Who is this RAF? Why would we want to contact him? I am confused by this posting since it was forwarded to us by Edgar and not directly from RAF. Is RAF not a member of this group? I have only to say what we already know, words are poor substitutes for what we mean by them. I can see no way of deriving thier meaning other than by discussion which may quite often devolve into disputation, take the word Soul for example. If we can only accept what is written by how we each interpret the visual combination of alphabetical characters, how can we truly know that whet we read is what was being said? Eschew Obfuscation.
________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, April 12, 2013 12:42:26 PM Subject: [Zen] Fwd: from RAF > >You are a persuasive fellow, Edgar, and I am mindful of the negative karma of >hiding the dharma, but remain dubious that any of the lurkers will be more >receptive of my insight than those who post. So, let's do this: you may post >this, and antecedent e-mails to the group with the following statement. > > >Whereas I am grateful for those who gave me a glimpse of the moon, I am >willing >to discuss the dharma with those who have an open mind regarding the insights >of >genetic science and evolutionary psychology. Those of you who believe the >historic-but-pre-scientific Way of Zen is already perfect, and, in particular >that the current manifestation of the zen tradition is acceptable, should not >waste our time by contacting me. In particular, those who believe you already >know what is morally right and wrong, in accordance with the dharma, will not >be >able to comprehend my view. Those who believe that anything which happens to >agree with your inclinations is 'zen', or who would argue that promiscuous >altruism is righteousness would be wasting their time to communicate with me. >Those of you who believe that emotional states you may have experienced are >self >authenticating and have given you access to 'truth' are probably not ready to >understand me. > > >I do not absolutely refuse to communicate with Bill, Joe, or even Chris, Mike >or >Merle, but unless those of you who agree with the views they have expressed >can >abandon the assumption that your views are congruent with 'righteousness' I >don't think I can help you, and I have no interest in disputation. > > >RAF > > > ________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 7:38 AM >Subject: Re: re > > > >There are actually several hundred members of the group who likely read but >don't post. Think of all those poor souls starved for the truth! > >:-) > > >Edgar > > > > > > >On Apr 11, 2013, at 9:34 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >I appreciate the implication of this, but recall that I eschewed the >Bodhisattva >vows, though of course I didn't know this pack of losers then. Still, because >I >am mindful of the karmic debt I owe to those who pointed out the moon to me, I >not only imparted my view, but did so several times, in spite of rudeness and >scorn: obligation discharged. I am not attached to teaching or 'saving' these >people. In the cases of some of them, I actually feel something like >schadenfreude: it is their karmic burden to have denied others whatever >assistance I might have provided, by scorning my wisdom, so not only are they >blundering off in 'darkness', but they have denied the light to others. >> >> >>If I actually thought any of them had ears to hear, I would speak again, but >>they are too full of themselves, and the PC semblance-of-zen of this era >>actually does confirm their rejection of my view, so I am content to follow >>my >>Way and keep my own counsel: let everyone work out their own salvation ;-) >> >> >>RAF >> >> >> ________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >>To: "[email protected] Fonda" <[email protected]> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:36 PM >>Subject: re >> >> >>PS: I really wish you'd post your thoughts to the Zen group as well as just >>me. >>Would be an excellent counter to all the nonsense there... >> >>Thanks, >>Edgar >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
