma is most commonly used in Buddhism to mean "the > teachings of the Buddha."Dharma is also used in Mahayana Buddhism > to mean "manifestation of reality." This sense can be found in the Heart > Sutra, which refers to the voidness or emptiness (shunyata) of all > dharmas.In Theravada Buddhism, dharma is a term for the factors of > existence, or the transitory conditions that cause phenomena to come into > being.Dharma is also sometimes used to refer to ethical rules and > to mental objects or thoughts. > > So now I think anyone following this thread can see that a thought > can be a manifestation of reality I.e, a dharma. Note the word > 'reality'!You're right about the OBJECT not being the problem and I > never said it was (which is why I'm not overly concerned about this topic). > The answer to the problem is an experiential understanding that the OBJECT is > empty of inherent existence and so is impermanent - and grasping at it will > lead to suffering. Likewise, the self is an illusion, but the belief it is > substantial is a real belief. So the thought of desiring something is still > real even though empty (Buddha Nature itself is empty. In fact, emptiness > itself is empty!). For example, if I see a coil of rope in the > night and believe it to be a snake, the thought of fear is still real even > though the snake itself was an illusion. Saying the thought is an illusion > won't do me much good the next time I see a snake and it *is* real! > Unless of course you argue that both the snake and the fear are illusory, in > which case you probably wont be around very long to continue this illusory > conversation! MikeSent from > Yahoo! Mail for iPad > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Bill!,Just looked up a definition of 'dharma', too. Buddhism.about.comDefinition:Dharma in both Hinduism and Buddhism refers to the principle or law that orders the universe. In Buddhism, the word in particular points to the law of karma and rebirth.Because this law was recognized and formulated by the historical Buddha, dharma is most commonly used in Buddhism to mean "the teachings of the Buddha."Dharma is also used in Mahayana Buddhism to mean "manifestation of reality." This sense can be found in the Heart Sutra, which refers to the voidness or emptiness (shunyata) of all dharmas.In Theravada Buddhism, dharma is a term for the factors of existence, or the transitory conditions that cause phenomena to come into being.Dharma is also sometimes used to refer to ethical rules and to mental objects or thoughts. So now I think anyone following this thread can see that a thought can be a manifestation of reality I.e, a dharma. Note the word 'reality'!You're right about the OBJECT not being the problem and I never said it was (which is why I'm not overly concerned about this topic). The answer to the problem is an experiential understanding that the OBJECT is empty of inherent existence and so is impermanent - and grasping at it will lead to suffering. Likewise, the self is an illusion, but the belief it is substantial is a real belief. So the thought of desiring something is still real even though empty (Buddha Nature itself is empty. In fact, emptiness itself is empty!). For example, if I see a coil of rope in the night and believe it to be a snake, the thought of fear is still real even though the snake itself was an illusion. Saying the thought is an illusion won't do me much good the next time I see a snake and it *is* real! Unless of course you argue that both the snake and the fear are illusory, in which case you probably wont be around very long to continue this illusory conversation! MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Mike, I never have said everything is illusory. Experience (Buddha Nature) is not illusory. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,I also meant to add that saying everything is illusory is > just as problematic as Edgar's (and JMJM) saying everything is > Zen.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Mike, 'Dharma' does have many meanings. I looked it up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma and one of the meaning in Buddhist Phenomenology is what you've said, however the most common meaning in Buddhism is Buddha's teachings. Desire is attachment. The bottom line is you are attached to some thought - some illusion. It doesn't matter if that thought is a thought of a 'real' woman, a drawing or an outright fantasy. The OBJECT of the attachment is not really the problem. It the SUBJECT of the attachment which is the problem and that is your illusory self. If you dissolve the illusion of self, the SUBJECT of the dualistic illusion, there is no longer any OBJECT nor relationship between them. Now all I've said is an attempt at a logical explanation of what I believe happens based on logical models (forms) and terms we both share. But as has been said over and over on this forum explanations do not really have a lot of authority in zen practice. The only real authority or source you can depend on is experience. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,I agree with most of what you say, but I think you give a > limited account of what 'dharma' means. The Dharma is, of course, the main > body of Buddha's teaching as well as universal law. But 'dharmas' also have > another meaning related to how reality manifests (in this case - thoughts). > There are many dharma gates we have to master and seeing thoughts as illusory > is only part of the picture. We don't avoid attachment to thoughts just > because they are illusory, but because of the craving/aversion they create. > Desiring a beautiful woman that you've painted on a piece of paper doesn't > make the desire unreal even though the woman is an > illusion.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
