Merle, I was being facetious when I said "it's just a wild guess"...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > >  for christ sake..think about it bill...hitler was way off his buddha > nature... way off course..merle > > >  > Merle and William, > > Just to clarify... > > Adolf Hitler had Buddha Nature just as we all do; just as all sentient beings > do. I don't think he was in touch with it though. Of course I didn't really > know the guy so that's just a wild guess...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], William Rintala <brintala@> wrote: > > > > Merle: the answer is yes. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 4:56:23 PM > > Subject: Re: [Zen] the greater self > > > > à> > > > > > àedgar..i know that... hey all this crap about buddha nature..was hitler > > buddha > > nature eh?...merle > > > > > > à> > Merle, > > > > When the student is not ready the teacher will not be recognized even when > > he > > appears... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 2013, at 11:32 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > à> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >àEdgar.. > > >let me get it straight..à> > >i am not feeling sorry..i feel compassion.. > > > > > > > > >jesus christ..i can't be everywhere in the world where help is needed..for > > >christ sake..and yes i do have empathy..compassion àfor suffering.. > > > > > > > > >you just don't get it.. > > > > > > > > >i do not exist..so hence no ego i am part of the greater self.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >do you understand that concept...? > > > > > > > > >ài help where i can and when i can... > > > > > > > > >(i was a teacher of art after all for 30 years where compassion and > > >nurturing > > >others was my everyday experience) > > > > > > > > >àas for jesus christ ..well is he not the flip side àof buddha > > > > > > > > >don't tell me jesus did not have àbuddha nature? > > > > > > > > >àbuddha is jesus and jesus is buddha..that's how i àperceive it > > > > > > > > >don't tell me otherwise and fill my heart with a great sadness and my eyes > > >with > > >tears because you fail to understand the meaning of universal love > > > > > > > > >àpeace be with you > > > > > > > > >àmerle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >à> > >Merle, > > > > > > > > >You have what is called a Christ complex, you are empathetic to the > > >suffering of > > >the world. > > > > > > > > >I know as I had a severe Christ complex myself when younger. > > > > > > > > >I now understand that the very DESIGN of the world by necessity INCLUDES > > >suffering as an essential part. This is because life cannot live without > > >the > > >death of other beings so there is by necessity vast and interminable > > >suffering > > >built into the design of the natural world. Enormous suffering is is > > >unavoidable > > >and leads by its very nature to the life and thus the health and happiness > > >of > > >other beings. > > > > > > > > >As horrible as it is it's the way things are. Think of the Zen masters > > >sitting > > >around laughing out loud as the world goes down the drain... > > > > > > > > >That being said there is certainly a place for compassion in the form of > > >helping > > >individual suffering beings and certainly avoiding adding to suffering as > > >much > > >as possible. > > > > > > > > >But as I told you before, feeling righteously sorry for suffering beings > > >in > > >Boston or anywhere else does NOT help. It only adds YOUR suffering to the > > >total. > > > > > > > > >True compassion is actually helping alleviate the suffering of individual > > >beings > > >that you can help, not feeling righteously sorry for the victims of the > > >enormous > > >number of abuses in the world... > > > > > > > > >If you can help do help, but feeling sorry is not compassion and does not > > >help. > > >It's just another form of ego attachment.... > > > > > > > > >Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On May 3, 2013, at 7:46 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > > >à> > >> > > >> > > >>mike:..my pain is the pain of the world..the sadness is the human > > condition...à> > >> > > >> > > >>my own individual pain is totally irrelevant..if that was all it was then > > >>it > > >>would be easy.. > > >> > > >> > > >>i do not dwell on self but the greater self..the self of àall selves > > >> > > >> > > >>the sadness is the sadness for the whole of existenceà> > >> > > >> > > >>i and the world are one and the same creature.. > > >> > > >> > > >>i am the great white pointer shark as i am the waves upon the great oceans > > >> > > >> > > >>get my drift? > > >> > > >> > > >>merle > > >> > > >> > > >>à> > >>Bill, Merle, > > >> > > >>Now this is the kind of situation that I find Vipassana works better for > > >>me. > > >>It's easy to say not to attach to the pain, but it doesn't really say > > >>much > > >>(although it is true) about how to go about doing that. > > >> > > >> > > >>If I'm experiencing something like the sadness Merle says, then go into > > >>it. > > >>Connect with the physicality of it. Let's say there is a pain/heaviness > > >>in the > > >>heart. What kind of pain? Dull? Does it feel like a solid block of pain? > > >>Does it > > >>change? Move? Go away only to come back elsewhere? Does the pain affect > > >>your > > >>mood? Do you feel 'lighter' when the pain momentarily disappears etc? In > > >>other > > >>words, go really deep into it. Notice the effect it has on our body and > > >>mind - > > >>how they are connected. > > >> > > >>Obviously I don't do it at the speed above. And also it is mostly done > > >>intuitively rather than thru a discourse with yourself. I find that by > > >>the time > > >>I have say thru a session like this it is impossible to be attached or > > >>consumed > > >>by the emotion as well as learning important insights into impermanence > > >>etc. > > >> > > >> > > >>Mike > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@>; > > >>To: <[email protected]>; > > >>Subject: [Zen] Re: open mind? > > >>Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 8:56:15 AM > > >> > > >> > > >>à> > >>Merle, > > >> > > >>I agree with you on the former 'emptiness' and the current clutter. > > >> > > >>Just sit through the sadness knowing that it is not real. It's illusory. > > >>Don't > > >>let yourself 'attach' to it - that is buy into it and let the feeling of > > >>sadness > > >>define who you are. It is your illusory self that is creating the > > >>sadness. The > > >>sadness is not you. > > >> > > >>...Bill! > > >> > > >>--- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Ãâàwhen i was a kid i always had an "empty" mind and i enjoyed > > >>> this experience > > >>>and even as a kid sort of understood what it meant..believe it or not > > >>> > > >>> now it is crammed full of "crap" and very hard Ãâàto practise the > > >>> "empty" > > >>>mind..