Merle,
You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a
choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become
attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do
and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill!
--- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote:
>
> Â take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle
>
>
> Â
> Merle,
>
> >that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day
>
> Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; )
>
> Mike
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...>
> To: "[email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>"
<[email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
>
>
> Â
>
>
> Â that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the
day...merle
>
>
> Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the
story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are
going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing
down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your
girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being
mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in
such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite
easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real
world' here]..
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kristopher Grey <kris@...>
> To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
>
>
> Â
> This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is
all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What
is this notion of "liberation from" but self relating to self? What
appears, appears. What of it?
>
> Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such
> conceptual contortions required.
>
> Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no
> effort.
>
> KG
>
> On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:
>
> Â
> >Kris,
> >
> >
> >There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that
there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation
from it. "Clarity" here reads as insight.
> >
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> > From: Kristopher Grey <kris@...>
> >To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23
> >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> >
> >
> >Â
> >Then you still know too much. ;)
> >
> >If it so clear as that, there is nothing to
> see. The 'obscuration' all that may show the
> way. What you are seeing as separate only
> appears to be. All a matter of how you see it.
> So who is leading who? Who suffers? In seeking
> perfection, it forever eludes.
> >
> >The clear minded are equally empty headed.
> Don't throw the Buddha out with the bathwater.
> >
> >KG
> >
> >PS - Expresses simpler/more obviously
> wordlessly - see: 'Wabi Sabi' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/2/2012 12:32 PM, mike brown wrote:
> >
> >Â
> >>Kris,
> >>
> >>
> >>>I might point out that apparent obscuration is no less reality
than apparent clarity
> >>
> >>Reality is certainly there regardless, but
> reality seen with obscuration leads to
> suffering, whereas reality seen with
> clarity will lead to the cessation of
> suffering. That's all I need to know and
> that is my witness.Â
> >>
> >>Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >> From: Kristopher Grey <kris@...>
> >>To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 16:11
> >>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> >>
> >>
> >>Â
> >>I might point out that apparent obscuration is no less reality
than apparent clarity. In doing so, this point only dances around
itself - offers nothing you can't realize directly.
> >>
> >>What can anyone say in
> response that you will not
> directly experience (realize)
> as some aspect of this
> reality/realization- whether
> you realize it or not - just
> as when experiencing
> meditation/not meditation?
> >>
> >>This more or less business is
> you triangulating your
> position. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
> >>
> >>KG
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 9/2/2012 5:57 AM, mike
> brown wrote:
> >>
> >>Â
> >>>Edgar,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Wouldn't you say tho, that reality is less obscured during, or
just after, a long retreat of meditation?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>________________________________
> >>> From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
> >>>To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 1:13
> >>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Â
> >>>Mike,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, it's reality either way, but that reality is always
changing as happening continually flows through the present moment.
But however it changes it is still reality....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Edgar
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Sep 1, 2012, at 6:09 PM, mike brown wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Â
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Edgar,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Would you say that the world (inner/outer) you look at now is
the same as when you're at the end of a sesshin?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>________________________________
> >>>> From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
> >>>>To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 18:44
> >>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Â
> >>>>ED,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Stop practicing and just BE your Buddha Nature!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Edgar
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On Sep 1, 2012, at 12:22 PM, ED wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>Â
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Edgar,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Therefore,
> although each
> of us is
> complete, we
> need to
> practice
> >>>>>diligently at
> all times with
> no objective
> in mind?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--ED
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Joe and
> Merle,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is
> no 'goal' of
> enlightenment
> to be achieved
> without which
> you
> >>>>>imagine you
> are
> incomplete....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is
> no
> incompleteness.
> This
> understanding
> is an
> essential
> aspect
> >>>>>of
> realization...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wham!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Edgar
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
