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 [email protected], 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: [email protected] > 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/