bill... good explanation..i get it...merle Mike, I have always believed 'dharma' as used in this 3rd part of the Bodhisattva Vow refers to 'the teachings of Buddha'. I agree that teachings are thoughts, so I do agree the use of the term 'dharma' in this vow refers to thoughts. The 1st part of that vow refers to 'sentient beings'. The 2nd part of that vow refers to 'desires'. The 4th and last part of that vow refers to 'the Buddha way'. I consider all of these thoughts, and I consider all of them illusions. We can 'save all sentient beings', 'put an end to all desires', 'master all the dharmas (teachings) and 'attain/accomplish the Buddha Way' all at one and the same time by doing just one thing - dissolving the attachments we have to these illusions by ceasing the arising of dualism which is the function of our human intellect. This doesn't mean we never have illusions or never use our intellect, or never form attachments again. We do. But now we realize 'sentient beings', 'desires', 'dharmas' and the 'Buddha Way' are illusory and can better resist forming attachments to them. We grow stronger at keeping this balance through continued practice - and that for me means zazen. That's the way this all fits together for me. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Edgar, Bill!,I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to > clarify a few things I'd like your feedback.When we make our vows at > every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master > them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) > is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said > Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real > (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. > MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Bill!,I also meant to add that saying everything is illusory is just as problematic as Edgar's (and JMJM) saying everything is Zen.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Bill!,I agree with most of what you say, but I think you give a limited account of what 'dharma' means. The Dharma is, of course, the main body of Buddha's teaching as well as universal law. But 'dharmas' also have another meaning related to how reality manifests (in this case - thoughts). There are many dharma gates we have to master and seeing thoughts as illusory is only part of the picture. We don't avoid attachment to thoughts just because they are illusory, but because of the craving/aversion they create. Desiring a beautiful woman that you've painted on a piece of paper doesn't make the desire unreal even though the woman is an illusion.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Mike, I have always believed 'dharma' as used in this 3rd part of the Bodhisattva Vow refers to 'the teachings of Buddha'. I agree that teachings are thoughts, so I do agree the use of the term 'dharma' in this vow refers to thoughts. The 1st part of that vow refers to 'sentient beings'. The 2nd part of that vow refers to 'desires'. The 4th and last part of that vow refers to 'the Buddha way'. I consider all of these thoughts, and I consider all of them illusions. We can 'save all sentient beings', 'put an end to all desires', 'master all the dharmas (teachings) and 'attain/accomplish the Buddha Way' all at one and the same time by doing just one thing - dissolving the attachments we have to these illusions by ceasing the arising of dualism which is the function of our human intellect. This doesn't mean we never have illusions or never use our intellect, or never form attachments again. We do. But now we realize 'sentient beings', 'desires', 'dharmas' and the 'Buddha Way' are illusory and can better resist forming attachments to them. We grow stronger at keeping this balance through continued practice - and that for me means zazen. That's the way this all fits together for me. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Edgar, Bill!,I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to > clarify a few things I'd like your feedback.When we make our vows at > every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master > them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) > is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said > Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real > (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. > MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Edgar, Bill!,I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things I'd like your feedback.When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Merle, Yes, this is a key statement in the article, but let's wait until Edgar responds to let us know why he thinks the article he posted supports his position and presumably thinks it does not support mine. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester wrote: > > "The truth of the world is something which can only be experienced by > removing the identity (ego)." > > > > Edgar > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> 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] Nature of Illusion
"The truth of the world is something which can only be experienced by removing the identity (ego)." Edgar
Re: [Zen] Nature?
Karin, Consciousness does not require not self consciousness. Otherwise Zen masters who have realized that the self is an illusion and a cognitive construct and given up the notion of self would not be conscious. Insects have already figured that out. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 10:25 PM, Karin Machado wrote: Edgar Owen All living organisms have intelligence necessary to survive within their particular environments. Otherwise they would have become extinct.> Pure genetic programming which is the mindless robotic survival instinct of insects does NOT translate to sentient being. Insects are not self-aware, therefore they are not sentient.