Ãâà> > >>> > > >>> Ãâàat the moment i am experience a very deep sadness..in the > > >>> meditation..a > > >>>sadness that is engulfing me totally... > > >>> > > >>> merle > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Ãâà> > >>> It even looks like one of the founders of Chan fell for it too! > > >>> > > >>> "Nothing is left behind, > > >>> Nothing stays with us. > > >>> Bright and empty, > > >>> The mind shines by itself." > > >>> > > >>> âââ¬" Seng Can, third patriarch of Chan > > >>> > > >>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > William, > > >>> > > > >>> > Obviously some of this group's members HAVE fallen for the same Zen > > >>> > scam over > > >>>and over and still do! > > >>> > :-) > > >>> > > > >>> > Edgar > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:28 AM, William Rintala wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Empty Mind/Cup does not equal Empty Headed. Correct? Open Mind does > > >>> > > not > > >>>mean absolute naivety does it. Would someone whose mind had the > > >>>qualities of > > >>>Open and Empty Mindedness fall for the same scams repeatedly? Would such > > >>>a > > >>>person be incapable of learning, of retaining knowledge, of doing > > >>>productive > > >>>work? Aren't there stories of Zen Idiots? > > >>> > > > > >>> > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > >>> > > To: [email protected] > > >>> > > Sent: Mon, April 29, 2013 3:45:23 AM > > >>> > > Subject: [Zen] Re: open mind? > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Merle and Edgar, > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I'm going to jump in here again to better explain what I mean by an > > >>> > > 'empty > > >>>mind'. To do that I'll use the teacup analogy. I know Edgar already > > >>>knows the > > >>>story but just in case Merle or anyone else reading this does not I'll > > >>>repeat it > > >>>here: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > "A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While > > >>> > > the master > > >>>quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured > > >>>the > > >>>visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched > > >>>the > > >>>overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's > > >>>overfull! No > > >>>more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the > > >>>master > > >>>replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup." - > > >>>Traditional > > >>>Zen Story > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Using that analogy your mind (intellect) is like the cup. The tea > > >>>represents all the knowledge, concepts, prejudices, valuations, > > >>>associations, > > >>>etc..., that you carry around with you. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > When I say 'empty mind' I mean a mind (intellect) that is free of > > >>>attachments to all the knowledge, concepts, prejudices, valuations, > > >>>associations, etc..., which you have previously formed. It doesn't > > >>>you've > > >>>forgotten them permanently, but it means at this time of 'empty mind' > > >>>you are > > >>>not attached to or bound by any of them. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Using the teacup analogy it would mean each time you have a new > > >>> > > experience > > >>>you do so with an empty cup. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > ...Bill! > > >>> > > > > >>> > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> > > >>> > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ bill...yes edgar..what is your interpretation of an > > >>> > > > open mind? can you > > >>>clarify?..merle > > >>> > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > > >>> > > > Merle, > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Edgar and I cannot agree because we have a completely different > > >>> > > > idea of > > >>>what Buddha Nature is, and therefore what zen is. Just why Edgar holds > > >>>the > > >>>opinions he does I don't know. I hold mine because first and foremost > > >>>they are > > >>>formed from my experience. Secondly they conform with what I've been > > >>>taught - > > >>>not everything I've been taught, but most of it. Lastly they correspond > > >>>with > > >>>what I've read - not everything I've read, but most of it. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Edgar's suggestion of 'opening the mind' is fine. I don't think > > >>> > > > anyone > > >>>would argue that having a closed mind is better. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > You'll have to ask Edgar to explain his idea of 'opening the > > >>> > > > mind' a > > >>>little more. I don't want to speak for him, but I SUSPECT his idea of > > >>>opening > > >>>the mind is so you can start filling it up with knowledge, but that IMO > > >>>is not > > >>>the way to experience Buddha Nature. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > I could also use that phrase but if I did my idea of 'opening the > > >>> > > > mind' > > >>>would be to start emptying it of illusions and prejudices so you can > > >>>experience > > >>>Buddha Nature. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > These are two diametrically opposed approaches. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > ...Bill! > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> > > >>> > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > > >>> > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ bill!..maybe emptying the cup > > >>> > > > > and opening the mind are both the > > >>>same thing..check with edgar...you 2 seem to be at loggerheads over > > >>>this..why? > > >>> > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ can you not agree to > > >>> > > > > disagree?..merle > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > No, I can't say I do. At least not entirely. