[Zen] Re: breaking through

[Bill!]

Merle,

It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'.  It's been closed in my structure.  It 
might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a closed 
boundary nonetheless.

Edgar,

You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:

"...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own internal 
simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality except as it is 
experienced by some observer or other This is a complex subject that 
requires a deep understanding and more time than I have right now...

Your errors (IMO) are two:

One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
observer or other..."  What you are talking about here is not reality, it is a 
PERCEPTION of reality.  Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is not 
dualistic.  There is no subject/object pair created.

The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding 
and more time than I have right now..."  Direct experience of reality is NOT 
complex.  It is the most simple thing you can do.  You just have to quit 
THINKING about it.  It's the THINKING that's complex, not the experience.  
'Understanding' is not the key.  EXPERIENCING is the key and it doesn't require 
a lot of time to do.  EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very simple.

...Bill!

  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>   some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to break 
> through..a stick would not do...merle
> 
> 
>   
> Kristopher,
> 
> Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality differently 
> each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is 
> no reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is 
> a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
> have right now...
> 
> 
> Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering in 
> his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by approaching 
> Zen
> 
> However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
> attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness and a 
> feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
> 
> Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, but 
> my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a favor by 
> pointing out how we might each do better and that we should all be free and 
> open in exchanging and receiving such insights.
> 
> Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all in that 
> respect and we should all take her lead on this..
> 
> 
> Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by directly 
> realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of all things really 
> really here right now in the present moment it can be said to reveal the 
> ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of the seeker...
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> 
>   
> >
> >
> >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not the Bill! 
> >who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical construct in your 
> >head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you will logically think Bill! 
> >to be illogical. You will see what you think is Bill!'s error. If you think 
> >them apart, you make the same error for him.
> >
> >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of him, no
>   other can be known. There is no difference.
> >
> >Same goes for 'Zen'
> >
> >KG
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> >
> >  
> >>Bill!,
> >>
> >>Bill! claims logic is NOT Zen...
> >>
> >>Bill! says he uses logic in his daily life...
> >>
> >>Therefore Bill must believe he CANNOT have Zen in his
>   daily life...
> >>
> >>This is a serious error...
> >>
> >>Zen is 24/7 whether one is using logic or sitting
>   mindlessly.
> >>
> >>It is a fundamental error to believe only mindless sitting
>   is Zen. That's mistaking a particular meditative state for
>   Zen.
> >>
> >>There is no part of reality that is not Buddha Nature.
>   Illusion is part of reality and thus is a manifestation of
>   Buddha Nature.
> >>
> >>Realization is seeing the illusion that is part of reality
>   as illusion rather than the fake reality it pretends to
>   be
> >>
> >>When Bill! understands that logic is part of reality and
>   thus like everything else is a form manifesting Buddha
>   Nature rather than something contrary to and apart from
>   Buddha Nature, then and only then will Bill! allow himself
>   to completely realize Zen in his daily life as well as
>   when he is sitting mindlessly...
> >>
> >>This is the crux of Bill!'s misunderstanding At the
> 

[Zen] Re: breaking through

[Bill!]

Merle,

I say he is in error, but that really depends on your perspective.  He's 
talking about reality from a dualistic point-of-view.  That's okay for 
scientists and philosophers, and is the way we all usually perceive things - 
dualistically.  That means there's a subject/object split.  The most personal 
dualism we create is the concept of 'self'.  We think of ourselves as having an 
individual and unique 'self' that is separate from everything else.  I call 
that the self/other split or dualism.   Edgar's words below (which are 
representative of most of his posts) are based on that dualistic view.

Zen training is a process of halting the creation of dualism, like self, 
'realizing' (making real, NOT 'understanding') that all products of dualistic 
thought are illusory coming from your dualistic, discriminating, rational mind. 
 (The same one that creates the illusion of logic.)

When you halt this seemingly continual process of the generation of illusions 
you are then able to experience (NOT understand) reality directly.  That is 
called Buddha Nature.

I've read a lot of Edgar's suggestions to you and believe many of them are very 
good and I'm sure very helpful - but they're not zen, they're not useful in 
leading you to a point where you can experience Buddha Nature.

Of course all this is my opinion.  Edgar has a different opinion.

...Bill!   