Re: [Zen] Nature?
Bill, BTW speaking of transliterations, Joju is always rendered as Joshu in all my old books on Zen. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 8:03 PM, wrote: Edgar, I half agree with you and half disagree with you. That statement is a tautology. I agree that Joju certainly did directly address the question. I also believed he addressed it in a manner that was tailored specifically for that student, but in doing so gave Zen literature a koan that has worked for many, many others. I don't know if Joju intended that aspect, but it's there nonetheless. Zen mondos are ripe with tautologies. They are so because attempts to explain zen with any combinations of words are always fruitless, and maybe even misleading. It gives the impression that zen is something rational, something that can be understood, described and discussed rather than something that can only be directly experienced. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 7:51 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? Bill, Just constantly repeating X=X tells us nothing about the truth of Zen. It does not address the monk's question. Joju addressed the question by invoking the answer, not stating a tautology. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 4:39 PM, wrote: Edgar, I have no confusion about this koan. Mu is just mu. Mu is Just THIS! If you have never worked on this koan however then you are not fully appreciative of the subtlety of JoJu's teaching technique. Of course the koan happened between a teacher and a student with whom he was thoroughly intimate. Joju undoubtedly instinctively invoked the response tailored specifically to that particular student. The subtlety of this koan is that it can also address a wide range of beginning students, and that is why it is usually used in the both Soto and Renzai as the first koan. By the way, when I was given this koan over 40 years ago I was instructed to 'SHOW me Joju's Mu', not 'WHAT is Joju's Mu' as I've seen it represented in some of the books of koans. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:31 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? Bill and Anthony, You guys' confusion stems from your lack of understanding that Mu = Buddha nature. Joju was simply invoking Buddha nature in response to the question of whether a dog has it. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 5:19 AM, wrote: Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a d
Re: [Zen] Nature?
In my next life as an ant, I will organize a struggle against the oppressing ant class, to set up a proletarian dictatorship, so that both the princess and the worker will be saved. Anthony --- On Mon, 22/12/08, mike brown wrote: From: mike brown Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 December, 2008, 1:12 PM They are indeed sentient. If you saw the movie Antz then you'd see that the princess ant fell in love with a worker-ant (a forbidden love), therefore proving a high degree of, not only self consciousness, but class consciousness. Mike --- On Mon, 22/12/08, Karin Machado wrote: From: Karin Machado Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Monday, 22 December, 2008, 2:25 PM Edgar Owen All living organisms have intelligence necessary to survive within their particular environments. Otherwise they would have become extinct.> Pure genetic programming which is the mindless robotic survival instinct of insects does NOT translate to sentient being. Insects are not self-aware, therefore they are not sentient. Get your preferred Email name! Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/
RE: [Zen] Nature?
Bill, There are three consonents: g, k, and k'. Similarly, there are d, t, and t'. I don't remember the example Thai words for the first set, but the second set are dek (child), tau (turtle) and t'ahan (soldier). So the Thai are lucky enough to have all three different sounds. The English speaker has a clear d. But the t is pronounced as t or t', depending on the location. For instance, student belongs to the former, and ten, the latter. The Japanese is the same way as English. Unfortunately Mandarin Chinese and Korean don't have g or d. That is why they sometimes spell their k as g, and t as d. Some of them think their pronunciation is universal. It is impossible to convince them that their g is different from the English g. The Thai should not be confused. It is you English speaker who creates confusion. In the case of 'shrimp', 'gung' is correct in a Chinese way. 'Kung' probably in a French way. Doesn't the Bible say God created different languages so people fight each other? Regards, Anthony --- On Mon, 22/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 December, 2008, 5:37 AM Anthony, The way Asian languages are transliterated into English is still a mystery to me. A good example is the simple work in Thai for 'shrimp'. Sometimes it's transliterated into 'gung', sometimes 'kung'. The truth is the beginning consonant is somewhere between the softer English 'g' and the harder English 'k'. I've seen Zhaozhou transliterated into English as Joshu and Joju. Who knows where they come up with all this? That is an interesting point about ancient Chinese 'wu' being pronounced closer to 'mu'. It's important because when working on the koan Mu students usually eventually revert to just 'sitting only with mu' or even chanting mu while sitting. The hard 'm' at the beginning of the word and the following drawn-out 'o' is great for a good exhale during zazen. This is one of the many, many reasons I think the koan Mu is such a gem. I have not read much or maybe even any pre-Mahayana literature. In general I don't read Buddhist literature anymore, only a little out of the Diamond and Hear Sutra. Otherwise it's just all zazen for me. ....Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 10:21 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I agree that at least 'mu' means 'no' or 'whatever'. If we go deeper, like you say, that sets up a conumdrum for the student to work as a koan. I don't understand why Zhaozhou becomes Joju in Japanese literature, it should be 'Chooshuu'. The former sounds more like Korean. To make things more interesting, the modern 'wu' was pronounced more like 'mu' in Zhaozhou's time. I should stop here, or Edgar would critisize me for 'showing off'. Anyway, it is 'mai-pen-rai' . To talk about something more serious, did you read any pre-mahayana literature that mentions 'Buddha nature'? I have not in my limited reading. Regards, Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963. org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963. org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 6:19 PM Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate s
RE: [Zen] Nature?
