Hi Mike again,

Yes San Sebastian is a very pretty elegant city.  Sorry you couldn't 
translate the page.  Just to let you know, I have a google bar for 
translation in the internet.  You can download it if you wish.  
Though, it can only be used in web pages but not for posting in 
groups.

I appreciate your interest about wanting to know me better but I'm a 
very private person and don't feel confortable given too much 
personal information in public forums.  Anyway, there is not much 
interesting to know about me except that my life is rather difficult.

Were you really a soldier in the castle of Edinburgh?.  How it 
comes?. Are you Scotish?.  Edinburgh is a very nice city though 
rather cold all the year through.

A lotus flower to you
Mayka



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mayka,
> 
> I had a look at the link you provided and your part of the world 
looks very beautiful. Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish so I 
couldn't read the history of your area, However, the architecture 
looks very old - very European. What are you doing in Edinburgh (if 
it's ok to ask?)? I was a soldier there guarding the castle and doing 
ceremonial duties. I loved Edinburgh - all my English friends got 
into fights (because they were English), but being Welsh the Scottish 
loved me :)   Ahh, good days indeed.
> 
> Mike.   
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mayka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 October, 2008 11:46:55
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality
> 
> 
> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@ ...> 
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 <flordeloto@ ...>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.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