Mike, I don't see a link - only Emptiness...Bill!
--- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > Please take a look at this article for an account of Theravada Buddhism and > Reality. I could have summarised it for you here, but 1) there's a lot of it > and 2) I'm far too lazy. In fact, I would recommend anyone here to read it as > it well written and I think a reading of it would benefit anyone's practice. > It'll certainly provide material to compare with Zen. > > Mike > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 11:07 > Subject: Re: [Zen] calm down > > >  > Mike, > > You stated: "The thinking that my girlfriend is cheating with some imagined > guy she met on holiday with her friends is the reality I have to deal with, > not whether that guy exists or not." > > I don't consider THINKING ANYTHING as 'reality' (with 'inverted commas' > (apostrophes) around it to signify 'sic erat scriptum' or 'thus was it > written'. (My ALL CAPS by the way is like an underline which I can't do in > Plain Text.) > > So...I'd have to change your statement above by replacing 'reality' with > 'illusion'. Now the statement clearly states you're not EXPERIENCING > REALITY, you're 'dealing with illusion'. If you are attached to this > illusion, you're going to SUFFER. If you drop the attachment to this > illusion you'll drop the suffering but you are still not experiencing > reality. If you go up and touch your girlfriend and smell her hair you are > experiencing reality. > > As you might have noticed all of this has absolutely nothing to do with what > actions she may or may not have done on holiday. > > So...that's how the zen I practice would break this situation down and > address any suffering. I THINK it is somewhat close to Mahayana Buddhism's > approach. How does Theravada Buddhism's approach this situation - this > suffering? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > >I suspect that you want to, as does Edgar, to say that 'reality' includes > > >EVERYTHING including illusions, > > > > > > Not really. I'm asking you what stands separate from the All - whether it > > be an apple, you, Edgar or a thought. A unicorn might not exist, but the > > thinking of one does. The thinking doesn't stand outside reality, whether > > you put inverted commas around it or not. It's these kind of metaphysical > > arguments that make Therevada Buddhism better for me than Mahayana. > > Thethinking that my girlfriend is cheating with some imagined guy she met > > on holiday with her friends is the reality I have to deal with, not whether > > that guy exists or not. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 10:21 > > Subject: Re: [Zen] calm down > > > > > > à> > Mike, > > > > I think you may have misread me, or I have misstated my position. > > > > My position is that EVERYTHING humans do is part of nature - is natural. > > This is as opposed to those who say that humans 'interfere with' nature or > > do 'unnatural' things. > > > > Oh! I just re-read your post and see what you're really pointing out is > > what you think is the inconsistency in the statements about 'nature' and > > then 'reality'. > > > > I do not consider 'nature' as 'reality'. 'Nature' is itself a mental > > construct (illusion). > > > > I suspect that you want to, as does Edgar, to say that 'reality' includes > > EVERYTHING including illusions, but I say no. Reality is Reality, or > > Emptiness is Emptiness. Illusions are Illusions, or Form is Form. > > > > That's the way it looks from my side of cyberspace anyway. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > > > > >but your statement implies that human intervention and management is NOT > > > >part of nature. > > > > > > Yet then you say: > > > > > > > > > >These mental constructs are NOT reality. > > > > > > In this big old universe of ours, what can stand apart/outside? > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 2:30 > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] calm down > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > Edgar, > > > > > > You're doing it AGAIN! > > > > > > You just stated: "...letting nature take care of itself with minimal > > > human intervention or 'management'. Now at least you said 'minimal', but > > > your statement implies that human intervention and management is NOT part > > > of nature. > > > > > > I'll give you an extreme, concrete example so there can be no wiggle room > > > for either of us: Humans create nuclear power and then dispose of > > > radioactive nuclear waste in a manner that changes the environment. > > > > > > Is this human activity natural (part of nature) or not? > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > No, you have my views exactly backward. I'm supporting the NON human > > > > view of the environment, the view of letting nature take care of itself > > > > with minimal human intervention or 'management'. > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > Action is indeed not inconsistent with zen. > > > > > > > > > > What I and I believe KG are trying to point out is most everything > > > > > you've talked about concerning the environment is based on a > > > > > human-centric point of view. So when you throw around terms like > > > > > 'interfering' and telling us to 'grow up', my only response back to > > > > > you would be 'grow out' - expand your perspective...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > KG, > > > > > > > > > > > > Your notion that nothing can be done to save the planet is > > > > > > dangerous and mistaken. There are many who are working diligently > > > > > > including myself. To what extent it succeeds remains to be seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Zen is not equivalent to hopelessness, inaction and nihilism as you > > > > > > imply. That's a serious Western misconception. Action can be done > > > > > > with Zen quite effectively... Action is NOT inconsistent with Zen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said a wit about OK/not OK. That's your judgement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I simply find the very premise, as you lay it out, to be formed > > > > > > > of the same destructive impulse to control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I might say planetary scale destruction is inevitable, as that > > > > > > > appears a logical albeit pointless conclusion, but I certainly > > > > > > > don't claim to know so. Nor do I have reason to be concerned in > > > > > > > the way you appear to be. Righteous indignation may feel good, > > > > > > > but it's not a prerequisite for action. It only acts to spins the > > > > > > > wheel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/10/2012 7:35 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Merle, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes, KG seems obsessively attached to this discussion and why > > > > > > >> destroying the planet is OK... > > > > > > >> :-) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Edgar > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> hey hey lads...settle down..calm please!...KG your loosing the > > > > > > >>> pulse..merle > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Yes, yes. That you hold a great many things to be of high > > > > > > >>> importance is obvious to all but you. Thus you assume others > > > > > > >>> are are talking about such things, and assume they are ignorant > > > > > > >>> of same, when they are only talking about your ignorant > > > > > > >>> attachments to these forms of divisive thinking. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> KG > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On 10/10/2012 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> KG, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> I find it appalling you support the destruction of the planet > > > > > > >>>> by humans and attack those who argue against it... > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> The lowest of the low... > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Edgar > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Definitive dependency - in other words you frame this in a > > > > > > >>>>> self-supporting way. The way a child argues when trying to > > > > > > >>>>> sound all grown up. You might as well just say: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> "You are a stupid baby! Stop being such a stupid baby!" *L* > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> No one is denying 'reality' but you Edgar. You are perverting > > > > > > >>>>> others words to fit your preconceptions. You frame things as > > > > > > >>>>> being out of control/needing to be controlled - which is the > > > > > > >>>>> very divisive attitude that causes all the shit you find so > > > > > > >>>>> wrong in the world. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Opposition distracts. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> KG > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On 10/10/2012 6:47 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Bill, > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> By your perverted logic it is totally OK for man to be > > > > > > >>>>>> destroying the planet because that's just a natural process. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Grow up and get real. Zen is not clever sophisms, it's > > > > > > >>>>>> reality... > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Edgar > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Edgar, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> What's REALLY important is that it's been framed wrong. > > > > > > >>>>>>> It's been framed as humans vs. nature, or as you put it > > > > > > >>>>>>> humans 'interfering' in nature. As long as humans think > > > > > > >>>>>>> they are not part of nature and taht all their action are > > > > > > >>>>>>> natural there will be this problem. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> When a beaver builds a dam is that interfering with nature? > > > > > > >>>>>>> When a squirrel shits in the woods is that interfering with > > > > > > >>>>>>> nature? When a human splits an atom is that interfering > > > > > > >>>>>>> with nature? When a human manipulates DNA is that > > > > > > >>>>>>> interfering with nature? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> What is the quality that humans have that other animals > > > > > > >>>>>>> don't have that renders them capable of interference - IYO? > > > > > > >>>>>>> (I just made that up, IYO = 'in your opinion') > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> ...Bill! > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > Come on Bill. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > In human discourse about Man's impact on nature, that's > > > > > > >>>>>>> > the way it's defined, and the whole issue is framed, as > > > > > > >>>>>>> > you well know... > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > Edgar > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > On Oct 9, 2012, at 8:45 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > Edgar, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > This was a VERY SERIOUS response. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > Why is it that you think the things that humans do are > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > 'unnatural' or against nature but the things that other > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > life does is 'natural' and okay? A friend of mine very > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > wisely (IMO)once suggested that all ethics should be > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > applied to humans and other life forms equally. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > What is the quality that you believe separates humans > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > from the rest of nature so that human activities and > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > artifacts can be labeled as 'interference'? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > ...Bill! > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Joe, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Come on, it's a serious issue... > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Edgar > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Joe wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > And Humans are just the tip of the iceberg, too. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > I don't know why plants and animals insist on > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > interfering with the way Nature works. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > For example, on the early earth there was a nice > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > atmosphere without oxygen. But blasted > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Cyanobacteria evolved which like to sip the methane > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > and other gases there were back then, and started > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > polluting the atmosphere with ...Oxygen! > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Then -- wouldn't you know -- other organisms formed > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > which turned CO2 into even MORE Oxygen, with a help > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > from light from the Sun. The nerve! They got away > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > with it, though, because there were no Police. The > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > rug was pulled out from under Nature yet again! > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Later, some animals evolved, which USE the oxygen. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Much later, some of these animals of the Mammal > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > variety called "Beavers" began to INSIST that they > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > interfere with the stately FLOW of river > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > tributaries and streams, by ...damming them up! > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Such nerve. You may be sure that this caused > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > inundations upstream, and occasional floods > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > downstream when the dams burst. Havoc. Bye, bye, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Nature! > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > The nerve of these organisms: Micro-organisms, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Plants, and Animals. Always interfering with the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > way Nature works! > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > At least on the Moon there is no such interference, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > there's just a continual, thin, rain of meteorites > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > pummeling the surface, and no atmosphere to make > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > things rust. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Oops!, some exotic Mammals left some footprints on > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > the Moon, and some machinery, during the last fifty > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > years. WHY must there always be such interference? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > The Moon had been Nature's nice, quiet, haven for > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > rock and dust for so long. Why must things always > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > go downhill? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > --Joe > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > On 10/7/2012 9:26 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > Why do humans always insist on interfering with > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > the way nature works? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
