Bill, There is nothing wrong with describing someone else' explanations. You need to see all kinds of views to check your own. The only problem, I still think, is ED's presentations are too complicated that I can go to sleep going through them. But that does not rule out from time to time his very valuable words. Anthony
--- On Wed, 11/5/11, Bill! <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill! <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Re: Questions To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, 11 May, 2011, 2:24 PM Anthony, ED's concepts are not too complicated. If you want to engage with him or anyone else in an intellectual discussion you're going to have to employ concepts. I just think having an intellectual discussion about zen is about as useful as investigating quantum mechanics using Tarot cards. In each case you're just not employing the righ tool for the job. ED, in my opinion, doesn't DESCRIBE his experiences, he tries to EXPLAIN things - and usually they aren't even HIS explanations, they are someone elses (like a link to some other person's explanation). Most of the time ED does not even indicate if he agrees or disagress with the link to which he's pointing us. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, > Â > While ED's concepts are sometimes too complicated, how does everyone avoid > concepts, even when they describe their experiences? > Â > Anthony > > --- On Mon, 9/5/11, Bill! <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > Subject: [Zen] Re: Questions > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, 9 May, 2011, 8:44 AM > > > Â > > > > Ed, > > What Mel and Mayka and even I consistently tell you is that we are not > interested in your CONCEPTS or your links to the concepts of others. We, or > at least I, would be very interested in descriptions of your EXPERIENCES. > > Kabeesh? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mel, > > > > What comment have I made in a recent post that you object to or disagree > > with? > > > > --ED > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Mel <gunnar19632000@> wrote: > > > > > ...Ahhh, ED-ED-ED-ED.....what are we goin' to do with > > you?..HaHaha!....hmmmm?....and please, don't pray to the Lord Buddha, > > 'cause there's nothin' there but empty air. It would be just about as > > good as a dog barking in the empty air in the middle of the night and > > getting no responses. Unless of course, that you've adopted the practise > > of praying to a corpse buried a long time ago..*more laughter*...and the > > ghost of that man might be laughing at you right now for thinking he's > > some sort of god Now, why did I say all these, you may ask..yes? It's > > because you refered to the Buddha as also having love for me in the same > > way mindless Christianity speaks of Jesus. Zen has no gods...PERIOD, and > > categorizations(or pigeon-holing as we know it here in Australia), word > > definitions or descriptions, intellectualizations, knowledge-gatherings, > > and so on....these have NOTHING to do with Zen. I'm not even sure if you > > understood what your question was about when you asked me,"Does a dog > > have Buddha-nature?" Whether by choice or not, you're making yourself > > look like a machine that gets printed data from somewhere, and then such > > machine passing the info to us here in the Zen community. Whether you > > really comprehend such data or not is another matter ..And ED, please > > don't tell me again that I have no tolerance or something or another, > > thank me for speaking my mind about what I really think of you, that god > > loves me too, and so on...waste of time bud.. Oh gosh...*big > > laughter*...I wonder how many more times I'm going to have to repeat > > this same message again, plus some more with Buddha's grace Mel > > >
