Edgar, Whew! I thought maybe I was devolving or something...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > I reread your reply and now conclude its NOT what I've been telling you... > Close but no cigar! > > Edgar > > > On Apr 2, 2013, at 4:21 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > I have absolutely no idea what this last post of yours means. Please spell > > it out for me. What is it that you have been suggesting 'forever' that I > > have been disagreeing with, but now you have found out I say I actually do? > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
