Bill, If so then you are doing what I've been suggesting forever, at least some of the time. Why then do you disagree with what I say?
Edgar On Apr 1, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > As usual you've misunderstood and are subsequently misreporting what I said. > > I do sit 20 mins x 2 at a time 3 or 4 times a week. No misunderstanding there. > > I never said I experience Buddha Nature only while sitting. I did say I first > experienced Buddha Nature while sitting and it was when my intellect ceased > generating illusions. This is called 'kensho' in Japanese and in my case was > prompted by working on the koan Mu. > > Shortly after kensho, and I mean within several minutes - an hour at the > most, my intellect re-engaged and began generating illusions again. Going > through that experience allowed me to see illusions for what they are - > illusions. They do continually appear and operate in the foreground, but I am > almost always aware of Buddha Nature in the background. I say 'almost always' > because there have been some times when I lose the realization of Buddha > Nature altogether and it is again completely obscured by illusions; but > through contining practice (zazen) these times occur less and less and the > illusions become more and more transparent. > > Sitting regularly (shikantaza) brings me back to a pure, holistic Buddha > Nature state that is completely devoid of illusions. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