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... 
> merle
>   
> Merle,
> 
> It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'.  It's been closed in my structure.  It 
> might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a closed 
> boundary nonetheless.
> 
> Edgar,
> 
> You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> 
> "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own internal 
> simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality except as it is 
> experienced by some observer or other This is a complex subject that 
> requires a deep understanding and more time than I have right now...
> 
> Your errors (IMO) are two:
> 
> One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> observer or other..."  What you are talking about here is not reality, it is 
> a PERCEPTION of reality.  Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is not 
> dualistic.  There is no subject/object pair created.
> 
> The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> understanding and more time than I have right now..."  Direct experience of 
> reality is NOT complex.  It is the most simple thing you can do.  You just 
> have to quit THINKING about it.  It's the THINKING that's complex, not the 
> experience.  'Understanding' is not the key.  EXPERIENCING is the key and it 
> doesn't require a lot of time to do.  EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very 
> simple.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> >   some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to break 
> > through..a stick would not do...merle
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > Kristopher,
> > 
> > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality differently 
> > each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there 
> > is no reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other 
> > This is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time 
> > than I have right now...
> > 
> > 
> > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering in 
> > his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by approaching 
> > Zen
> > 
> > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
> > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness and 
> > a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
> > 
> > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, but 
> > my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a favor by 
> > pointing out how we might each do better and that we should all be free and 
> > open in exchanging and receiving such insights.
> > 
> > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all in 
> > that respect and we should all take her lead on this..
> > 
> > 
> > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by 
> > directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of all 
> > things really really here right now in the present moment it can be said to 
> > reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of the seeker...
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> > 
> >   
> > >
> > >
> > >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not the 
> > >Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical construct 
> > >in your head. If you think 

[Zen] Re: breaking through

[Bill!]

Edgar and Merle,

First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
posted.  That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
structure'.  Mea culpa.

Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure.  Structure defines and 
limits.  The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like reality, 
like chaos.

Reality does not include illusions.  Reality does not support illusions.  
Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.  
Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.

Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)

1
a obsolete : the action of deceiving
b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
2
a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
deceives or misleads intellectually
b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause 
misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a pattern 
capable of reversible perspective

Reality has no boundaries.  Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
boundaries - like structure and logic.

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill! and Merle,
> 
> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
> structure."
> 
> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is closed 
> and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... Thus it 
> imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> >  i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... 
> > merle
> >  
> > Merle,
> > 
> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. It 
> > might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
> > closed boundary nonetheless.
> > 
> > Edgar,
> > 
> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> > 
> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a complex 
> > subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I have right 
> > now...
> > 
> > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> > 
> > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it is 
> > a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is not 
> > dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> > 
> > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience of 
> > reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You just 
> > have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, not the 
> > experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the key and it 
> > doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very 
> > simple.
> > 
> > ...Bill! 
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Â  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to break 
> > > through..a stick would not do...merle
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Â  
> > > Kristopher,
> > > 
> > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality differently 
> > > each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there 
> > > is no reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other 
> > > This is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more 
> > > time than I have right now...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering 
> > > in his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by 
> > > approaching Zen
> > > 
> > > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
> > > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness 
> > > and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
> > > 
> > > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, 
> > > but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a 
> > > favor by pointing out how we might each do better and that we should all 
> > > be free and open in exchanging and receiving such insights.
> > > 
> > > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all in 
> > > that respect and we should all take her lead on this..
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by 
> > > directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of all 
> > > things really really here right

[Zen] Re: breaking through

[Bill!]

Edgar and Merle,

To think dualistically is to think that reality has parts, like has a part 
which is called illusion.  Holistic (non-dualistic) experience (not thinking) 
reveals only One - and that can be called Reality, or Buddha Nature or Just 
THIS!

I do agree with Edgar that self/not-self is an illusion and before that duality 
is created there is simply experience - what I call reality, Buddha Nature, 
Just THIS!.

