may i interrupt..you will need to define what "intellect" is first bill.... maybe you are assuming something that it is not! definitions please! and then bill you are saying "direct realisation" where from ? your mind? what is "mind"? definition please bill~! if you sort out the definitions including the definition for "reality" you and edgar might suddenly realise through your mind you are both on the same wave length after all! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~would that not be just so beautiful?? ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ merle
Edgar, I agree wholeheartedly with the last sentence in your previous post. It's the preceding key statement that I've always rejected: "Intellectual understanding is the koan you need to solve BEFORE you can directly experience realization." There are times I put this down to misunderstanding because of different terminology - and the way you've phrased the statement above is another one of these times. What you've stated MIGHT by agreeable with me, but then again it might not. It all depends on what you mean. I've gone down this path with you before, but when trying to explore just what you think the role of intellect has in realizing Buddha Nature (like with my recent 'Repeating Daily Question') you've either answered it in a way that confirms my disagreement or refused to respond. Rather than continuing to beat a dead horse I will, as usual, tell you EXACTLY what my position is: Intellect has absolutely NO ROLE in realizing Buddha Nature. In fact intellect can act as a DETERRENT to realizing Buddha Nature. Our intellect is the source of all illusion which OCCLUDES Buddha Nature and and must be halted/paused/deferred BEFORE Buddha Nature can be realized. Now, if this halting/pausing/deferring is what you mean by 'solving the koan of the intellect' we do have a broad basis of agreement. If this is not what you mean by that, please tell me what you do mean. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > No, you just never understood what I've been saying consistently.. > > Intellectual understanding is the koan you need to solve BEFORE you can > directly experience realization. It is necessary to prepare yourself for a > correct realization... > > Intellectual understanding is NOT realization in itself... > > Edgar > > > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 8:10 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > You say this all the time. The last time was saying something like 'you > > must understand the difference between reality and illusion'. That's what > > prompted my 'Daily Question' which you declined to answer. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Funny, accusing Merle of supporting something I never said and don't > > > believe.... > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > I believed you did not know this because of your MANY posts recently > > > > supporting Edgar's continual assertions that UNDERSTANDING is necessary > > > > for realizing Buddha Nature. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  but of course BILL.... what makes you believe i did not know > > > > > this?...merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > Because Buddha Nature is not something you understand, it's something > > > > > you experience...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >  why not ?..merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. That's why I wrote it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Huxley's 'Attention! Attention! Here and Now Boys! Here and Now > > > > > > Boys!' is the same thing as Joshu's 'The Oak Tree in the Garden' > > > > > > and 'Mu'', Unmon's 'Dried Shit-Stick' Tozan's 'Three Pounds of > > > > > > Flax' and my 'Just THIS!'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Understand? (...and you better not answer 'YES!!!!') > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  and is that not what the repeat as the mantra in the > > > > > > > island novel?...merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, if you prefer, "Attention! Attention! Here and Now Boy! Here > > > > > > > and Now!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The latter, I think. I imagine it was fashioned in the form of > > > > > > > > a flat blade, like a palette-knife, or putty knife, probably > > > > > > > > from a broad thin piece of architectural bamboo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must have been a common enough accessory in use at the Ch'an > > > > > > > > monasteries, some of which housed hundreds of monks or nuns, > > > > > > > > and the latrines must have been extensive. And so the Master > > > > > > > > made use of the stick as an example, in his teaching. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Others might have answered, "The Oak Tree in the court yard" > > > > > > > > (but at some of the monasteries on high mountains, Oaks did not > > > > > > > > grow, but mostly Pines did/do). Bamboo could be brought up from > > > > > > > > below, for building, and for implements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still others might have answered, "Just THIS!". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Master was very compassionate, bringing the student back > > > > > > > > into the "here and now" with what he said and how he said it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > huh??????? wiping what.... the toilet or the arse?.. > > > > > > > > > so it's an arse wiping stick? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
