>Jeeze, I wish Bill and Mike would some day take the trouble to understand the points I'm making instead of arguing against the wind...
What did I say?? ________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 22 October 2012, 11:49 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: genius Mike, Merle and Bill, Sure that's my take too, but my POINT is that you have to get through the intellectual koan to get there. Jeeze, I wish Bill and Mike would some day take the trouble to understand the points I'm making instead of arguing against the wind... Edgar On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:09 AM, mike brown wrote: > > >Merle, Bill!'s take is my take also. Buddha Nature is seen directly without >the intervention of the intellect. If you meanan intuitive understanding, then >yes. > > > > >________________________________ > From: Merle Lester <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, 22 October 2012, 6:25 >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: genius > > > > > > bill.... rubbish..that's your take!..merle > >Merle, > >I'm saying understanding has nothing at all to do with experiencing Buddha >Nature...Bill! > >--- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: >> >> >> >>  >> bill!..are you saying your zen practise is superior to edgar's zen practise, >> eh?.. >> tut tut..  one man up manship games... >> shame on you Bill!..you the enlightened one! >>  merle >> >> >>  >> Merle, >> >> Edgar could be a genius, but that won't help his zen practice...Bill! >> >> --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >  bill!..i can see where you are coming from and also where edgar is >> > coming from..so where am i coming from? >> > i can understand and relate to what you both are saying >> > >> >  god father BILL!.. aldous huxley is a genius... >> >  next you'll be telling me your bored with leonardo da vinci >> >  the genius  are then not your cup of tea? >> > >> >  maybe edgar is a genius? >> >  merle >> > >> > >> >  >> > Merle, >> > >> > Edgar and I disagree on fundamental issues. In his post below I agree >> > only with the first paragraph. The rest of it, which basically says some >> > attachments are benign (actually, even necessary) and some aren't, I >> > disagree with. And his last sentence "Zen is not as simple as many >> > imagine!" is outright egregious. Zen is the most simple thing you can >> > imagine. IMO Edgar makes is complicated by trying to UNDERSTAND and >> > EXPLAIN it all the time. There is no need for, in fact IMO there is a >> > need NOT TO, try to understand zen. >> > >> > You don't understand zen, you practice zen. >> > >> > My reading of the ISLAND has bogged down midway in Chapter 4. It seems >> > very tedious and somewhat juvenile to me, but I'll keep going for at least >> > another couple chapters to see what might come next. >> > >> > ...Bill! >> > >> > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Bill!..what is it that you and edgar disagree on?... is this just >> > > childish one up manship? >> > >  as we are all ONE >> > >  then stands to reason..edgar and you are still on the same coin >> > > so to speak >> > >  how is your island reading going ? >> > >  merle >> > > >> > > >> > >  >> > > Merle, >> > > >> > > I am 'listening' (reading actually), but there's nothing in this post >> > > for me to learn, nothing new anyway. I already am aware of how much >> > > Edgar and I disagree on zen - and I knew that already. >> > > >> > > ...Bill! >> > > >> > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ÃÆ'‚ yes bill!..edgar is back.. >> > > > edgar is on the cutting edge..are you listening?... and need i say >> > > > learning?..merle >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > Suresh, >> > > > >> > > > Attachment is a very valuable evolutionary survival mechanism. It's a >> > > > fundamental part of human nature similar to what we share with other >> > > > species. With no attachments individual humans would have no >> > > > motivation or direction and would not survive. >> > > > >> > > > The problem is not attachments per se. We all use attachments every >> > > > day to go about our lives successfully. That's what enables people to >> > > > sustain material success in life. The problem is excessive attachment, >> > > > or attachment to your attachments. The problem is excessive >> > > > attachments THAT DO NOT MESH WITH WHAT IS REAL or >> > > > attainable.ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > >> > > > For example a man's attachment to THE IDEA OF an unattainable woman, >> > > > or an unattainable position in society. Attachment to the unattainable >> > > > causes suffering.ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > >> > > > However attachment to the ATTAINABLE maintains physical and social >> > > > life.ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > >> > > > However things can change. When one loses something one was attached >> > > > to realization demands changing one's attachment to it to mirror the >> > > > new state of reality. >> > > > >> > > > Zen is not as simple as many imagine! >> > > > >> > > > Edgar >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Oct 20, 2012, at 1:38 AM, SURESH JAGADEESAN wrote: >> > > > >> > > > ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >Bill >> > > > >Why do human liked to get attached? >> > > > >What is the root cause for attachment? >> > > > >Suresh >> > > > >On Oct 20, 2012 8:38 AM, "Merle Lester" <merlewiitpom@> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (merlewiitpom@) Add >> > > > > cleanup rule | More info >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >>ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >>ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > >>ÃÆ'‚ so how does one NOT be attached to these >> > > > >>emotions eh?..merle >> > > > >>ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > >>Merle, >> > > > >> >> > > > >>No, these in-and-of themselves are not attachments. They are >> > > > >>concepts (mental models), and in some case emotions - and it is not >> > > > >>these that cause suffering. It is ATTACHMENTS to these that cause >> > > > >>suffering. >> > > > >> >> > > > >>...Bill! >> > > > >> >> > > > >>--- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ thanks..are they >> > > > >>> attachments?... merle >> > > > >>> Merle, >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Love is not exactly the OPPOSITE of hate, but love/hate is a >> > > > >>> dualistic pair - like good/bad, tall/short, hot/cold, yin/yang, >> > > > >>> etc... >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> ...Bill! >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> >> > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ tell >> > > > >>> > me more BILLLL....... Love is it the opposite of hate????? merle >> > > > >>> > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > I agree with James. >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > As with all emotions like fear, anger, love, hate it is not the >> > > > >>> > emotion that is the real problem, it is the ATTACHMENT to the >> > > > >>> > emotion. >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > ...Bill! >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > --- In [email protected], "James W. Meritt" <JWMeritt@> >> > > > >>> > wrote: >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > Not so sure getting rid of fear is a good thing. I see >> > > > >>> > > having fear, but modifying how you use and react to it as a >> > > > >>> > > good thing. >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > James W. Meritt >> > > > >>> > > CISSP, CISA, NSA IAM, PMP >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
