Mike, You may be speaking out of your ass but fortunately this is a text-based forum and I don't have to witness that.
However, the constraints of language force us to some extent to use subject/object phraseology when trying to describe holistic (non-dualistic, no subject/object) experiences. I try my best to navigate around that, but it is probably impossible to avoid all the icebergs. They'll be a bump now and then, but I'll try not to sink the ship. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Edgar, > > >Zen is directly experiencing reality as it actually is.. > > I know this is a definition of Zen that is commonly held, so I might be > speaking out of my arse here, but I've always felt uneasy with it. There is > no one to experience reality. There is only Buddha Nature. Isn't this the > meaning of Dogen's 'dropping of the body and mind' and 'being enlightened by > the 10,000 things'? Which also corresponds with my witness (speaking > conventionally) of kensho. > > Mike > > > > ________________________________ > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 1:14 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Buddha-nature and Expansion of Space > > > Â > > > > > > > JIm, > > Don't pay any attention to Bill on this one. Zen is directly experiencing > reality as it actually is and to do that you must first understand the nature > of reality and the illusion which obscures it in great detail. That is a > logical understanding first that enables the direct non logical experience... > > I call it the 'Quantum koan'.... > > I've tried to explain this to Bill ad nauseum but to no avail... He still > mistakenly believes that Zen means denying the obvious logical mathematical > structure of the world of forms in spite of my explaining that the world of > forms is a manifestation of Buddha Nature ... > > Edgar > > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Bill! wrote: > > Â > >Jim, > > > >I don't know if you're really serious about zen and realizing Buddha Nature. > >but if you are I feel compelled to tell you that acquiring knowledge is not > >the way to go. I'm sure you've read all the zen anecdotes about this, but > >not only is your tea cup overflowing, your entire kitchen is so crammed full > >of supplies that you can't even get to the sink to draw a glass of water. > >You not only don't need all this knowledge to realize Buddha Nature but in > >fact all this knowledge is an obstacle. > > > >All human knowledge is illusory. You (or actually someone else and you're > >just mimicking them) have CREATED all these logical structures (concepts) to > >try to explain something that is IMO unexplainable. It is unexplainable not > >because you (I, we) are not smart enough or you (I, we) don't have enough > >information - yet. It is unexplainable because it cannot be contained > >within the realm of logic. Logic can only be applied to things/events which > >have structure, pattern - things which are rational. Reality is none of > >these. It INCLUDES these but is not bounded by these types of qualities. > >Reality is chaos - chaos in the old, original sense of the word. > > > >You don't need any more knowledge to realize Buddha Nature. You don't need > >knowledge at all. All you need to do is experience without judging, > >categorizing, evaluating, filtering, augmenting, associating, naming, etc... > > Just raw, sensory experience. That's Buddha Nature. > > > >And yes Merle, if you have read this far, I am now preaching. > > > >...Bill! > > > >--- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > >> > >> It's not a widely known field so it is not surprising that you haven't > >> heard of it. Many other people haven't either. There is a Journal, the > >> Journal of Consciousness Studies, which talks quite a bit about it. I > >> participated on their message board for awhile a number of years back. > >> Then, the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness published by Cambridge > >> University Press devotes an entire chapter to it. That in itself doesn't > >> mean that the Quantum Theory of Consciousness is true. However, it does > >> show that the field is reputable in some top university circles. It is a > >> sigh that there is an unsupported dogma involved in rejecting the theory > >> because it tends to be done firmly without thought. However, that the > >> theory doesn't fit an unproven dogma doesn't mean it is false. > >> > >> Penrose, who will be mentioned in another message, is a professor at > >> Oxford University. Again reputable, although just being proposed by a > >> reputable professor doesn't necessarily mean the theory is true. > >> > >> Actually, what is being talked about is the Penrose-Hameroff approach. > >> Their theory is that the quantum effects occur via the microtubules in > >> neurons. Let me quote from the Handbook, page 892: > >> > >> "Each microtubule is a cylindrical structure that can extend over many > >> millimeters. The surface of the cylinder is formed by a spiral chain of > >> tubulin molecules, with each circuit formed by 13 of these molecules. The > >> tubulin molecule has a molecular weivht of about 110,000, and it exists in > >> two slightly different configerational forms. Each tubulin molecule has a > >> single special electron that can be in one of two relatively stable > >> locations. The molecule's configurational state depends on which of these > >> two locations this special electron is occupying." > >> > >> The theory says that the acttivity of the neuron affects and is affected > >> by the state of the tubulin molecules. In turn, the special electrons on > >> different neurons are entangled with one another via quantum effects. That > >> then is the system which integrates neural activity. > >> > >> There are other possibilities, but their theory is quite reasonable. > >> > >> I worked parallel for awhile, with a publication in 1975:Newell, James F., > >> "A Note of Some Internal Contradictions in Modern Materialistic Theory", > >> PRABUDDHA BHARATA, Mayaviti, India: August 1975 > >> > >> That article discussed the need for a theory like the Penrose-Hameroff > >> one. Essentially, I argued that the perception of