Bill, It's rubbish only because you trash it in your mind.
It's a tremendous shame you aren't able to receive this teaching. If you could you'd realize Zen mind 24/7 instead of the only 3 hours a week you say you do now... Edgar On Mar 31, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > Rubbish, all rubbish no matter how many times you post it...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > The world of forms is the manifestation of the reality of Buddha Nature. > > > > The mind creates an additional set of forms which is an internal MODEL of > > the external world of forms. > > > > One needs to clearly understand which forms are in the mind (our cognitive > > model of the world) and which in the external world (eg. are intrinsic laws > > of nature) > > > > The Zen picture is realizing these are both part of a single reality that > > models itself. > > > > Zen mind is realizing these forms are all manifestations of their > > underlying Buddha Nature and existing within them as an expression of that > > Buddha Nature... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > IMO all concepts (like cause-and-effect) are illusory. The 'exist' in the > > > same way all illusions 'exist'. The are created by us (humans, and maybe > > > other rational beings too)and superimposed on experience. I assume we do > > > this because it gives us a sense of order and therefore control over what > > > is undoubtedly pure chaos. > > > > > > When I use the phrase in single parenthesis 'out there', I mean the > > > dualistic illusion that there is an 'out there'. I know many/most of you > > > really believe there are what you call 'principals' or 'laws of nature' > > > (and now I have to add) 'out there'. You believe these principals or laws > > > exist independent of you and that you, the smart fellow that you are, > > > have the ability to observe, recognize, separate out, classify and > > > document these principals. I don't believe that. I believe we create > > > them, or at least some of us who are really, really smart create them and > > > then teach them to the rest of us, which of course we all believe on > > > faith. That faith is bolstered by our ability to observe the same > > > principals or laws at work in our own dualisitic and rationalized > > > perception of our experience. > > > > > > Kapeesh? > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > > > I've seen you put it like this several times before, and I think you > > > > are being a little amiss in how you're saying one small part of this. > > > > > > > > I don't think you mean the "concept" doesn't exist "out there". > > > > > > > > I think you mean a kind of functioning that results in what looks to us > > > > like cause and effect does not exist out there. > > > > > > > > By contrast, of course the concept exists: it exists in us, as a > > > > concept. Otherwise it would not be a concept for us. Concepts exist > > > > nowhere else but in us, so of course we won't find it "out there". > > > > > > > > But, what about the "functioning" I refer to above? ...the functioning > > > > that results in our ascribing cause and effect. I would not say it > > > > exists out there as a concept (as I think you would not). I would not > > > > say it exists out there as a Principle. I would not say it exists out > > > > there as a Law. I think all we can say is that there is a functioning, > > > > and that functioning is a VERB, not a noun. It functions. But we do not > > > > see "something" functioning, or the mechanics and gears of the > > > > functioning. We see instead manifestations or consequences. > > > > Consequences of WHAT? When we ask that, "WHAT?", and ANSWER it, this is > > > > where we start drawing up phantoms. And we attach to them, if we are > > > > not awake. They become our models. It's OK to use the phantoms for our > > > > purposes, and emploit them in our skilful means. But attachment to them > > > > as something "out there" is the root of suffering. The concept or idea > > > > of a self is one of these "things", I know everyone here agrees. > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > I'm not denying that cause-and-effect seems to provide independent > > > > > conditioning in the world of forms (illusions), I'm saying like the > > > > > world of forms the concept of cause-and-effect is just a projection > > > > > of our rational mind. It's not something that exists 'out there' > > > > > independent of intellect. > > > > > > > > > > This is a good example of the question: "If a tree falls in the > > > > > forest and no one (human) is there, is there a sound?" No, there > > > > > isn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
