Merle, Not really. I do get the impression that you somehow look down on formal sitting as a practice to realise Zen, but that's kind of ok because Zen *can* be realised without formal sitting. However, without a teacher you might mistake a particular experience for something that it is not (Zen literature is full of students who think they've 'got it' only to be shot down in flames by their teacher and then be grateful to their teacher later on when they've tasted the real thing). The other side of the coin (which was my point in that post and was directed to Edgar) is that Zen is not something that can be realised with your head stuck in a book and cannot be improved upon by "updates" in scientific or theoretical discoveries. In fact, I'm surprised you've thrown your weight behind Edgar's theories because, well, they're theories.
Mike ________________________________ From: Merle Lester <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 20:43 Subject: Re: [Zen] understanding zen mike....i thought it was an addition to what i was saying...merle Merle, You know this (the post below) was directed at Edgar, don't you? Mike ________________________________ From: mike brown <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 21:08 Subject: Re: [Zen] understanding zen Merle, >.practising zen to me is not sitting cross legged on "handwoven mats, eyes shut tight, sniffing incense and listening to gongs." You're certainly correct about that, but neither is it about sitting in a university lecture theatre/library studying advanced psychology or neuroscience. Mike ________________________________ From: Merle Lester <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 20:54 Subject: [Zen] understanding zen edgar. .i can understand what you are saying...and that is how i see it except i cannot explain it like you have.. .zen to me is being in the moment alert and forever present...as i see it we zen through the day.. .practising zen to me is not sitting cross legged on "handwoven mats, eyes shut tight, sniffing incense and listening to gongs." .it's being out there in the real world every minute alert breathing the breath..."zenning the zen"..so to speak.. . as as for those folk on those forum who are going to clap their hands and shout "horror horror where the hell is she at"? let me remind them.. .it's not me who's struggling with zen understanding it's those hundreds of folk who we see everyday walking and talking as if in a shadowland( plato's cave)..... next time you go to the shopping mall pay close attention and you'll very soon understand merle Edgar, It's good to see you back and well. Unfortunately I can't say the same about your theories. "It's an updated understanding of how mind works that was unknown when the Zen texts were written." Are you saying that prior to this 'breakthru' in neuroscience the Patriarchs weren't practicing 'real' Zen, but that you now are? Is this discovery definitive or could there be further "updates" which would render the Zen you practice now obsolete? Are you in fact practicing Zen or something different entirely? Mike ________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 29 October 2012, 22:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Is buddha nature coninuous? Joe, I think you have a mistaken interpretation of what 'mind moving' actually means... Mind is a computational system that continually computes sensations, actions etc. Thus mind continually moves. There is no escaping that so long as you are alive. In fact measurements show that mind is almost as active during sleep as when awake. So mind always moves in that sense. Everything you do you do it precisely because your mind is moving. What Zen means by mind not moving is different. It means that mind moves in sync with reality, not in opposition to it. This 'Zen is mind not moving' platitude was written centuries ago when the computational dynamics of mind were not understood. It refers to a state when you don't consciously think you are deciding to take particular actions but actions seem to flow spontaneously from an unconscious inner source. However it is now known that is always happening anyway. The conscious mind actually very rarely makes any decisions at all even though it thinks it does. That's the illusion. The source of almost all decisions and actions is always the unconscious inner computational system. It's an updated understanding of how mind works that was unknown when the Zen texts were written. So Zen is 24/7, whether your mind is moving or not. If there is realization that is. Zen is a matter of realizing what is actually happening, not getting rid of all thoughts which is of course impossible if you want to function in reality and survive through the day... True mindlessness = lobotomy or more accurately being dead! If you want a reference even Suzuki Roshi agreed with this when I put it to him... Edgar On Oct 29, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Joe wrote: >Edgar, > >Ha, ha. > >Yeah, I don't get what motivates your comment. > >Let's see if, no matter what mind you are in now, you can follow a logical >exposition: > >The Zen adept Sumie ink artists who paint big black circles on rice paper do >so with a mind that does not move: I mean, they do it with NO mind (and hence, >no mind-motion). > >I remember our Shif-fu, on retreats, teaching us how to come OUT of >meditation. He'd say, "MOVE YOUR MIND, first, then move your BODY, VERY >SLOWLY, and sway your body in ever-widening circles from the waist, first in >direction, then in the other". > >That always seemed like un-necessary advice to me, before certain developments >on retreat... > >...After which, I found that it was impossible to move the mind, and the body >could nonetheless move. > >But the months of life afterwards with the mind not moving at all was a >continuing marvel and surprise. And yet, life was certainly possible, and >richer than ever before. "Decisions" and actions were the best I have ever >done. > >And, Edgar, I found I could not only write, but I could type. > >I had to type. > >I needed to type because my job was to control an advanced radio-telescope >from a Tektronix terminal at the top of Pupin Hall, 120th Street and Broadway. > I discovered in these months giant filaments of cold molecular gas, >constrained and confined by magnetic fields, in the Milky Way pouring from >high above the galactic plane in the Orion-Arm, and down onto the galactic >disk, where the supersonic impact from the flow stimulated the formation of >stars in objects like Monoceros R2, and the Rosette Nebula. The Great Nebula >M42 in Orion is part of this complex. > >Decades more of practice and many more retreats and more awakenings showed the >same nature and character of our empty, still, awakened state, in the midst of >no-matter-what activity. No thoughts: nothing moving. Life is a continuous >intuition: the only mind is the mind we all share, which is no mind. > >I can say that the currents in the mind, or head, and the feeling or sensation >that there are thoughts, or ANYTHING moving at all, is an illusion that >pertains to the un-awakened state, and to that state only. These things are >illusions and delusions, but the awakened state does not deprecate them: they >are simply not present in the awakened state, however; not present at all. > >Surely, in the un-awakened state, there is the sense of something moving, and >of something that takes TIME to pass before the awareness. This appears to >indicate that free action of the mind is dammed-up, or necked-down, in the >un-awakened state, into a bottle-neck situation, which is just what we might >also expect. > >NOT in the awakened state. Nothing takes time. > >Prajna is likened to LIGHTNING, for this reason, BTW. > >See the Dorje lightning-bolt images at Tibetan places? > >Prajna is entirely spontaneous and can not be mulled-over nor formulated. > >Compassion arises simultaneously with Prajna. Compassion is not something >that you FEEL, in the awakened state, you simply respond naturally. > >And so it is. > >--Joe > >> Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: >> >> Joe, >> >> Well obviously your mind was moving when you wrote this... The mind has to >> move to write... >> >> THAT's the experience... > >
