Bill, you used an example of some cultures finding fox fur beautiful and some cultures finding fox fur (on people) to be barbaric.
I was trying to point to a conception (yes) of beauty that wouldn't be as abstract as "this type of thing has the character of beauty" but would confine itself to, "oh, wow." Personally, I find the beauty in living, at what ever stage of the nervous system's processing work you put it (again you cut your life up into little pieces), to be a "wow" type action, not a seeking of essences or permanence characters. I can't honestly think different people really find that the beauty they run into is reflected by a dusty meaning like "fox stoles are beautiful". It is a spontaneous action of thanks and recognition. Svaha! A similar thing could be made for some word with traditional negative connotations, pain or dissatisfaction, but then you get foggy days (of subtle delight) and cranky children (accepting one another as they are) and Munch's scream (giving a shiver) and bad things turning out ok (broken leg) and even the pensive reality of a thinker (cast in marble) and the good/bad labels do indeed seem a profound waste of effort in a way that living open to the sublime majesty of each moment, if you must avoid the word beauty and yet use words, does not seem wasteful. I don't find moments of non thinking to be fundamentally distinct from any other teaching thing. Seeing how my thoughts are so intrusive and repetitive, seeing how carelessly sitting on the cushion leads to soreness, seeing how thoughts can disappear and still this remains, seeing how there is no boundary anywhere but just this, none of these seeing matter of themselves. They prepare the ground to meet the next moment. That's all. It's enough, but I just don't see this magic line between sensory experience part of the body mind and some delusion part often body mind. Other than as a temporary training aid, maybe. A linear first order approximation as they say in math. Unless of course you become a mad zennist welcoming delusion as the very same as nirvana, but that doesn't seem line your shtick. Responding to the below post more directly, you are again putting abstract lines into your body/mind with this perceive/experience dualism I think the heaps we are composed of are a bit more intimate, a bit less abstract than your division between perception and experience. The heaps are big abstract things like cognition, maybe but also more concrete things such as being this sort of human that was yelled at in this way, encouraged in that way, and is now sitting, laying down, or walking about with a personal, unique, world honored bundle of nerves. Furthermore, classically, I would have put experiencing and awareness into the category of not beginning, not ending. Perception, cognition, labeling, that's all, you know, to do with eyes and brains and neuronal excitation and what not. If you want to divide this arrow into pieces you are as well to follow neuroscience as zen. But simple awareness, that's not going to be a part of neuroscience I suspect. Even when we build things which share our awareness, awareness is not born, does not decay, and does not end. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 5, 2013 10:54 PM, "Bill!" <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > > To respond to the part of your post below I assume is directed to me... > > I don't EXPERIENCE 'beauty' or 'ugly' or 'red' or 'pleasing' or 'rocks', > etc...; I PERCEIVE these. Perception is a function of what I call my > intellect - the origin of plurality. If it would sound better I could > break up 'intellect' into 'logic' and 'emotion', or I could say there are > two things: intellect (logic) and emotion (maybe call this 'heart'?). > Whether they are all one thing or two things they are what make up Human > Nature. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> wrote: > > > > And additionally are you really claiming that you don't experience beauty > > as a thing of the moment but only as something to make rules or reason > > about? > > > > And PBS, was there some non-rhetorical point about mind moves? Other > than > > the joke about mouths flapping? Do you also have some concept of > monistic > > experience which excludes what may post hoc be called an appreciation for > > the richness the trip? > > > > Thanks, > > --Chris > > 301-270-6524 > > On Jul 5, 2013 9:42 PM, "Chris Austin-Lane" <chris@...> 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@ > > > > >> > > 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 [email protected], Merle Lester > <merlewiitpom@> > > >> > > 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 [email protected], Merle Lester > <merlewiitpom@ > > >> > > > >> > > 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 [email protected], Edgar Owen > <edgarowen@> > > >> 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 [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane > > >> <chris@> > > >> > > >> 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, <pandabananasock@> 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! <BillSmart@> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Say Bye-Bye to the Delusion > of > > >> > > >> Cause-and-Effect and > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Karma > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > 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 [email protected], > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > [email protected] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