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Edgar's teacup is about 3/4 full. He wants to keep filling it > > >>> > > > > up. I'm > > >>>advising him to empty it out. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > I'm not sure what he means by 'opening the mind'. That sounds > > >>> > > > > nice an > > >>>new-agey, but what does it mean? Does it mean emptying his cup? Or does > > >>>it mean > > >>>breaking his cup? > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > I think he should just empty his cup and go from there. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > ...Bill! > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ > > >>> > > > > > 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'ââ∠> > >>> > > > > > ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > > >>> > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ > > >>> > > > > > 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'ââ∠> > >>> > > > > > ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ bill!..you agree with this surely?...opening > > >>> > > > > > the > > >>>mind?..merle > > >>> > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ > > >>> > > > > > 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'ââ∠> > >>> > > > > > ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > > >>> > > > > > Bill, > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Zen neither empties or fills your mind. The very concept of > > >>> > > > > > this > > >>>dualism is incorrect. > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Zen is simply opening mind to what is. It is pure > > >>> > > > > > consciousness of > > >>>either the forms or the formless.. > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > And btw it is NOT "your mind". It is simply consciousness > > >>> > > > > > antecedent > > >>>to any distinction of self and not-self... > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Edgar > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Bill! wrote: > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ > > >>> > > > > > 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'ââ∠> > >>> > > > > > ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > > >>> > > > > > >Edgar, > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >Yes. I'm afraid we have a fundamental disagreement here. > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >I think zen practice empties out your mind, and you think it > > >>> > > > > > >fills > > >>>it up. > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >Do you want to Rock/Paper/Scissors for it? > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >..Bill! > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >--- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> > > >>> > > > > > >wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> Bill, > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> As usual you contradict the Zen teachings which I > > >>> > > > > > >> support.... > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> Edgar > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> On Apr 26, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Bill! wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > Edgar, > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > I see your problem now. > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > You think progress in zen is measured in ADDING ON > > >>> > > > > > >> > things - like > > >>>knowledge. It's not. You progress in zen by TAKING AWAY things until you > > >>>get > > >>>down to Just THIS! > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > You don't progress from Level 2 to Level 3. You progress > > >>> > > > > > >> > from > > >>>Level 2 to Level 1 and then to Level 0 which is actually no-level - > > >>>Buddha > > >>>Nature. > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > You're trying to fill you cup up instead of emptying > > >>> > > > > > >> > it...Bill! > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen > > >>> > > > > > >> > <edgarowen@> > > >>wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > Bill, > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > That's Niels, not Neal. > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > Go back to stage one and get it right. Do NOT pass go! > > >>> > > > > > >> > > :-) > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > Edgar > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > Edgar, > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > *** Sorry, I misread your post below and Replied > > >>>incorrectly. I erased that but if you get the posts by email you might > > >>>have > > >>>received it. If you did please disregard. My corrected post is *** > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > What do you mean Stage Three? Neal and I are done > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > with Stage > > >>>Two and and now ready for Stage One! > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > ...Bill! > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > <edgarowen@> > > >>>wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > Bill, > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the quote in which Bohr correctly > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > expresses > > >>>stage two "mountains are no longer mountains". > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > Stage three is when those unreal illusory things > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > are > > >>>realized to be the true reality. Then mountains become mountains again.. > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > Both Bill and Bohr haven't reached that stage > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > yet... > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > Edgar > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 5:38 AM, Bill! wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > Maybe Edgar will listen to him... > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > ...Bill! > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
