Chris,
IMO 'jet-lagged', disappointment or feeling guilty of disappointing someone
else are all perceptions. These has nothing to do with sensory experience.
('Jet-lagged' may be in a different category here if you are talking about the
physical effects, but the mental and emotional effects are perceptions.) They
are perceptions and each of them can certainly influence other perceptions you
have. For example:
If you've just had a success at something all the sights you see might seem to
be sharper or brighter or more alive. This is perception.
If you just failed at something all the sights you see might seem to be fuzzy
or duller or dead-looking. This is perception.
You're 'seeing' (sensual experience) the very same in each case but you're not
perceiving the same. When these signals get to your consciousness (which is
pluralistic as opposed to 'awareness' which is monistic) they have been put
into a pluralistic setting which includes the sharper/fuzzy, brighter/duller,
alive/dead perceptions.
What you call your 'inner equilibrium' is I guess just your delusive self and
how you feel about your 'self' at any given time.
The only way I know to help people 'uncrinkle' their minds is to experience
Buddha Nature which helps them realize all this other stuff going on in their
mind is delusive - and certainly not something which warrants getting attached
to. And the only way I know to first experience Buddha Nature is through one
or a combination of zen teaching techniques which include zazen, chanting,
bowing and koans. There are probably other ways, and many of them not
zen-related, but those are the only ways I know.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> wrote:
>
> 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!" <BillSmart@...> 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 [email protected], 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 [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
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡
> > > > > > >> > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ 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
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã
¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡
> > > > > > >> > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã
¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ 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'Ã'âââ¬Ã
¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡
> > > > > > >> > > 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
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > mathematics is beautiful because it is logical
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ
> > > > > > >> > > > 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã
> > > > > > >> > > > ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ 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'Ã'Ãâ
> > > > > > >> > > > 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Ã
> > > > > > >> > > > ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡
> > > > > > >> > > > 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
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > > > >> 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: [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
<*> 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/
