Where is your humility Edgar?. It doesn't matter who said first this of that mainly because none of us say something new. Everthing is there to be awakened.
Anyway, I love your sense of humour Mayka --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, but I said it before you did! > > :-) > Edgar > > > > On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:44 PM, mike brown wrote: > > > > > Hi Edgar, > > > > Good to see you've finally come around to my way of thinking then :) > > > > Mike. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, 16 October, 2008 9:21:41 > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > That sounds like what I just said in different words. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > On Oct 15, 2008, at 6:59 PM, mike brown wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi Edgar, > >> > >> When we first practice kata we're taught step by step: left arm > >> block, followed by right hand strike, followed by right arm block > >> etc.etc. When we master (we never truly do, of course) the kata, > >> there is no distinction from the first move to the last - it's all > >> one move. I think this is quite analogous to your discussion with > >> Bill! If you get stuck in separating the moves in the kata (this > >> follows that) you are not one with the kata and you are not living > >> zen. Osu! > >> > >> Mike. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > >> Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2008 21:27:58 > >> Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality > >> > >> Mike, > >> > >> > >> We don't. Even a zen master still places one foot in front of the > >> other. He just realizes he's treading on nonexistence. Thus the > >> energy rushes in through the soles of his feet. > >> > >> If I remember correctly you are the karate man. You certainly know > >> well that one practices the (causal) rules of kata (forms) until > >> they become part of one's inner nature. After that the strike > >> happens before (without) thought. The rules have vanished and one > >> acts directly from the Tao at the center of one's nature. > >> > >> Edgar > >> > >> > >> > >> On Oct 15, 2008, at 1:33 AM, mike brown wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Hi Edgar, > >>> > >>> Simple question: if there are rules - how do we go beyond them? > >>> > >>> Mike. > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ---- > >>> From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> > >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > >>> Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2008 8:03:44 > >>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality > >>> > >>> Bill, > >>> > >>> > >>> Maybe you say they are illusory, but you still follow and live > >>> according to the rules of causality 24/7 and have been all your > >>> life, except perhaps when sitting in zazen. Why is that if they > >>> aren't valid rules? > >>> > >>> You need to be careful in maintaining illusions aren't 'real'. > >>> Illusion is part and parcel of reality but should be recognized > >>> as illusion. Even when seen as illusion, it still doesn't > >>> disappear, only its seeming realness disappears. > >>> > >>> BTW, I'm a Goh player, not a chess man. Goh, to me, seems much > >>> more directly in tune with Tao, i.e., with the rules of > >>> fundamental causality. But I do have to ask you, if there is no > >>> causality how do you propose to checkmate my queen? > >>> > >>> Edgar > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> But > >>> On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:15 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org> > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Edgar, > >>>> > >>>> You stated causality exists, and you confirmed that the > >>>> relationship that > >>>> causality defines is between events. This is a rational > >>>> assertion. My > >>>> questions were to show you that there is no rational defense of > >>>> the concept > >>>> of events, and in the absence of asynchronous events, and > >>>> following your > >>>> definition, there can be no causality. As far as I'm concerned > >>>> this case is > >>>> closed unless you can come up with a stronger rational > >>>> definition of > >>>> causality. > >>>> > >>>> You can of course, if you choose, quickly discard your lab coat of > >>>> rationality and don your robes of zen. Presto change-o. An act > >>>> of pure > >>>> alchemy. That works. Or of course you can just opt out of the > >>>> discussion. > >>>> After all, who can compete with such powerful arguments as > >>>> 'illusions aren't > >>>> real but rules governing illusions (causality) are', or > >>>> speculating that > >>>> the other party is a 'successful businessman who has never been > >>>> hit by a > >>>> bus'. What more is there to say? > >>>> > >>>> For no reason...Bill! > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> ps.com] On Behalf > >>>> Of Edgar Owen > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:42 PM > >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com;SPACETIMEandCONSCIO > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality > >>>> > >>>> Hi Bill, > >>>> > >>>> Funny, I'm looking around me and don't seem to be snared in any > >>>> illusory > >>>> semantic traps. All there is is the morning light on the Autumn > >>>> leaves! > >>>> > >>>> I think it's you who are snared in your own elaborate semantic > >>>> net here but > >>>> out of Bodhisattva compassion I'll descend reluctantly to the > >>>> realm of > >>>> illusion to help untangle you! :-) > >>>> > >>>> All the many questions you ask are answered simply by science > >>>> and common > >>>> sense which describe causality in the realm of material things, > >>>> i.e. the > >>>> rules that govern the manifestations of illusion. Who can say > >>>> why they > >>>> exist, all we know is that they do, and they govern the world of > >>>> illusion. > >>>> That just needs to be accepted. When we deal with that world we > >>>> must follow > >>>> its rules. Just because it is illusion doesn't mean it doesn't > >>>> obey rules. > >>>> As a successful businessman and a man who has gotten out of the > >>>> way of > >>>> oncoming buses for half a century, you have been living by those > >>>> rules all > >>>> your life and know them well. Impossible to deny them now. Zen > >>>> accepts life > >>>> in the realm of illusion. Though some minor illusions may vanish > >>>> with > >>>> enlightenment, the basic illusions of existence remain. The > >>>> method of Zen in > >>>> daily life is not to make all illusions vanish but to see and > >>>> experience > >>>> them as illusion and deal with them in accord with the causal > >>>> rules which > >>>> govern them but with the source of our action rooted directly in > >>>> the Tao > >>>> rather than in particular illusion forms such as desires or > >>>> imaginary > >>>> suffering. > >>>> > >>>> That is Zen in daily life. Deeper Zen with fewer illusions > >>>> manifest in > >>>> deepest meditation when all that remains is pure consciousness > >>>> itself devoid > >>>> of content in the eternally present moment. And finally there > >>>> is the > >>>> vanishing of all illusion at death, the Nirvana of nonbeing, > >>>> when even > >>>> consciousness and the present moment vanish. > >>>> > >>>> Edgar > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 14, 2008, at 7:00 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Edgar, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. I was expecting (hoping) your answer would be 'events'. > >>>> So now > >>>> that you've fallen into my trap I'll proceed knocking off all > >>>> your pawns, > >>>> knights, castles, bishops, and finally your queen before I move > >>>> on to > >>>> checkmate. > >>>> > >>>> Please define 'event' for me, such as: > >>>> > >>>> Are there multiple events or only one? > >>>> > >>>> If there is only one event, how is any relationship possible? > >>>> > >>>> If there are multiple events, are these events synchronous, > >>>> asynchronous or > >>>> perhaps there are instances of each? > >>>> > >>>> Do events have duration? > >>>> > >>>> If not, then I assume all events are synchronous - all are > >>>> happening at once > >>>> - NOW! If so, how can there be any causality? > >>>> > >>>> If you claim events have no duration but are asynchronous, what > >>>> separates > >>>> them? > >>>> > >>>> If they do have duration and are asynchronous. .. > >>>> > >>>> Do all events have the same duration, or are some events longer > >>>> than others? > >>>> > >>>> How can you determine when an event starts and ends? > >>>> > >>>> How do you know when one event ends and different event starts? > >>>> > >>>> If, as you claim, that some events are in a causal relationship > >>>> with > >>>> others... > >>>> > >>>> Are only some events in causal relationships, or do all events > >>>> have causal > >>>> relationships? > >>>> > >>>> If some events do not have causal relationships, how did they > >>>> come into > >>>> being if they were not an effect of a proceeding event? > >>>> > >>>> If all events have a causal relationship. ... > >>>> > >>>> Do they have causal relationships with only some other events, > >>>> or all other > >>>> events? > >>>> > >>>> If all events have a causal relationship with only some other > >>>> events... > >>>> > >>>> Can they