Karin, You do realize, don't you, that the discarding of self-awareness is what zen is all about? From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Karin Machado Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:26 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? Edgar Owen All living organisms have intelligence necessary to survive within their particular environments. Otherwise they would have become extinct.> Pure genetic programming which is the mindless robotic survival instinct of insects does NOT translate to sentient being. Insects are not self-aware, therefore they are not sentient. __ NOD32 3709 (20081220) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com 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: mailto:zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Nature?
> I agree that Joju certainly did directly address the question.> Mojo Jojo? He used to be on the Powerpuff Girls! Really a great character. He knew how to turn a phrase! 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: mailto:zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Nature?
They are indeed sentient. If you saw the movie Antz then you'd see that the princess ant fell in love with a worker-ant (a forbidden love), therefore proving a high degree of, not only self consciousness, but class consciousness. Mike --- On Mon, 22/12/08, Karin Machado wrote: From: Karin Machado Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 December, 2008, 2:25 PM Edgar Owen All living organisms have intelligence necessary to survive within their particular environments. Otherwise they would have become extinct.> Pure genetic programming which is the mindless robotic survival instinct of insects does NOT translate to sentient being. Insects are not self-aware, therefore they are not sentient.
Re: [Zen] Nature?
Edgar Owen All living organisms have intelligence necessary to survive within their particular environments. Otherwise they would have become extinct.> Pure genetic programming which is the mindless robotic survival instinct of insects does NOT translate to sentient being. Insects are not self-aware, therefore they are not sentient. 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: mailto:zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Nature?
Edgar, I half agree with you and half disagree with you. That statement is a tautology. I agree that Joju certainly did directly address the question. I also believed he addressed it in a manner that was tailored specifically for that student, but in doing so gave Zen literature a koan that has worked for many, many others. I don't know if Joju intended that aspect, but it's there nonetheless. Zen mondos are ripe with tautologies. They are so because attempts to explain zen with any combinations of words are always fruitless, and maybe even misleading. It gives the impression that zen is something rational, something that can be understood, described and discussed rather than something that can only be directly experienced. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 7:51 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? Bill, Just constantly repeating X=X tells us nothing about the truth of Zen. It does not address the monk's question. Joju addressed the question by invoking the answer, not stating a tautology. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 4:39 PM, wrote: Edgar, I have no confusion about this koan. Mu is just mu. Mu is Just THIS! If you have never worked on this koan however then you are not fully appreciative of the subtlety of JoJu's teaching technique. Of course the koan happened between a teacher and a student with whom he was thoroughly intimate. Joju undoubtedly instinctively invoked the response tailored specifically to that particular student. The subtlety of this koan is that it can also address a wide range of beginning students, and that is why it is usually used in the both Soto and Renzai as the first koan. By the way, when I was given this koan over 40 years ago I was instructed to 'SHOW me Joju's Mu', not 'WHAT is Joju's Mu' as I've seen it represented in some of the books of koans. ...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:31 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? Bill and Anthony, You guys' confusion stems from your lack of understanding that Mu = Buddha nature. Joju was simply invoking Buddha nature in response to the question of whether a dog has it. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 5:19 AM, wrote: Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. ...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you'r
Re: [Zen] Nature?