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill! and Merle,
> 
> It's Bill! that thinks dualistically because he separates illusion from 
> reality. I understand illusion is part of reality which is a unity. That is 
> NOT dualistic.
> 
> I think we may agree however that the dualistic separation between self and 
> not self is an illusion since antecedent to both there is simply experience, 
> which only then becomes categorized in many ways including into self not self.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > Merle,
> > 
> > I say he is in error, but that really depends on your perspective. He's 
> > talking about reality from a dualistic point-of-view. That's okay for 
> > scientists and philosophers, and is the way we all usually perceive things 
> > - dualistically. That means there's a subject/object split. The most 
> > personal dualism we create is the concept of 'self'. We think of ourselves 
> > as having an individual and unique 'self' that is separate from everything 
> > else. I call that the self/other split or dualism. Edgar's words below 
> > (which are representative of most of his posts) are based on that dualistic 
> > view.
> > 
> > Zen training is a process of halting the creation of dualism, like self, 
> > 'realizing' (making real, NOT 'understanding') that all products of 
> > dualistic thought are illusory coming from your dualistic, discriminating, 
> > rational mind. (The same one that creates the illusion of logic.)
> > 
> > When you halt this seemingly continual process of the generation of 
> > illusions you are then able to experience (NOT understand) reality 
> > directly. That is called Buddha Nature.
> > 
> > I've read a lot of Edgar's suggestions to you and believe many of them are 
> > very good and I'm sure very helpful - but they're not zen, they're not 
> > useful in leading you to a point where you can experience Buddha Nature.
> > 
> > Of course all this is my opinion. Edgar has a different opinion.
> > 
> > ...Bill! 
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Â i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
> > > error?... merle
> > > Â  
> > > Merle,
> > > 
> > > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. 
> > > It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
> > > closed boundary nonetheless.
> > > 
> > > Edgar,
> > > 
> > > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> > > 
> > > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> > > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> > > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
> > > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
> > > have right now...
> > > 
> > > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> > > 
> > > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> > > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it 
> > > is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is 
> > > not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> > > 
> > > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> > > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience 
> > > of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You 
> > > just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, 
> > > not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the 
> > > key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate 
> > > and very, very simple.
> > > 
> > > ...Bill! 
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to 
> > > > break through..a stick would not do...merle
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > Kristopher,
> > > > 
> > > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
> > > > differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
> > > > deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> > > > observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> > > > understanding and more time than I have right now...
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering 
> > > > in his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by 
> > 

[Zen] Re: breaking through

[Bill!]

Edgar,

America might have 50 shades of grey, but the Republican Convention was all 
white...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Kristopher,
> 
> In America there are now 50 shades of grey!
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> 
> > One say black and white make grey
> > One says white and black
> > There's only grey
> > 
> > KG
> > 
> > 
> > On 9/5/2012 7:01 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> >> 
> >> Bill! and Merle,
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
> >> structure."
> >> 
> >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
> >> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
> >> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... 
> >> Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
> >> 
> >> Edgar
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... 
> >>> merle
> >>> Merle,
> >>> 
> >>> It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. 
> >>> It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
> >>> closed boundary nonetheless.
> >>> 
> >>> Edgar,
> >>> 
> >>> You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> >>> 
> >>> "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> >>> internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> >>> except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
> >>> complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
> >>> have right now...
> >>> 
> >>> Your errors (IMO) are two:
> >>> 
> >>> One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> >>> observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it 
> >>> is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is 
> >>> not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> >>> 
> >>> The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> >>> understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience 
> >>> of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You 
> >>> just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, 
> >>> not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the 
> >>> key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate 
> >>> and very, very simple.
> >>> 
> >>> ...Bill!
> >>> 
> >>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
> >>> Merle Lester  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Â  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to 
> >>> > break through..a stick would not do...merle
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Â
> >>> > Kristopher,
> >>> >
> >>> > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
> >>> > differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
> >>> > deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> >>> > observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> >>> > understanding and more time than I have right now...
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering 
> >>> > in his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by 
> >>> > approaching Zen
> >>> >
> >>> > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
> >>> > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness 
> >>> > and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
> >>> >
> >>> > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, 
> >>> > but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a 
> >>> > favor by pointing out how we might each do better and that we should 
> >>> > all be free and open in exchanging and receiving such insights.
> >>> >
> >>> > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all 
> >>> > in that respect and we should all take her lead on this..
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by 
> >>> > directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of 
> >>> > all things really really here right now in the present moment it can be 
> >>> > said to reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of the 
> >>> > seeker...
> >>> >
> >>> > Edgar
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Â
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not the 
> >>> > >Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical 
> >>> > >construct in your head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you 
> >>> > >will logically think Bill! to be illogical.

[Zen] Re: breaking through

[Bill!]

