In fact you couldn't even move your hand, mouth or anything else. Everything including you would be eternally frozen. There would be NO Zen at all..
Edgar On Oct 9, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Edgar Owen 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. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >
