I appreciate your going out on a limb here.
I like your explanation and find it quite clear.
My question tho was more like, if your body/mind is calm and balanced, how
can that mental state not enter the sensual experience of
sight/sound/tasting/etc.? If you have sensory experience on a day that you
are jet lagged and a loved one has been disappointed by you, or whatever it
is that might nudge you from calm and balanced ("death of a favorite
student"), that sensory experience will reflect the sensory experience of
your 'inner' equilibrium as clearly as it reflects the sensory experience
of heat or cold or a still wall and solid cushion.
How can a line be drawn between "sensed experiencing via introspective
sense" and "sensed experiencing via 'external' sense"? Still wondering
how, I can certainly appreciate the utility of such a fundamental dualism
to thought, especially in helping people allow their minds to uncrinkle.
Please forgive my pedantic and persistent questoning.
Thanks,
--Chris
301-270-6524
On Jul 5, 2013 10:45 PM, "Bill!" <billsm...@hhs1963.org> wrote:
>
>
> Chris,
>
> I really think getting down to this level of discussion of such things on
> a zen forum is uncalled for and probably leads to more confusion than
> clarification, but I will answer your question - only because you're one of
> my favorites... [image: :x]
>
> First of all your phrase 'states of the brain' is problematic. It's taken
> our discourse out of the realm of functions (software) into physicality
> (hardware). I'll try to explain my understanding of all this using the
> terms you've used which will require me to use subject/object language, so
> don't hold be too tightly to what I say here. I don't claim to be an
> expert in this area (physiology) so I'm just explaining this the way I
> think of it.
>
> The brain has many functions. The brain's functions don't have to be
> either all on or all off. Thought is one function; registering sensual
> experience is one function and awareness is one function. Some functions
> are autonomous and continue whether you are aware of them or not.
>
> Using this skeleton outline I would say:
>
> - Buddha Nature = sensual experience
> - Intellection = Human Nature
> - Realizing Buddha Nature = sensual experience + awareness - thought
> - Human Nature = thought + awareness - sensual experience
> - Enlightenment = sensual awareness + thought + awareness
>
> Is that mathematical enough for you?
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> >
> > So you are claiming that states of the brain and non thought are mutually
> > exclusive?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Chris
> > 301-270-6524
> > On Jul 5, 2013 6:44 PM, "Bill!" BillSmart@... wrote:
> >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > "Non-thought" is no intellectual activity - no creating pluralism
> which is
> > > the foundation of delusion and attachment. Later you can reincorporate
> > > thought without attachment by realizing it as delusive.
> > >
> > > It doesn't mean all your bodily functions shut down.
> > >
> > > ...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane chris@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Non-thought is not no mental activity, sitting errect fully present
> in a
> > > > moment takes more lively brains/more energetic bodies than sleep.
> > > >
> > > > Or are you suggesting that skimming thru life without really
> inhabiting
> > > > each moment is the key?
> > > >
> > > > Or just falling prey to that Zen temptation of word play, since I
> wrote
> > > of
> > > > people "moved" by beauty?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > --Chris
> > > > 301-270-6524
> > > > On Jul 5, 2013 10:53 AM, pandabananasock@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > Mind moves mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours truely,
> > > > > Peebles
> > > > >
> > > > > You: "Over and over, I have
> > > > > heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one time
> > > have
> > > > > really listened to it, and been deeply moved."
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 12:31 PM EDT Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Are you kidding? Your intellect is where your sense of beauty come
> > > from?
> > > > > >That could not be further away from my experience. Over and over,
> I
> > > have
> > > > > >heard some music without really paying attention, and tuen one
> time
> > > have
> > > > > >really listened to it, and been deeply moved. Really also I find
> > > > > >listening/seeing/tasting/touching/smelling/introspecting in
> general
> > > > > rewards
> > > > > >attentive attending ;) with a suuden pleasurable deepening
> > > appreciation
> > > > > for
> > > > > >how things are, for the specific thing at hand a routine
> occurance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >For beauty, there is a saying, when nothing is special, then
> > > everything
> > > > > >can be special. But our brain will be responding to beauty in any
> > > case.