Merle,

Life has no purpose.  If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
there.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> 
> 
> Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
> we'd all be dead!
> 
> That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> 
> Sheeesh!
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
>   
> >Edgar and Merle,
> >
> >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
> >posted.  That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
> >structure'.  Mea culpa.
> >
> >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure.  Structure defines and 
> >limits.  The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
> >reality, like chaos.
> >
> >Reality does not include illusions.  Reality does not support illusions.  
> >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.  
> >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> >
> >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> >
> >1
> >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
> >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> >2
> >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
> >deceives or misleads intellectually
> >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
> >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a 
> >pattern capable of reversible perspective
> >
> >Reality has no boundaries.  Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
> >boundaries - like structure and logic.
> >
> >...Bill! 
> >
> >--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill! and Merle,
> >> 
> >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
> >> structure."
> >> 
> >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
> >> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
> >> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... 
> >> Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
> >> 
> >> Edgar
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >  i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
> >> > error?... merle
> >> > 
> >> > Merle,
> >> > 
> >> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. 
> >> > It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
> >> > closed boundary nonetheless.
> >> > 
> >> > Edgar,
> >> > 
> >> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> >> > 
> >> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> >> > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> >> > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
> >> > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
> >> > have right now...
> >> > 
> >> > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> >> > 
> >> > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> >> > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it 
> >> > is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) 
> >> > is not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> >> > 
> >> > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> >> > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience 
> >> > of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You 
> >> > just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, 
> >> > not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the 
> >> > key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate 
> >> > and very, very simple.
> >> > 
> >> > ...Bill! 
> >> > 
> >> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Â  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to 
> >> > > break through..a stick would not do...merle
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Â 
> >> > > Kristopher,
> >> > > 
> >> > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
> >> > > differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
> >> > > deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> >> > > observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> >> > > understanding and more time than I have right now...
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and 
> >> > > suffering in his life and made considerable strides in transcending 
> >> > > that by approaching Zen
> >> > > 

[Zen] Re: breaking through

[billsmart]

Edgar, Edgar, Edgar...

Qualities to not evolve for a purpose.  That would be engineering, not 
evolution.  New qualities appear primarily by random mutation.  If the quality 
is advantageous (gives the organism an advantage over competing organisms) or 
at least is not a disadvantage it is likely it will be passed on to succeeding 
generations.  If it is a disadvantage it is less likely that it will be passed 
on to succeeding generations.

There is no purpose here, as in there is no goal.  There is only selection 
based on survive-ability.

That's the theory anyway...

...Bill!   

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Mike and Merle and Bill!
> 
> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
> certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
> 
> Most arguments are about definitions...
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Merle,
> > 
> > Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
> > super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the heart is 
> > also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood. All our 
> > vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore deserve 
> > the title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, 
> > and even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even 
> > bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't 
> > have any control over these organs - they just function without any 
> > input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to 
> > the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find 
> > that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way 
> > around.
> > 
> > Mike
> > From: Merle Lester 
> > To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> > 
> >  
> > the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Merle,
> > 
> > Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
> > there.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
> > > cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and 
> > > chaotic we'd all be dead!
> > > 
> > > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> > > 
> > > Sheeesh!
> > > 
> > > Edgar
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > 
> > > Â  
> > > >Edgar and Merle,
> > > >
> > > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after 
> > > >I posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
> > > >structure'. Mea culpa.
> > > >
> > > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines 
> > > >and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
> > > >reality, like chaos.
> > > >
> > > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions. 
> > > >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real. 
> > > >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> > > >
> > > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> > > >
> > > >1
> > > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> > > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
> > > >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> > > >2
> > > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
> > > >deceives or misleads intellectually
> > > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
> > > >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : 
> > > >a pattern capable of reversible perspective
> > > >
> >

[Zen] Re: breaking through

[Bill!]

Edgar,

I'm very happy to drop this thread, but I didn't see it as a thread focusing on 
biology or even evolution.  If it is then yes, it belongs in some other forum.

However, since I ASSUME that on this Zen Forum that everything someone posts 
has something to do with zen, or their idea of zen, or at least is zen-related 
I saw this as a post about 'purpose'.  Purpose to me implies structure, and 
(I'll bet you can guess what comes next) structure implies illusion.  That's 
how I approached this thread.

I'm just saying...