Bill, Just constantly repeating X=X tells us nothing about the truth of Zen. It does not address the monk's question. Joju addressed the question by invoking the answer, not stating a tautology. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 4:39 PM, wrote: Edgar, I have no confusion about this koan. Mu is just mu. Mu is Just THIS! If you have never worked on this koan however then you are not fully appreciative of the subtlety of JoJu's teaching technique. Of course the koan happened between a teacher and a student with whom he was thoroughly intimate. Joju undoubtedly instinctively invoked the response tailored specifically to that particular student. The subtlety of this koan is that it can also address a wide range of beginning students, and that is why it is usually used in the both Soto and Renzai as the first koan. By the way, when I was given this koan over 40 years ago I was instructed to 'SHOW me Joju's Mu', not 'WHAT is Joju's Mu' as I've seen it represented in some of the books of koans. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:31 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? Bill and Anthony, You guys' confusion stems from your lack of understanding that Mu = Buddha nature. Joju was simply invoking Buddha nature in response to the question of whether a dog has it. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 5:19 AM, wrote: Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on the wrong carrion. Back in Thailand and lurking no more...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: [Zen] Nature? Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to thi
RE: [Zen] Nature?
Edgar, I have no confusion about this koan. Mu is just mu. Mu is Just THIS! If you have never worked on this koan however then you are not fully appreciative of the subtlety of JoJu's teaching technique. Of course the koan happened between a teacher and a student with whom he was thoroughly intimate. Joju undoubtedly instinctively invoked the response tailored specifically to that particular student. The subtlety of this koan is that it can also address a wide range of beginning students, and that is why it is usually used in the both Soto and Renzai as the first koan. By the way, when I was given this koan over 40 years ago I was instructed to 'SHOW me Joju's Mu', not 'WHAT is Joju's Mu' as I've seen it represented in some of the books of koans. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:31 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? Bill and Anthony, You guys' confusion stems from your lack of understanding that Mu = Buddha nature. Joju was simply invoking Buddha nature in response to the question of whether a dog has it. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 5:19 AM, wrote: Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. ...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on the wrong carrion. Back in Thailand and lurking no more...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: [Zen] Nature? Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to think that humans could convey Buddha nature on to anything at all by thinking about them. Buddha nature is innate in all things. Your ignorant Zhaozhou master needs a duck to teach him about Buddha nature! Edgar On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Karin, Ducks have Buddha nature when we have sympathy with them. When
RE: [Zen] Nature?
Karin, do you know what the word 'sentient' means? If not look it up in an online dictionary and then tell me if you think an insect is a sentient being or not. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Karin Machado Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:46 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? From: Edgar Owen They are so dumb. Everyone knows insects are not sentient beings. __ NOD32 3709 (20081220) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com 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: mailto:zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Nature?
Karin, do you know what the word 'sentient' means? If not look it up in an online dictionary and then tell me if you think an insect is a sentient being or not. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Karin Machado Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:46 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? From: Edgar Owen They are so dumb. Everyone knows insects are not sentient beings. __ NOD32 3709 (20081220) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com 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: mailto:zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Nature?
Anthony, The way Asian languages are transliterated into English is still a mystery to me. A good example is the simple work in Thai for 'shrimp'. Sometimes it's transliterated into 'gung', sometimes 'kung'. The truth is the beginning consonant is somewhere between the softer English 'g' and the harder English 'k'. I've seen Zhaozhou transliterated into English as Joshu and Joju. Who knows where they come up with all this? That is an interesting point about ancient Chinese 'wu' being pronounced closer to 'mu'. It's important because when working on the koan Mu students usually eventually revert to just 'sitting only with mu' or even chanting mu while sitting. The hard 'm' at the beginning of the word and the following drawn-out 'o' is great for a good exhale during zazen. This is one of the many, many reasons I think the koan Mu is such a gem. I have not read much or maybe even any pre-Mahayana literature. In general I don't read Buddhist literature anymore, only a little out of the Diamond and Hear Sutra. Otherwise it's just all zazen for me. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 10:21 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I agree that at least 'mu' means 'no' or 'whatever'. If we go deeper, like you say, that sets up a conumdrum for the student to work as a koan. I don't understand why Zhaozhou becomes Joju in Japanese literature, it should be 'Chooshuu'. The former sounds more like Korean. To make things more interesting, the modern 'wu' was pronounced more like 'mu' in Zhaozhou's time. I should stop here, or Edgar would critisize me for 'showing off'. Anyway, it is 'mai-pen-rai'. To talk about something more serious, did you read any pre-mahayana literature that mentions 'Buddha nature'? I have not in my limited reading. Regards, Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 6:19 PM Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. ...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963. org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963. org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on
Re: [Zen] Nature?
