Edgar, Edgar, Edgar...
Qualities to not evolve for a purpose. That would be engineering, not
evolution. New qualities appear primarily by random mutation. If the
quality is advantageous (gives the organism an advantage over
competing organisms) or at least is not a disadvantage it is likely it
will be passed on to succeeding generations. If it is a disadvantage
it is less likely that it will be passed on to succeeding generations.
There is no purpose here, as in there is no goal. There is only
selection based on survive-ability.
That's the theory anyway...
...Bill!
--- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Mike and Merle and Bill!
>
> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the
heart is certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
>
> Most arguments are about definitions...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>
> >
> > Merle,
> >
> > Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose'
something we've super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the
purpose of the heart is also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood
into oxygenated blood. All our vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc)
keep us alive and therefore deserve the title of 'keeping us alive'
(What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, and even the simplest part
of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even bacteria!). It's also
interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't have any control
over these organs - they just function without any input/control from
us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to the loo!). If
you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find that it
feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way around.
> >
> > Mike
> > From: Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...>
> > To: "[email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>" <[email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> >
> >
> > the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Merle,
> >
> > Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is
projecting that there.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so
is a cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> > >
> > >
> > > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random
and chaotic we'd all be dead!
> > >
> > > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny
bin!
> > >
> > > Sheeesh!
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > Â
> > > >Edgar and Merle,
> > > >
> > > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I
noticed after I posted. That should read "It's been closed in by
structure", not 'my structure'. Mea culpa.
> > > >
> > > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure
defines and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured
system - like reality, like chaos.
> > > >
> > > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support
illusions. Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not
real. Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> > > >
> > > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> > > >
> > > >1
> > > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> > > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or
misled : misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> > > >2
> > > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) :
something that deceives or misleads intellectually
> > > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a
way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) :
hallucination 1 (3) : a pattern capable of reversible perspective
> > > >
> > > >Reality has no boundaries. Illusions deceive you into believing
there are boundaries - like structure and logic.
> > > >
> > > >...Bill!
> > > >
> > > >--- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Bill! and Merle,
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is
closed in HIS structure."
> > > >>
> > > >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because
it includes everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s
theory that is closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as
part of reality... Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually
exist...
> > > >>
> > > >> Edgar
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is
in error?... merle
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Merle,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in
my structure. It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive
structure, but it's a closed boundary nonetheless.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Edgar,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in
their own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is
no reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other....
This is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more
time than I have right now...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is
experienced by some observer or other..." What you are talking about
here is not reality, it is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of
reality (Buddha Nature) is not dualistic. There is no subject/object
pair created.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a
deep understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct
experience of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you
can do. You just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING
that's complex, not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key.
EXPERIENCING is the key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do.
EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very simple.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ...Bill!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Ã, some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge
hammer to break through..a stick would not do...merle
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Ã,
> > > >> > > Kristopher,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models
reality differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But
in a deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by
some observer or other.... This is a complex subject that requires a
deep understanding and more time than I have right now...
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain
and suffering in his life and made considerable strides in
transcending that by approaching Zen....
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of
a particular attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism,
hopelessness and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which
really isn't Zen.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of
us is perfect, but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we
do each other a favor by pointing out how we might each do better and
that we should all be free and open in exchanging and receiving such
insights.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great
example for us all in that respect and we should all take her lead on
this..
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the
contrary by directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute
reality of all things really really here right now in the present
moment it can be said to reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things,
and thus of the seeker...
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Edgar
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Ã,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha
nature. Not the Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a
logical construct in your head. If you think these Bill!s are the
same, you will logically think Bill! to be illogical. You will see
what you think is Bill!'s error. If you think them apart, you make the
same error for him.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of
him, no
> > > >> > > other can be known. There is no difference.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >Same goes for 'Zen'
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >KG
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >Ã,
> > > >> > > >>Bill!,
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>Bill! claims logic is NOT Zen...
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>Bill! says he uses logic in his daily life...
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>Therefore Bill must believe he CANNOT have Zen in his
> > > >> > > daily life...
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>This is a serious error...
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>Zen is 24/7 whether one is using logic or sitting
> > > >> > > mindlessly.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>It is a fundamental error to believe only mindless sitting
> > > >> > > is Zen. That's mistaking a particular meditative state for
> > > >> > > Zen.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>There is no part of reality that is not Buddha Nature.
> > > >> > > Illusion is part of reality and thus is a manifestation of
> > > >> > > Buddha Nature.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>Realization is seeing the illusion that is part of reality
> > > >> > > as illusion rather than the fake reality it pretends to
> > > >> > > be....
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>When Bill! understands that logic is part of reality and
> > > >> > > thus like everything else is a form manifesting Buddha
> > > >> > > Nature rather than something contrary to and apart from
> > > >> > > Buddha Nature, then and only then will Bill! allow himself
> > > >> > > to completely realize Zen in his daily life as well as
> > > >> > > when he is sitting mindlessly...
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>This is the crux of Bill!'s misunderstanding.... At the
> > > >> > > most fundamental level he dualistically divides reality
> > > >> > > into illusion and Buddha nature without realizing that
> > > >> > > even illusion is a manifestation of Buddha Nature because
> > > >> > > there is nothing that is not Buddha Nature... The world of
> > > >> > > forms does NOT stand apart from Buddha Nature. The world
> > > >> > > of forms is a direct manifestation OF Buddha Nature.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>Zen does not try to dismiss the world of forms; Zen is
> > > >> > > seeing the Buddha Nature that is manifested in the world
> > > >> > > of forms... It is seeing the world of forms AS Buddha
> > > >> > > Nature...
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>Only when this becomes clear can realization occur....
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>Edgar
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