visual images could not > >> occur if only the brain were involved, due to limitations imposed by the > >> very neural structure of the brain. > >> > >> We will be talking about qualia, which are subjective percepts, The visual > >> ones are images that we see. The images indicate substantial decoding > >> because individual neurons aren't colors, sounds, odors, feelings, etc. > >> Individual nerve impulses are all the same; merely ions flowing across the > >> outer membrane of the neural fiber in a chaotic way, with the cascade > >> moving along the nerve fiber. The brain processes information in a digital > >> way with sequences of nerve impulses or lacks of nerve impulses. Zero-one > >> processing. > >> > >> However, we don't see images one digital flash at a time. > >> > >> Instead, we see images as arrays of what might be called mental-pixels, > >> and we see all the mental-pixels in a subjective image simultaneously. Now > >> to see all the mental-pixels simultaneously, even though they may > >> subjectively look like they are in different places, the information > >> describing the intensity, color, and location of each mental-pixel must > >> all be in direct contact with the information describing the other pixels. > >> Remember that the subjective image is the final integration and display > >> and won't be processed further. > >> > >> Now, computer networks and neural networks cannot bring a lot of > >> information into direct contact. The neural network in the brain processes > >> visual data spread out over many on-off impulses on a very large number of > >> neurons. The spread out nerve impulses are not in direct contact with each > >> other, so could not be the ground of a visual image in which the > >> information on each mental-pixel must be in direct contact with each > >> other. Something else is needed to integrate the final pattern of nerve > >> impulses into a fully integrated subjective image. > >> > >> Penrose-Hameroff says that the integration required is done via quantum > >> processes. So the integrations isn't supernatural. It is something we > >> already have discovered as natural processes. > >> > >> My possible alternatives are the same. They have to be done via natural > >> processes, but I don't know exactly what the processes are in full, except > >> that there is a good probability that they do include quantum processes. > >> > >> Jim > >> > >> --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > >> > > >> > Jim, > >> > > >> > This all sounds like a bunch of gobbedy-gook to me. For example I've > >> > never heard of a 'quantum theory of consciousness' nor do can I conceive > >> > of such a thing. Besides affirming to you that all of these concepts > >> > are illusory and even if they are discussed in some circle have nothing > >> > to do with Buddha Nature, I'll defer on the rest of this to Edgar and > >> > maybe Joe, and anyone else who wants to take it on. > >> > > >> > ...Bill! > >> > > >> > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > One:: I am assuming that since consciousness and the physical > >> > > exchange energy, they must have serious commonalities, such as having > >> > > the same ground or one being the ground of the other. > >> > > > >> > > Does this assumption seem reasonable? > >> > > > >> > > Two:: The expansion of space itself seems to be accelerating due to a > >> > > not understood cause called dark energy at the moment. > >> > > > >> > > My impression is that the acceleration in the expansion of space is > >> > > orderly to the point of seeming coordinated over a few billion light > >> > > years. > >> > > > >> > > Does that in fact fit the astronomical data? > >> > > > >> > > Three:: The bending of space involves more stretching on the outside > >> > > of the curve than one the inside of a curve, which gravitational > >> > > lensing involves galaxies as well as smaller bodies. The bending seems > >> > > to be orderly to the point of seeming coordinated across on the order > >> > > of as much as 100,000 light years. > >> > > > >> > > Does this in fact fit the astronomical data? > >> > > > >> > > Four:: If the above processes are in fact orderly, how could that > >> > > happen? > >> > > > >> > > Five:: To be able to expand and bend, space must have an adequately > >> > > low level of stiffness. > >> > > > >> > > Does this seem true? > >> > > > >> > > Six:: If space isn't stiff enough, it couldn't coordinate itself by a > >> > > process of or in space over the great distances noted above. If space > >> > > were too stiff, it couldn't expand and bend to begin with. > >> > > > >> > > Is there a level of space which could explain the orderliness over > >> > > great distances of the expansion and bending of space? If so, the > >> > > analysis ends here. If not, see below. > >> > > > >> > > Seven:: The quantum theory of consciousness holds that the effects > >> > > propagate faster than the speed of light. If that is true, then the > >> > > quantum processes transcend the aspect of space which involves the > >> > > speed of light. > >> > > > >> > > Does that seem reasonable? > >> > > > >> > > Eight:: A transcendent process propagating faster than the speed of > >> > > light might be able to coordinate the expansion and bending of space > >> > > even when space could not coordinate its own expansion and bending > >> > > over the long distances discussed above. > >> > > > >> > > Does this seem like a reasonable possibility? > >> > > > >> > > Nine:: Such a quantum process is the only explanation I can see at the > >> > > moment, which tends to confirm it, but something new might be > >> > > discovered in the future. > >> > > > >> > > Does that seem to be reasonable? > >> > > > >> > > Ten: If the same quantum processes are involved with consciousness, > >> > > which involves the Buddha-nature, and also involves the expansion and > >> > > bending of space over long distances, then there is a deep connection > >> > > between the Buddha-nature and the expansion and bending of space over > >> > > long distances. > >> > > > >> > > Does that logical step seem reasonable? > >> > > > >> > > Jim > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
