Whatever you call it, it's the caller calling to tell himself he called.
Whether this appears irrational, or appears to make sense, doesn't
matter. Just say thank you, and hang up. Don't call back. Nothing more
can come of it.
KG
On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bill! wrote:
Edgar,
Where we differ is that I maintain 'direct experience of reality'
(Buddha Nature)can ONLY be experienced; and by 'experience' I am
referring to the senses. (Actually there is only one 'sense' and that
is Buddha Nature, but we usually divide it into five senses.) This raw
experience is not a 'lie'. Our PERCEPTION of sensory experience could
be called a 'lie' (that's what I call 'illusions); at least it has
been post-processed (censored, augmented, judged, categorized, etc...)
by our discriminating, dualistic mind.
There is no 'logic of reality', at least no inherent logic. There is
only the logic we (our discriminating mind) creates and superimposes
(post-processing) on it.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Sure, that's correct, but my point is that one must understand FIRST
to be able to directly experience. Otherwise you are fooling yourself
and just directly experiencing illusion as reality rather than
illusion as illusion.
>
> "Just this" refers equally to illusion and reality since they both
just are....
>
> How do you know what is reality as it is and what is illusion
masquerading as reality unless you first understand the difference?
>
> Your senses lie and thus they are not able to distinguish the
two.... It's understanding the logic of reality which discriminates
the difference. Only then can you directly experience the true nature
of reality unconfused by illusion.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Bill! wrote:
>
> > Edgar,
> >
> > Directly experiencing is zen. Understanding has nothing to do with
zen.
> >
> > From my perspective all attempts to understand and define reality
is like 'dancing through the daffodils'. It's fun and I like to do it
too sometimes, but it's not zen.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Merle and Bill,
> > >
> > > Zen Realization is knowing and understanding reality. To attain
realization one must study reality and specifically how that study
reveals the nature of the illusions that interfere with the
realization of reality.
> > >
> > > Just dancing through the daffodils can be lots of fun. I have no
problem with that at all and do it myself. But that in itself is NOT Zen.
> > >
> > > Neither is Bill's refusal to study reality and how its illusions
fool our Zen...
> > >
> > > You guys seem to think that Zen is just mindlessly having fun,
fun, fun until Buddha takes the T-bird away.....
> > >
> > > There is a lot more to it than that and you actually have to use
your reason to get to the point where you don't have to use it and can
directly experience.
> > >
> > > It's a colossal mistake to think that Zen is achieving a
particular meditative state of mind through sitting or dancing
mindlessly through the daffodils like Tiny Tim. That can be a useful
and wonderful experience but basically it's a serious illusion to
think that in itself is Zen...
> > >
> > > Zen is understanding and experiencing the true nature of reality
directly. To do that you must first exhaustively study its FALSE
nature. Realization can't be attained by avoiding that effort...
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Merle Lester wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > far too many words words..ramblings.
> > > > .get to the point.
> > > > ..the point is zen..
> > > > .zen is direct and hits the nail on the head first go...so to
speak..reaches the very heart and core of the matter
> > > > raving and rambling is just mind games that serve no
purpose..and creates one up manship as to who is "right " and who is
"wrong"
> > > > zen is
> > > > keep it simple
> > > > keep it sweet
> > > > and keep it to the "bloody " point
> > > > for jesus christ's sake
> > > > merle (howling and dancing with the yellow daffodils in the
spring sunshine, carrying a basket of fresh fruit on her head)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Edgar,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the long exegesis, but you're only proving my
point. Discussing Mu is not relevant.
> > > >
> > > > My point all along is Mu is not something you discuss or can
understand. Mu can only be experienced and demonstrated.
> > > >
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill!,
> > > > >
> > > > > We've discussed this before. Mu is the nothingness of all
things. What that means is that the materiality and apparent self
substances and qualities of all things are illusions generated by
mind. All the things of the world are just information forms. They
have none of their apparent material substances. All they are is a
logical computational structure and much but not all of that is also
an illusion of particular observer minds as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reality consists of pure existence, Tao, Buddha Nature -
what I call ontological energy, in which purely logical forms arise
and continually self compute their state of existence of the universe.
These are interpreted by mind as material things which are actually
just more information forms of/encoding the interactions of mind and
external reality (there is actually no division between 'mind' and
'external' reality but just to make the point. How and why that is
true requires another understanding).
> > > > >
> > > > > Since all forms are pure computational information in
ontological energy they have no self substances and thus are called
empty = Mu. So mu is exactly the same as Tao, Buddha nature etc. just
a term that emphasizes that the apparent substance of reality is
actually just pure information forms rather than material substances.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If one wants a God the only consistent definition of God
would be the universe (reality) itself. That is the best definition
because then there can be no doubt but that God does exist since the
universe exists. And the age old arguments over the nature and
characteristics of God becomes solvable because it is just what
science and reason tells us about the nature of reality. (Merle will
howl here but this definition does not deny a spiritual awe and
appreciation towards God and nature in the slightest, in fact by
revealing God and reality's true nature it better reveal its wonders
and makes it easier to appreciate spiritually!)
> > > > >
> > > > > In this definition of God the forms, the computational
information structure of reality, becomes analogous to thoughts in the
mind of God by which the universe continually creates itself by self
computing its current form state of being..... These thoughts manifest
as the physical reality of the universe in the minds of observers or
organisms of all species. Sticking with the God analogy one could say
that the thoughts of God continually create the universe...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill's error is that he denies the computational information
structure of reality. Bill misunderstands illusion to mean that the
forms do not exist. The correct understanding is that the forms DO
exist but they are empty of material self substances.
> > > > >
> > > > > No master I'm aware of ever claimed the forms do not exist.
They all say the forms are empty, which implies they do exist, but are
pure form without their apparent substances. It is the apparent
substances of forms, not the forms themselves, which do not exist.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But then when that is understood the next level of
understanding is that the illusion of materiality DOES exist, but it
exists as illusion, not reality. Illusion understood as illusion IS
reality. It is only illusion understood as reality that is illusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reality includes everything without exception but only as it
is in its true nature. Illusion does exist, but only as illusion. Thus
illusion is part and parcel of reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus realization excludes nothing because everything is part
of reality. Everything remains exactly the same as it was before. It
is just experienced as it actually is, not as illusion masquerading as
reality, but as the illusory nature of reality. That reality consists
of illusion...
> > > > >
> > > > > Reality consists of illusion. Realization is the direct
experience of this...
> > > > >
> > > > > Edgar
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Kris,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely! I don't understand Mu! either...Bill!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 8/28/2012 4:19 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > > > > I have heard it said that 'all sentient beings have
Buddha Nature'.
> > > > > > > > That doesn't exclude non-sentient beings/items from
also having Buddha
> > > > > > > > Nature, but I cannot understand how they could.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's this business of having, of this having that, that
creates such
> > > > > > > misunderstanding.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MU!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KG
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
