I understand that. But When you are typing these words in the now you couldn't even do that if time were not flowing...
Edgar On Oct 9, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > I only read your posts NOW. I only type my posts NOW. I have a memory of > reading your posts, but every time I open one up I am reading it NOW. > > Labeling things as 'NOT zen' does not prove your point. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Don't be ridiculous. Clock time, or more accurately 'happening' does > > continuously flow through the Now. > > > > Otherwise we wouldn't be having this clock time sequential discussion in > > case you hadn't noticed! > > > > Denying reality is NOT Zen... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
