Hi Mike;

Are you Welsh?.  I lived in Chester which is very close to welsh for 
about three years.  I could never figure out how to pronounce the 
names of places in welsh.  Nice people the welsh.  I like their 
simplicity.

Thanks for your interest about me.

A big smile to you
Mayka

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mayka,
> 
> I completely understand your reluctance to post anything personal 
in the public domain. I was just wondering if you were studying or 
working there etc.  Anyway, I'm not Scottish - I'm Welsh. I was based 
in Edinburgh in the British infantry in 1983, but haven't been back 
since (even tho I loved it there). Edinburgh cold? Where in the UK 
isn't cold??Hope you resolve your difficulties :)
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mayka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 23 October, 2008 6:58:05
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Causality
> 
> 
> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@ ...> 
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 <flordeloto@ ...>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.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