> > > > > >Spontaneously. Not because of intellectual something, but our full
> > > > > >response to life clearly seen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > >--Chris
> > > > > >301-270-6524
> > > > > > On Jul 5, 2013 2:35 AM, "Bill!" BillSmart@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Merle,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> My intellect judged them to be beautiful. That judgement was
> > > probably
> > > > > >> something I learned to mimic from hearing other people describe
> > > things
> > > > > as
> > > > > >> beautiful.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ...Bill!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Â
> > > > > >> > Â bill..how do you know they were beautiful? clarification
> > > > > please..merle
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I have indeed perceived many beautiful sunsets.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > But have also experienced Just THIS!
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ...Bill!
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > >> > > ÃÆ'‚Â bill..is that so?...is that what you have
> realised or
> > > have been
> > > > > >> told to believe think and feel?.. have you never seen a
> beautiful
> > > > > sunset
> > > > > >> ?...merle
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > >> > > Merle,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Math is judged to be beautiful because it is logical. Yes.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Logic is judged to be beautiful because it deceives us into
> > > > > thinking
> > > > > >> we understand the truth.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Truth is not beautiful or not-beautiful. Truth just is.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > All judgments come from your delusive intellect and self. If
> > > you
> > > > > are
> > > > > >> looking for 'realization' [Buddha Nature?] then you'll have to
> let
> > > go
> > > > > your
> > > > > >> attachments to such things as self, intellect, truth and beauty.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ...Bill!
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > mathematics is beautiful because it is logical
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â logic is beautiful
> because it is so
> > > pointing to the
> > > > > truth
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > truth is so beautiful because it points and parts the way
> for
> > > > > >> realisation to take place ..
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > merle
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > >> > > > Edgar,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Reality is not bound by logic. I'd buy your statement if
> you
> > > said
> > > > > >> 'math words because it accurately models our logically-based
> > > > > perception of
> > > > > >> reality', but I suppose that wouldn't work for you.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > ...Bill!
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Bill,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > No, no, no. Human math works because it DOES accurately
> > > model
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> actual logic of reality.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Edgar
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Chris,
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Mathematics doesn't reveal reality. Mathematics only
> > > mirrors
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> human intellect.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > ...Bill!
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane
> > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > The thing I like about math as a source of analogies
> > > for
> > > > > zen
> > > > > >> is that it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > shows how two different things csn br exactly the
> same.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Linear equations over reals are lines. Lines are
> linear
> > > > > >> equations.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Numbers, points, the constituents drop away as the
> > > eternal
> > > > > >> unity is seen.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > --Chris
> > > > > >> > > > > > > 301-270-6524
> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Jul 3, 2013 8:12 AM, wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Bill!:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > You're gonna ignore the math? I thought you said
> you
> > > were
> > > > > >> looking for an
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > impersonal language a couple posts ago... :D
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > The thing about using math that way is that
> > > eventually it
> > > > > >> leads you back
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > to the beginning. We use mathematics as an
> > > expression of
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> model, then
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > we use the model as an expression of the math.
> Then
> > > we
> > > > > >> realize that both
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > are models of each other and the same, and
> experience
> > > > > >> encompasses all -- no
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > need for anything else. Rivers and mountains
> become
> > > > > rivers
> > > > > >> and mountains
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > again!
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ~PeeBeeEss
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, 7/3/13, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion of
> > > > > >> Cause-and-Effect and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Karma
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 8:56 AM
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > PBS (That's going to be my TLA (Three
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Letter Acronym) for Pandabananasock from now
> on)...
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'll ignore all the math but do agree that JUST IF
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > such a think that could be called 'karma' it's
> not so
> > > > > much a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > moralistic cause-and-effect as it is an intrinsic
> > > > > quality of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > the act itself.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > But, I'll continue to poo-poo all claims of karma.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...Bill!
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > pandabananasock@ wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Most people think of "1+1=2" as procedural, that
> > > is,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > that there is 1, THEN we add 1 to it, THEN it
> becomes
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2. They would regard "2=1+1" and "2=2" to be
> > > different
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > equations, but they are not in the least bit
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > different. The equal-sign is the present.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > "1+1" is already 2! And the effect IS the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > cause. Your karmic punishment for doing something
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > "bad" is you doing that "bad" thing. Your karmic
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > reward for doing something "good" is you doing
> that
> > > > > "good"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > thing. Forget the come-back-to-bite-you BS!
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 4:58 AM EDT Bill! wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >...Bill!
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you
> > > recently
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo!
> > > Groups
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Links
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you
> > > recently
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> read or are
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have
> read
> > > or
> > > > > are
> > > > > >> reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read
> or
> > > are
> > > > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or
> are
> > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
