Edgar, You wrote: "It's an updated understanding of how mind works that was unknown when the Zen texts were written."
It doesn't take a great deal of logic to work out that you're implying you know something about the mind and Zen that Dogen et al didn't. Mike ________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 11:25 Subject: Re: [Zen] understanding zen 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 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... >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