have a multiple causal relationship threads with > >>>> multiple events, > >>>> or only a single causal relationship thread with a single event? > >>>> > >>>> How do you determine if there is a causal relationship between > >>>> events? > >>>> (This is a BIG question.) Is there a causal relationship just > >>>> because you > >>>> notice it, or is it a real relationship that exists independent > >>>> of you, the > >>>> observer, and your self-interests, prejudices and predilections? > >>>> > >>>> If all events have a causal relationship with all other events > >>>> (like Indra's > >>>> Web, or the chaos theory 'a butterfly flapping its wings in > >>>> Brazil it part > >>>> of the cause of a thunderstorm in China', or your references to > >>>> 'ripples in > >>>> the Tao'), how can you assign any particular event to have been > >>>> the cause of > >>>> any other event. In this case designating any preceding event as > >>>> a cause is > >>>> as good as another. > >>>> > >>>> In your example of the hitting-the- big-toe event causes the > >>>> feeling-of-pain > >>>> event, you left out a lot of intermediate events. Hitting the > >>>> big toe > >>>> crushes nerve endings, that causes an electrical impulse to go > >>>> out over the > >>>> nerve fibers, up to the nearest ganglia, then to the spinal > >>>> cord, then to > >>>> the brain itself which has to then translate the impulse into a > >>>> feeling of > >>>> pain. And even this doesn't include all the countless events > >>>> involved in > >>>> each and every electron changing polarity all the way up the > >>>> nervous system > >>>> to provide the electrical impulse at the brain. Are all of these > >>>> events a > >>>> chain of causal events? And if so can't you keep going down > >>>> farther and > >>>> farther until you VIRTUALLY have an infinite number of events in > >>>> this casual > >>>> chain? (...assuming as you do that the universe and reality is > >>>> made up of > >>>> quanta) And if you do why can't you just view these as REALLY an > >>>> infinite > >>>> number events which means they are not a chain of events at all, > >>>> but one > >>>> single eternal 'event'. (...assuming as I do that the universe > >>>> and reality > >>>> is actually analog). > >>>> > >>>> Okay, those are my moves. By my calculations you still have your > >>>> queen > >>>> left, but it's seriously on the run. It's your turn now...Bill! > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> ps.com] On Behalf > >>>> Of Edgar Owen > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:32 AM > >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com; SPACETIMEandCONSCIO > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality > >>>> > >>>> Bill, > >>>> > >>>> I'm in general agreement close enough to continue. I agree with > >>>> you that in > >>>> some sense both the hammer smashing your toe and the pain in > >>>> your toe are > >>>> illusions, but my point is that they are consistently related. > >>>> One follows > >>>> inevitably upon the other in all normal circumstances. That's > >>>> causality. > >>>> It's the rules that govern the realm of illusion, the realm of > >>>> forms. > >>>> Because something is ultimately illusory doesn't mean it follows > >>>> no rules > >>>> and is totally random and arbitrary. Quite obviously the daily > >>>> world of > >>>> illusion follows the rules of common sense and science as they > >>>> describe > >>>> particular causes and effects (though not scientist's views of > >>>> ultimate > >>>> reality of course where Zen is correct). > >>>> > >>>> The 'things' that stand in causal relationships are particular > >>>> form patterns > >>>> abstracted or discriminated from the whole flow of process or > >>>> Tao. It is > >>>> particular form patterns which do in fact tend to occur in > >>>> repeating causal > >>>> sequences and that facilitate effective volition in the world of > >>>> forms. (By > >>>> that I mean that organisms discriminate forms whose causal > >>>> patterns they can > >>>> understand so as to be able to function successfully in the > >>>> world of forms. > >>>> E.g. If a hammer hits my toe I feel pain, therefore I don't hit > >>>> my toe with > >>>> a hammer.) Those 'things' are normally referred to as 'events' > >>>> of course. > >>>> > >>>> Edgar > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 13, 2008, at 8:28 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Edgar, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your response, although it's far from satisfying for > >>>> me. I could > >>>> go on with this discussion from the exchanges below, but I think > >>>> we've > >>>> started in the middle and both have a lot of