Bill, You yourself told us you only sit 22 minutes at a time in double sessions 3 times a week. That comes out to less than 3 hours a week.
You also tell us that for you Zen mind is experienced is only when you are sitting and your mind can stop generating the illusory world of forms. Conclusion, you experience Zen mind at best less than 3 hours a week.... Of course if you understood how to realize Buddha Nature IN the world of forms AS a manifestation of it you could make that 24/7... That's my continual point.... Edgar On Mar 31, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > My mind perceives it as trash, so for me it's trash. > > And who told you I only 'realize zen' (which I'll take to mean 'experience > Buddha Nature')3 hours a week? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
