Edgar, I agree that our mental interpretations are illusory, but that doesn't mean that a 'flowing clock time' is real.
If there is only Now, there is no flow of time. Now itself doesn't have a time, at least not of any duration. I guess you could say it has a time of zero duration - but that's just another way to define Now. It's just Now. Like in geometry a point doesn't have any dimensions, only a position. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > First sentence is correct. But both kinds of time are NOT illusion. The time > of the present moment, and the clock time that continually flows through the > present moment are part of the reality of the world of forms which is a > direct manifestation of Buddha Nature. > > These are real, what is illusion is your incorrect mental interpretation of > them. > > Edgar > > > > On Oct 9, 2012, at 3:23 AM, billsmart wrote: > > > Jim, > > > > There is only Now. Past is just a memory. Future is a projection. There is > > only Now. > > > > Time is an illusion. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, of course. We don't know what Bankei meant, and wouldn't even if the > > > words were translated exactly, because words are inadequate to fully > > > describe consciousness. > > > > > > In some of the world's traditions, there is a theory that all times exist > > > simultaneously, and we just think me are moving through time. If that is > > > true, then when enlightened, we would have a NOW which included all the > > > past and all the future, seen all at once forever. > > > > > > I can't say whether or not that theory is true. I don't know whether the > > > real NOW moves through time, so the past really is gone and the future > > > really hasn't happened, or the real NOW forever includes all moments of > > > time. > > > > > > If we could find out, it would affect our judgment of when we are seeing > > > accurately. For example, if NOW spreads eternally, and we see a NOW which > > > is only a short moment, we would know that we aren't actually seeing the > > > real NOW yet. On the other hand, if the real NOW is only a short moment, > > > then we would know that we either are seeing the real NOW, or we are > > > close. > > > > > > But since I am unable to tell you which theory is true, I couldn't decide > > > whether or not your experience is true, even if I could directly detect > > > what is in your consciousness. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "billsmart" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > > > Bankei did mean something profound. He was doing his best to describe > > > > the raw, unfiltered, holistic (non-dualistic) experience Zen Buddhists > > > > call Buddha Nature. He did this in the context of hearing a bell. He > > > > did not try to explain it. He tried to describe it. > > > > > > > > He used some terms that are very important. Now these terms have been > > > > translated into English so we don't really know EXACTLY what he said, > > > > but if the translation was close then he's using terms in a way that we > > > > don't use them in everyday English. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
