Edgar,
You're either bottom-fishing or muckraking. Or maybe you're kidding?
Anybody who claims, below, to want to come in to "help", and to "be
understood", and who calls this or any Group a "pack of losers" seems to me to
be someone who would be wasting HIS time, and maybe ours.
I think, too, that someone who has not practiced in formal ways with a teacher
and sangha, and either exhausted those forms or mastered them, is a poor
candidate to be teaching here or anywhere about revising the forms of practice,
regardless of from which scientific perspective.
I think that perhaps you and RAF can do better to find or form another group
devoted to some such work, or perhaps team up and go ahead and reform
"Scientology" instead. What say?
Of course, I understand that membership in the group is open, and one can even
be re-instated. And, I gather that as one of this group's moderators, it may
be part of your chosen task to recruit members.
What I read below however does not encourage my optimism, nor instill a sense
of warmth or welcome. Others will have their own ideas. Maybe you and RAF
already participate in some science-based group as I mentioned: and is it going
so badly, there? Or, well?
If you have an evolutionary psychology group to recommend, please tell us about
it here in case people might be interested.
With greetings, Edgar!
--Joe
> Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> > 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 <Edgar@...>
> > To: "rafonda@..." <rafonda@...>
> > 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, rafonda@... 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 <Edgar@...>
> >> To: "rafonda@... Fonda" <rafonda@...>
> >> 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
------------------------------------
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/