The definition of a sentient being is whether it will run when under the threat of being killed, and whether it pursues happiness. Insects have both these characters, so they are sentient beings. --- On Sun, 21/12/08, Karin Machado wrote: From: Karin Machado Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 9:46 PM From: Edgar Owen They are so dumb. Everyone knows insects are not sentient beings. New Email addresses available on Yahoo! Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does! http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/
Re: [Zen] Nature?
Edgar, I will consider if I will treat your words as a koan. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 9:30 PM Bill and Anthony, You guys' confusion stems from your lack of understanding that Mu = Buddha nature. Joju was simply invoking Buddha nature in response to the question of whether a dog has it. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 5:19 AM, wrote: Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough.. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. ....Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963. org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963. org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on the wrong carrion. Back in Thailand and lurking no more...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Zen_ fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: [Zen] Nature? Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea.. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to think that humans could convey Buddha nature on to anything at all by thinking about them. Buddha nature is innate in all things. Your ignorant Zhaozhou master needs a duck to teach him about Buddha nature! Edgar On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Karin, Ducks have Buddha nature when we have sympathy with them. When you think about them in general terms, they should have no Buddha nature. Otherwise, you would attach to them. That is a teaching from Zhaozhou zen master. Anthony --- On Tue, 16/12/08, Karin wrote: From: Karin Subject: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008, 4:55 PM I work at a shopping mall and there is a canal nearby and there are lots of ducks in the area.. I feed them out of the back of the store sometimes, and they run towards me and I talk to them. That is fun. However, many people dislike the ducks because they poop a lot, and I have seen some people run them over with their cars when they are driving through the shopping center. T
RE: [Zen] Nature?
Bill, I agree that at least 'mu' means 'no' or 'whatever'. If we go deeper, like you say, that sets up a conumdrum for the student to work as a koan. I don't understand why Zhaozhou becomes Joju in Japanese literature, it should be 'Chooshuu'. The former sounds more like Korean. To make things more interesting, the modern 'wu' was pronounced more like 'mu' in Zhaozhou's time. I should stop here, or Edgar would critisize me for 'showing off'. Anyway, it is 'mai-pen-rai'. To talk about something more serious, did you read any pre-mahayana literature that mentions 'Buddha nature'? I have not in my limited reading. Regards, Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 6:19 PM Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough.. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963. org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963. org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on the wrong carrion. Back in Thailand and lurking no more...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Zen_ fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: [Zen] Nature? Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea.. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to think that humans could convey Buddha nature on to anything at all by thinking about them. Buddha nature is innate in all things. Your ignorant Zhaozhou master needs a duck to teach him about Buddha nature! Edgar On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Karin, Ducks have Buddha nature when we have sympathy with them. When you think about them in general terms, they should have no Buddha nature. Otherwise, you would attach to them. That is a teaching from Zhaozhou zen master. Anthony --- On Tue, 16/12/08, Karin wrote: From: Karin Subject: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yah
Re: [Zen] Nature?
Karin, Insects are sentient. They are conscious of their environment and experience pain and pleasure. They also engage in some degree of abstract thought, planning and can remember details of their environments. This is known to anyone who observes nature closely. E.g. parasitic wasps will temporarily set a caterpillar it is dragging back to its burrow down and scout alternative routes ahead to find the easiest, then return to pick the caterpillar up and drag it along the chosen route. This demonstrates memory, abstract thought and planning, all aspects of intelligence. All living organisms have intelligence necessary to survive within their particular environments. Otherwise they would have become extinct. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Karin Machado wrote: From: Edgar Owen understanding that Mu = Buddha nature. > They are so dumb. Everyone knows insects are not sentient beings.
Re: [Zen] Nature?
