Hi Mike;

Thanks for your views.

You've asked where I am from.
I'm originally from San Sebastian, Capital City in Guipuzcoa in The 
Vasque Country.  The Vasque Country is partially in North Spain and 
partially South of France.  I belong to the Spanish side.  However, 
I'm a resident living currently in Edinburgh.  Uk

I paste a link about my city.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Sebasti%C3%A1n

What about you?.  Where are you from?

Mayka

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mayka,
> 
> If it's really confusing you, then don't try to understand it. This 
may look like a defeatist position to take, but the problem with Zen 
is that it is almost impossible to capture in words (poetry being a 
worthy exception). As admirable (and enlightened) as people like 
Bill! and Edgar are, their words can often have the effect of making 
Zen look like only the highly educated or innately wise can 
understand it. This is not so. Zen is very simple. So simple in fact 
that it has been described as 'selling water by the river'. An 
understanding of Zen at the academic or intellectual level is not 
necessary at all (in fact, it's a hindrance). Much better to read TNH 
than try to make sense of highly specialised language, and better 
still is to just be mindful whilst making a  cup of tea. Simplicity 
over sophistication any day of the week!
> 
> Actually, I agree with Bill! and Edgar. I don't think you've 
understood Bill! completely (as you admit). I don't think Bill! would 
say that your pain is an illusion. I think he would argue that there 
is no 'me' (self) to experience the pain  (as though the pain was 
something added extra onto the 'me'). You are that pain. In fact, the 
whole universe is that pain. What's not real (illusion) is the
> belief that there is an unchanging permanent entity called 'me' for 
the
> pain to attach itself to. I think your line, "That pain at that 
moment is me"  sums this up exactly and is what Bill! (and I) would 
also say.  In a practical sense  you shouldn't try to push the pain 
away because aversion only leads to suffering (it's there, so deal 
with it!). How do you deal with it? Remembering that nothing is 
permanent leads to a kind of equanimity because you'll understand 
that the 'me=pain" state now is inevitably changing millisecond to 
millisecond into another state... me= not-pain. Similarly, don't 
cling to the 'me=not-pain' state because that to is subject to 
change. Hope that helps! Oh, where you from, Mayka?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mayka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 17 October, 2008 9:38:38
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality
> 
> 
> Thanks Mike to summarise so clearly what is the discussion about 
Bill 
> and Edgar. 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm failing to fully understand their both posting due 
to 
> both linguistic barriers and technical western psycology terms (In 
> fact I prefer TNH that explains all these things with very simple 
> words and great clarity).  Perhaps Edgar is a little easier to be 
> understood than Bill over this debate between them both. Bill says 
> things over this long debate that it doesn't make any sense to me 
> such as when he talks about illusion.  It seems that for him 
> everything is illusion.  He separates illusion from reality.  And 
to 
> me they're not separated.  For instance if I hurt my hand.  I feel 
> pain and that pain is not illusory as Bill may say.  That pain is 
> very real.  That pain at that moment is me. If I am angry at those 
> moments I am the anger.  It's not very realistic to say, "oh well 
> anger is an illusion and therefore I'm not angry".  While is very 
> different sitting down with the emotion, breathing in awareness, 
> feeling the anger, observing it the effect that anger makes in my 
> body and mind...all the sensations.. .and then say "This anger is 
not 
> me".  Saying in this way illusion and reality inter-relate with 
each 
> other. Anger is there but there is also peace there. 
> 
> If I put myself in the way Edgar understand the law of casualty, 
then 
> it makes sense to me.  I think he means that we can choose whatever 
> we want to be. For instance, While practicing the present moment 
very 
> deeply.  I have experienced that sometimes in seconds my mind can 
> completely change to different emotional states.  Then all that 
> initial separation from the positive and negative becomes like 
> together.  As if they were the same!.  I have observed for quite a 
> while that it's very true that the present moment contains 
> everthing.  The positive and negative all at once. At those moments 
> of profound concentration I can realice that I am able to choose 
> whatever I want to be my mental state. Perhaps Edgar refers to this 
> when he says that one can change our karma.  But I'm not sure. 
> 
> Enjoy!
> Mayka 
> 
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@ ...> 
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mayka (again!),
> > 
> > Ah, interdependant co-origination! If you can understand this 
then 
> you understand Buddhism (in a 'not knowing' kinda way!). And here 
we 
> have the crux of the problem (as I see it) between Bill! and Edgar. 
> Edgar, I imagine, would argue that we can follow the 'rules' of 
> causality and change our karma by identifying actions or behaviours 
> now that have a certain (let's say negative) effect further into 
the 
> future. By identifying this action/behaviour now we can predict 
their 
> future consequences (using the rules of causality) and so change 
them 
> accordingly. Bill!, perhaps, will argue that there are is no 
> causality, therefore no rules of causality and only when you act 
from 
> JUST THIS! is 'karma' (a useful, but ultimately an illusionary 
idea) 
> extinguished. My apologises if I've misrepresented anyone's 
argument. 
> > 
> > Mike.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Mayka <flordeloto@ ...>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2008 15:19:42
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Mike again;
> > 
> > You go beyond "rules" through the energy of mindfulness  which 
will 
> > lead you to the realization of interbeing. Anchoring the mind in 
> the 
> > present moment is the key.
> > 
> > Mayka
> > 
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@ ...> 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Edgar,
> > > 
> > > Simple question: if there are rules - how do we go beyond them?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Mike.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@ ..>
> > > 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: Zen_Forum@ yahoogrou 
> ps.com] 
> > On Behalf
> > > Of Edgar Owen
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:42 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com;SPACETIMEand CONSCIO 
> [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:Zen_ [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: Zen_Forum@ yahoogrou 
> 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: Zen_Forum@ yahoogrou 
> ps.com] 
> > On Behalf
> > > Of Edgar Owen
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 8:53 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com;SPACETIMEand CONSCIO 
> [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
> > >
> >
> 
>     
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.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/

Reply via email to