Which is an admittance that any "up dated" knowledge of how the mind works is not needed. I'm happy you see that now!
Mike ________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 3:19 Subject: Re: [Zen] understanding zen I'm agreeing with Dogen. Edgar On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:51 PM, mike brown wrote: > > >Edgar, > > > >Whether you refer to them as "descriptions" or "theories" doesn't really >matter. You seem to suggest that an in depth knowledge of the mind (beyond >what is natural in day to day experience) is a prerequisite to awakening, and >has to be 'up to date' knowledge at that (given that you previously wrote that >past Zen practitioners in the past didn't understand how the mind works like >we do today). Were Dogen's realisations somehow inferior for not being 'up to >date' with today's knowledge of the mind? I'd argue they were not because the >knowledge we have about the mind is necessarily finite, leaving our ignorance >about it infinite. Knowledge about how the mind works (outside of a basic and >fundamental understanding, i.e attachments and suffering) is therefore not >onlynot a prerequisite to awakening, but is in fact a trap, as it is a hole >that can never be filled (which is why I was asking you about a definitive >point in understanding). I'm still waiting. > > >Mike > > > > > > >________________________________ > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 23:04 >Subject: Re: [Zen] understanding zen > > > >Mike, > >Merle agrees with my 'theories' because she, though not you apparently, >understands they are not theories but descriptions of engaging with real >life... > >Edgar > >On Nov 14, 2012, at 5:19 PM, mike brown wrote: > >> 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... >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
