Mike, Again a refresher course in basic logic is recommended. You will learn your conclusion is not a logically valid form...
It's way way off... Edgar On Nov 15, 2012, at 3:48 AM, mike brown wrote: > > 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 only not 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... >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >
