O, for God's sakes Bill!!!!! You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips..... Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!
Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar (no longer and Merle), > > After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not > essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to. > > Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to > bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing > Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion > (not real). > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill! and Merle, > > > > Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of > > washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen > > consists of using information because even after realization you are still > > living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the > > world of forms is still there exactly as it was before, you just now > > realize it for what it really is - the manifestation of Buddha Nature, > > rather than something standing apart from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to > > believe... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar > > > and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head > > > with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The > > > koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE > > > collection. I'll repeat it again: > > > > > > "A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, "I have just entered the > > > monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. "Joshu asked, > > > "Have you eaten your rice gruel yet?" The monk answered, "Yes, I have." > > > Joshu said, "Then wash your bowls." The monk attained some realization." > > > > > > In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha > > > Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to > > > represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent > > > your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION > > > what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about > > > Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only > > > with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products > > > that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature. > > > > > > So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You > > > ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've > > > seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of > > > your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't > > > ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons > > > more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a > > > lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're > > > really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you > > > should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the > > > attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your > > > bowls'. > > > > > > There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen > > > Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation). > > > > > > I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is > > > obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to > > > 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no > > > > bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's > > > > with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle > > > >  > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > I forgot to respond to your second question. > > > > > > > > You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of > > > > the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the > > > > contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later > > > > if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them > > > > - at least temporarily. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > >  please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the > > > > > bowl shared with others?...merle > > > > >  > > > > > KG, > > > > > > > > > > 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. > > > > > Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and > > > > > putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can > > > > > choose one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha > > > > > Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there > > > > > is no choice to be made. > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying > > > > > > your > > > > > > bowl. > > > > > > > > > > > > KG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice > > > > > > > > ..merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > 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" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  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" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > >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" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>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. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>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" > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>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: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>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" > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>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: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>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" > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>ED, > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>Stop practicing and just BE your Buddha Nature! > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>Edgar > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>On Sep 1, 2012, at 12:22 PM, ED wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>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 > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
