Edgar, Of course I can because I type REALLY FAST! ;>)
No, it's because there is only Now so I only type Now, not from here....to here. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