From: Edgar Owen They are so dumb. Everyone knows insects are not sentient beings. 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: mailto:zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Nature?
Bill and Anthony, You guys' confusion stems from your lack of understanding that Mu = Buddha nature. Joju was simply invoking Buddha nature in response to the question of whether a dog has it. Edgar On Dec 21, 2008, at 5:19 AM, wrote: Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on the wrong carrion. Back in Thailand and lurking no more...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: [Zen] Nature? Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to think that humans could convey Buddha nature on to anything at all by thinking about them. Buddha nature is innate in all things. Your ignorant Zhaozhou master needs a duck to teach him about Buddha nature! Edgar On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Karin, Ducks have Buddha nature when we have sympathy with them. When you think about them in general terms, they should have no Buddha nature. Otherwise, you would attach to them. That is a teaching from Zhaozhou zen master. Anthony --- On Tue, 16/12/08, Karin wrote: From: Karin Subject: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008, 4:55 PM I work at a shopping mall and there is a canal nearby and there are lots of ducks in the area.. I feed them out of the back of the store sometimes, and they run towards me and I talk to them. That is fun. However, many people dislike the ducks because they poop a lot, and I have seen some people run them over with their cars when they are driving through the shopping center. They have contempt for the ducks and think that if the ducks are in the way of the car, it is OK to run over them. This is very sad to me. _ _ _ _ Get your pref
RE: [Zen] Nature?
Anthony, In answering that student's question in the koan your 'no' is absolutely just as good as my 'whatever'. I'm not an Asian language expert (although I do speak Thai), but Zhaozhou must have actually said 'wu' since he was Chinese. Joju is ZhaoZhou's name rendered in Japanese, and he is reported to have said 'mu' since this was a retelling of the encounter in Japanese. Thai's use 'mai' which means 'negative'. It can mean no, it can mean not, it can mean 'nothing'. The whole koan stems from the 'fact' that Siddhartha Buddha is reported to have said 'all sentient being have Buddha Nature'. JoJu's student then asked Joju: 'Does a dog have a Buddha Nature?' To which JoJu reportedly replied his now famous 'mu'. Now that could have meant 'no', and since the student already knew Buddha said ALL SENTIENT beings have Buddha Nature, it set up a conundrum for him, an un-solvable puzzle - a koan. Why does Buddha say one thing and Joju say something different? BUT, in the absolutely sublime response Joju could have also meant 'who cares?', or 'moot', or 'go fish', or maybe today even 'fuck off'. He could have meant anything to get the student to concentrate so hard on solving the unsolvable that his mind finally gives up and STOPS - No Mind - and that is KENSHO - an initial breakthrough. That No Mind is meeting Joju and all the other Buddhas and teachers face-to-face. That No Mind is Buddha Nature. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on the wrong carrion. Back in Thailand and lurking no more...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: [Zen] Nature? Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to think that humans could convey Buddha nature on to anything at all by thinking about them. Buddha nature is innate in all things. Your ignorant Zhaozhou master needs a duck to teach him about Buddha nature! Edgar On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Karin, Ducks have Buddha nature when we have sympathy with them. When you think about them in general terms, they should have no Buddha nature. Otherwise, you would attach to them. That is a teaching from Zhaozhou zen master. Anthony --- On Tue, 16/12/08, Karin wrote: From: Karin Subject: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008, 4:55 PM I work at a shopping mall and there is a canal nearby and there are lots of ducks in the area.. I feed them out of the back of the store sometimes, and they run towards me and I talk to them. That is fun. However, many people dislike the ducks because they poop a lot, and I have seen some people run them over with their cars when they are driving through the shopping center. They have contempt for the ducks and think that if the ducks are in the way of the car, it is OK to run over them. This is very sad to me. _ _ _ _ Get your preferred Email name! Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail. .com. _ _ _ _ New Email names for you! Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does! __ NOD32 3705 (20081219) Inform
RE: [Zen] Nature?
