The flowing part may be an illusion - certainly the idea Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone
On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:21, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> 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. >> > > > > >