assumptions that we > >>>> may not > >>>> fully share. If we're going to have a discussion on causality, > >>>> and I hope > >>>> we are, I'd like to get a clarification from you before we start: > >>>> > >>>> Causality to me is a term for the concept of cause and effect. I > >>>> believe > >>>> cause and effect is illusory and you are stating that it is not. > >>>> You say > >>>> the our concept of cause and effect is a reflection of a > >>>> mechanism of cause > >>>> and effect that exists in what you've referred to as the real > >>>> physical > >>>> world. Causality presumably describes a specific type of > >>>> relationship. A > >>>> relationship implies that there are at least two 'things' to > >>>> relate. > >>>> - Do you agree with the above three sentences? If not, how would > >>>> you define > >>>> causality? > >>>> - If you do agree, or agree close enough to continue, what would > >>>> you call > >>>> these 'things' that allegedly have a cause and effect relationship? > >>>> > >>>> ...Bill! > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> ps.com] On Behalf > >>>> Of Edgar Owen > >>>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:25 PM > >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] consciousness > >>>> > >>>> Hi Bill, > >>>> > >>>> Great questions. > >>>> > >>>> Take a hammer and whack your toe. I guarantee it will hurt like > >>>> hell. > >>>> Causality is proven. QED. Doesn't matter whether you have satori > >>>> or not. > >>>> > >>>> The point is that the world of forms, of illusion, does obey > >>>> consistent > >>>> rules, causality among them. Just because the physical world is > >>>> illusion in > >>>> an ultimate sense and merely empty forms doesn't mean that it > >>>> doesn't > >>>> operate according to consistent rules. The fact that the hammer > >>>> hurts both > >>>> my and your toe means that the rules are shared to some extent, > >>>> that we have > >>>> similar, but certainly not identical, cognitive constructs of > >>>> the physical > >>>> world. Therefore we can assume that the physical world may in > >>>> fact exist > >>>> independent of both of our existences though we can never > >>>> experience that > >>>> directly. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, the cognitive constructs of consciousness are what illusion > >>>> is, just > >>>> another name for the same thing from a different perspective. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, our concept of causality is a construct of our > >>>> consciousness, but it is > >>>> our consciousness' approximation of actual physical laws of the > >>>> physical > >>>> universe, at least that is where the consistency of the cognitively > >>>> constructed world in my mind leads me. When I drop that I just > >>>> experience > >>>> without the causal thought net overlay. That is Zen. > >>>> > >>>> Confusing and contradictory certainly and thus the Zen adage that, > >>>> 'Illusion, when seen as illusion, is reality.' > >>>> > >>>> EDgar > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 12, 2008, at 10:07 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org> > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Edgar, > >>>> > >>>> In your post below you stated: > >>>> >Causality though does exist and provides the rules which make > >>>> >our conscious perspectives and material world view cognitive > >>>> >constructs consistent. Thus causality does govern what happens > >>>> >in the world of forms. > >>>> > >>>> Why are you so certain that causality does exist and operates > >>>> according to > >>>> some kind of rules? What kind of rules could those be? Universal > >>>> rules? > >>>> > >>>> You stated our concept of the material world, the world of > >>>> forms, is > >>>> observer dependent and 'simply a cognitive construct of our > >>>> consciousness' . > >>>> What is the difference between 'cognitive construct of our > >>>> consciousness' > >>>> and illusion? > >>>> > >>>> In either case, if our concept of the material world is a > >>>> construct of our > >>>> consciousness, why wouldn't you believe our concept of causality > >>>> is also > >>>> only construct of our consciousness; and the supposed rules > >>>> which in fact > >>>> are the defining factors of causality (along with the concept of > >>>> time) are, > >>>> if not completely observer dependent, at best species and > >>>> perhaps even > >>>> socially/culturally dependent, and ultimately illusory? > >>>> > >>>> This is closer to what I believe...Bill! > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> ps.com] On Behalf > >>>> Of Edgar Owen > >>>> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 8:53 PM > >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com;SPACETIMEandCONSCIO > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] consciousness > >>>> > >>>> Anthony, > >>>> > >>>> Not quite. What I'm saying is that consciousness and the > >>>> material world are > >>>> identical. Consciousness is observer dependent perspectives on > >>>> the material > >>>> world from the POV of particular observers and events. Each of > >>>> these > >>>> consciousnesses is all that exists for the particular observer > >>>> (all is > >>>> consciousness only). Our concept of a material world is simply a > >>>> cognitive > >>>> construct of our consciousness, however that construct seems > >>>> consistent and > >>>> sharable thus we may assume it has an independent existence > >>>> beyond our > >>>> particular consciousness though we of course can never actually > >>>> confirm that > >>>> because we can never step outside of consciousness. > >>>> > >>>> Not easy to explain or perhaps understand. > >>>> > >>>> To address your questions: Replace Karma with causality. Karma > >>>> has moral > >>>> implications that are unsubstantiated. Causality though does > >>>> exist and > >>>> provides the rules which make our conscious perspectives and > >>>> material world > >>>> view cognitive constructs consistent. Thus causality does govern > >>>> what > >>>> happens in the world of forms. > >>>> > >>>> As to when we die, the answer is that when you die your > >>>> consciousness stops > >>>> and your body decays (my perspective) . On the other hand I can > >>>> never > >>>> experience death since death is the end of experience. > >>>> > >>>> Hope that helps, > >>>> Edgar > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 11, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Edgar, > >>>> > >>>> Thank you. > >>>> > >>>> You seem to say that the world is nothing but universal > >>>> consciousness. > >>>> Material objects and all kinds of living beings are just > >>>> manifestations > >>>> (contents) of the universal consciousness. Maybe I am wrong, but > >>>> that is an > >>>> interesting philosophical discussion. > >>>> > >>>> Whether or not it is relevant to zen, I would like to know the > >>>> practical > >>>> aspects of your theory: > >>>> > >>>> - Does karma work in the universal consciousness, or whatever > >>>> you call it? > >>>> - When we die, do we just merge into the universe and lose our > >>>> individual > >>>> entities? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Anthony > >>>> > >>>> --- On Sun, 12/10/08, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> wrote: > >>>> From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] consciousness > >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > >>>> Date: Sunday, 12 October, 2008, 7:46 AM > >>>> Anthony, > >>>> > >>>> Well not quite. Personal consciousness is associated with > >>>> material beings > >>>> and disappears with the dissolution of the material form. > >>>> However if you > >>>> read my paper http://EdgarLOwen. com/HardProblem. pdf you will > >>>> see that my > >>>> view is that everything, that is the entire material world, is > >>>> in fact the > >>>> same experiential 'stuff' of consciousness that is the same > >>>> 'stuff' of human > >>>> consciousness just in a different form particular to the > >>>> material it is > >>>> associated with. I.e. a human has human type contents in this > >>>> consciousness > >>>> stuff and a molecule has molecule type contents of it. That's > >>>> probably not > >>>> very clearly stated but the idea is that the interaction of all > >>>> matter with > >>>> other matter amounts to matter's experience of matter which is > >>>> what the > >>>> causal process of reality that continually flows through the > >>>> present moment > >>>> with clock time is. That same flow is experienced as human > >>>> consciousness by > >>>> humans, and mouse consciousness by mice as the details, the > >>>> contents of > >>>> consciousness, depend on the different biological and cognitive > >>>> structures > >>>> of mice and men while the phenomenon of consciousness itself as > >>>> opposed to > >>>> its details is common to both mice and men, and in fact > >>>> everything in the > >>>> universe. > >>>> > >>>> So the contents of consciousness will be different for each > >>>> being and the > >>>> contents are the forms that arise in consciousness itself which are > >>>> illusion. Whereas consciousness itself, that in which the > >>>> contents of > >>>> consciousness arise is the same for everything in the universe. > >>>> It is simply > >>>> the physical reality of the present moment. So tuning into the pure > >>>> consciousness itself, devoid of its