Bill, I don't see a difference between my 'no' and your 'whatever'. Both mean 'stop bullshiting about Buddha nature'. Next time you meet Zhaozhou zen master, give him a better carrot. Anthony --- On Sun, 21/12/08, billsm...@hhs1963.org wrote: From: billsm...@hhs1963.org Subject: RE: [Zen] Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 11:32 AM I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on the wrong carrion. Back in Thailand and lurking no more...Bill! From: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: [Zen] Nature? Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea.. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to think that humans could convey Buddha nature on to anything at all by thinking about them. Buddha nature is innate in all things. Your ignorant Zhaozhou master needs a duck to teach him about Buddha nature! Edgar On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Karin, Ducks have Buddha nature when we have sympathy with them. When you think about them in general terms, they should have no Buddha nature. Otherwise, you would attach to them. That is a teaching from Zhaozhou zen master. Anthony --- On Tue, 16/12/08, Karin wrote: From: Karin Subject: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008, 4:55 PM I work at a shopping mall and there is a canal nearby and there are lots of ducks in the area.. I feed them out of the back of the store sometimes, and they run towards me and I talk to them. That is fun. However, many people dislike the ducks because they poop a lot, and I have seen some people run them over with their cars when they are driving through the shopping center. They have contempt for the ducks and think that if the ducks are in the way of the car, it is OK to run over them. This is very sad to me. _ _ _ _ Get your preferred Email name! Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail. .com. _ _ _ _ New Email names for you! Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does! __ NOD32 3705 (20081219) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset. com Get your preferred Email name! Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/
RE: [Zen] Nature?
I have met Zhaozhou face-to-face. His response 'mu' to his student's question on whether a dog (or duck or maggot) did not mean 'no'. In our vernacular it could be translated as 'whatever', or 'moot'. If you're spending all your time or posts speculating about Buddha Nature you're barking up the wrong tree, or swimming in the wrong pond, or gnawing on the wrong carrion. Back in Thailand and lurking no more...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Wu Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Nature? Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to think that humans could convey Buddha nature on to anything at all by thinking about them. Buddha nature is innate in all things. Your ignorant Zhaozhou master needs a duck to teach him about Buddha nature! Edgar On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Karin, Ducks have Buddha nature when we have sympathy with them. When you think about them in general terms, they should have no Buddha nature. Otherwise, you would attach to them. That is a teaching from Zhaozhou zen master. Anthony --- On Tue, 16/12/08, Karin wrote: From: Karin Subject: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008, 4:55 PM I work at a shopping mall and there is a canal nearby and there are lots of ducks in the area.. I feed them out of the back of the store sometimes, and they run towards me and I talk to them. That is fun. However, many people dislike the ducks because they poop a lot, and I have seen some people run them over with their cars when they are driving through the shopping center. They have contempt for the ducks and think that if the ducks are in the way of the car, it is OK to run over them. This is very sad to me. Get your preferred Email name! Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail. .com. New Email names for you! Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does! __ NOD32 3705 (20081219) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com 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: mailto:zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Nature?
I think comments like God ranking animals by how much soul they have should just roll like water off a duck's back. JODY 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: mailto:zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Nature?
Anthony, Zen master says "Quack, Quack, Quack" Edgar On Dec 20, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Edgar, Your missed the point. On the one hand, everything has Buddha nature (your word 'innate' is correct). On the other, you should not attach to that idea. That is why Bill Smart's great grand father Zhaozhou zen master says, 'no', when asked 'does a dog have Buddha nature?'. Anthony --- On Fri, 19/12/08, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 11:56 PM Anthony, It is nonsense to think that humans could convey Buddha nature on to anything at all by thinking about them. Buddha nature is innate in all things. Your ignorant Zhaozhou master needs a duck to teach him about Buddha nature! Edgar On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: Karin, Ducks have Buddha nature when we have sympathy with them. When you think about them in general terms, they should have no Buddha nature. Otherwise, you would attach to them. That is a teaching from Zhaozhou zen master. Anthony --- On Tue, 16/12/08, Karin wrote: From: Karin Subject: [Zen] Ducks Have Buddha Nature? To: zen_fo...@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008, 4:55 PM I work at a shopping mall and there is a canal nearby and there are lots of ducks in the area.. I feed them out of the back of the store sometimes, and they run towards me and I talk to them. That is fun. However, many people dislike the ducks because they poop a lot, and I have seen some people run them over with their cars when they are driving through the shopping center. They have contempt for the ducks and think that if the ducks are in the way of the car, it is OK to run over them. This is very sad to me. Get your preferred Email name! Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail. .com. New Email names for you! Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does!