contents, is Zen, or satori > >>>> since the > >>>> content forms which are the veils of illusion are no longer > >>>> present and do > >>>> not distract from consciousness itself. > >>>> > >>>> But of course the contents do persist in the material world and > >>>> so the trick > >>>> is to continually recognize these contents for what they are, > >>>> contents of > >>>> pure consciousness, ripples or disturbances in the field of > >>>> consciousness > >>>> itself, so that one doesn't get entangled in the individual > >>>> forms but always > >>>> sees them as contents of the underlying pure consciousness > >>>> itself. The forms > >>>> themselves have no real substance since they are just ripples or > >>>> disturbances in what would be the perfect stillness of > >>>> consciousness itself > >>>> devoid of any forms or ripples. > >>>> > >>>> Hope that makes it a little clearer. > >>>> > >>>> As to the OBE, I really haven't felt I had to explain it. It was > >>>> just > >>>> something that happened. In my view it is a fundamental mistake > >>>> to think > >>>> consciousness is located or centered in the physical body, since > >>>> everything > >>>> we see and experience is actually happening in our own head and > >>>> the idea of > >>>> an individual 'self' is just a cognitive construct, so that > >>>> cognitive > >>>> construct can subjectively locate its concept of observer > >>>> anywhere it wants, > >>>> at least temporarily. In that view 'our' consciousness > >>>> continually pervades > >>>> everything that we experience to its furtherest boundaries. > >>>> Since all that > >>>> is experienced is consciousness, consciousness must then be > >>>> antecedent to > >>>> the division between self and not self. > >>>> > >>>> Remember the furtherest boundaries of the horizon are simply our > >>>> retinas > >>>> inside our eyes, and the whole world exists in the nigredo of > >>>> our brains > >>>> (the black obsidian crystal ball which we wish to turn into a > >>>> perfectly > >>>> clear crystal ball brain - unconsciousness into consciousness) , > >>>> but of > >>>> course that means our eyes are the sky and our consciousness in > >>>> our brains > >>>> pervades the entire universe. > >>>> > >>>> Thus the Zen adage: "Awaken the mind, while dwelling nowhere." > >>>> Which means > >>>> wake up and recognize that consciousness is not centered > >>>> anywhere but > >>>> everywhere and transcends the distinction between self and world. > >>>> > >>>> Edgar > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 11, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Edgar, > >>>> > >>>> I keep an open mind. In your view, does consciousness just > >>>> disappear, when > >>>> we die? > >>>> > >>>> You seemed to say you had an OBE in Japan. How do you explain > >>>> that based on > >>>> science. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Anthony > >>>> > >>>> --- On Sun, 12/10/08, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@ att. net> wrote: > >>>> From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] consciousness > >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > >>>> Date: Sunday, 12 October, 2008, 3:23 AM > >>>> Thanks Margie, > >>>> > >>>> Your comments or questions would be welcome. > >>>> > >>>> Much appreciated, > >>>> Edgar > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 11, 2008, at 9:55 AM, roloro1557 wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Edgar- > >>>> > >>>> I am still reading HardProblem - I'm on page 10. So far it is > >>>> wonderful! :-) > >>>> > >>>> Margie (roloro1557) > >>>> > >>>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- > >>>> FROM: Over the hills and far away... . . > >>>> Don't be an observer of life. Be life. T'ao Shan > >>>> OldWomansZenChronic les.blogspot. com > >>>> > >>>> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _ > >>>> Get your preferred Email name! > >>>> Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail. .com. > >>>> > >>>> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _ > >>>> Yahoo! Toolbar is now powered with Search Assist. Download it now! > >>>> > >>>> __________ NOD32 3510 (20081010) Information __________ > >>>> > >>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > >>>> http://www.eset. com > >>>> > >>>> __________ NOD32 3510 (20081010) Information __________ > >>>> > >>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > >>>> http://www.eset. com > >>>> > >>>> __________ NOD32 3510 (20081010) Information __________ > >>>> > >>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > >>>> http://www.eset. com > >>>> > >>>> __________ NOD32 3520 (20081014) 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