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill!,
> 
> Yes I understand all that fine but purpose does not imply a goal, it has to 
> do with function.
> 
> The purpose of the heart is to pump blood through the body thus sustaining 
> life.
> 
> However I really don't want to get into arguing over biology on this group. I 
> do plenty of that on other groups as Merle knows well...
> 
> Can we drop this thread now?
> 
> PLease?
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:34 AM, billsmart wrote:
> 
> > Edgar, Edgar, Edgar...
> > 
> > Qualities to not evolve for a purpose.  That would be engineering, not 
> > evolution.  New qualities appear primarily by random mutation.  If the 
> > quality is advantageous (gives the organism an advantage over competing 
> > organisms) or at least is not a disadvantage it is likely it will be passed 
> > on to succeeding generations.  If it is a disadvantage it is less likely 
> > that it will be passed on to succeeding generations.
> > 
> > There is no purpose here, as in there is no goal.  There is only selection 
> > based on survive-ability.
> > 
> > That's the theory anyway...
> > 
> > ...Bill!   
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >> 
> >> Mike and Merle and Bill!
> >> 
> >> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart 
> >> is certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
> >> 
> >> Most arguments are about definitions...
> >> 
> >> Edgar
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Merle,
> >>> 
> >>> Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something 
> >>> we've super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the 
> >>> heart is also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated 
> >>> blood. All our vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and 
> >>> therefore deserve the title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is 
> >>> a holistic picture, and even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to 
> >>> keep us alive - even bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' 
> >>> (in terms of ego) don't have any control over these organs - they just 
> >>> function without any input/control from us at all (just try holding your 
> >>> breath or not going to the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the 
> >>> breath you'll often find that it feels like the universe is breathing us, 
> >>> rather than the other way around.
> >>> 
> >>> Mike
> >>> From: Merle Lester 
> >>> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
> >>> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
> >>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Merle,
> >>> 
> >>> Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting 
> >>> that there.
> >>> 
> >>> ...Bill!
> >>> 
> >>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
> >>>> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and 
> >>>> chaotic we'd all be dead!
> >>>> 
> >>>> That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> >>>> 
> >>>

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Merle Lester]

 i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... merle
  
Merle,

It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'.  It's been closed in my structure.  It 
might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a closed 
boundary nonetheless.

Edgar,

You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:

"...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own internal 
simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality except as it is 
experienced by some observer or other This is a complex subject that 
requires a deep understanding and more time than I have right now...

Your errors (IMO) are two:

One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
observer or other..."  What you are talking about here is not reality, it is a 
PERCEPTION of reality.  Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is not 
dualistic.  There is no subject/object pair created.

The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding 
and more time than I have right now..."  Direct experience of reality is NOT 
complex.  It is the most simple thing you can do.  You just have to quit 
THINKING about it.  It's the THINKING that's complex, not the experience.  
'Understanding' is not the key.  EXPERIENCING is the key and it doesn't require 
a lot of time to do.  EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very simple.

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>   some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to break 
> through..a stick would not do...merle
> 
> 
>   
> Kristopher,
> 
> Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality differently 
> each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is 
> no reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is 
> a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
> have right now...
> 
> 
> Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering in 
> his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by approaching 
> Zen
> 
> However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
> attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness and a 
> feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
> 
> Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, but 
> my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a favor by 
> pointing out how we might each do better and that we should all be free and 
> open in exchanging and receiving such insights.
> 
> Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all in that 
> respect and we should all take her lead on this..
> 
> 
> Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by directly 
> realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of all things really 
> really here right now in the present moment it can be said to reveal the 
> ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of the seeker...
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> 
>   
> >
> >
> >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not the Bill! 
> >who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical construct in your 
> >head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you will logically think Bill! 
> >to be illogical. You will see what you think is Bill!'s error. If you think 
> >them apart, you make the same error for him.
> >
> >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of him, no
>   other can be known. There is no difference.
> >
> >Same goes for 'Zen'
> >
> >KG
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> >
> >  
> >>Bill!,
> >>
> >>Bill! claims logic is NOT Zen...
> >>
> >>Bill! says he uses logic in his daily life...
> >>
> >>Therefore Bill must believe he CANNOT have Zen in his
>   daily life...
> >>
> >>This is a serious error...
> >>
> >>Zen is 24/7 whether one is using logic or sitting
>   mindlessly.
> >>
> >>It is a fundamental error to believe only mindless sitting
>   is Zen. That's mistaking a particular meditative state for
>   Zen.
> >>
> >>There is no part of reality that is not Buddha Nature.
>   Illusion is part of reality and thus is a manifestation of
>   Buddha Nature.
> >>
> >>Realization is seeing the illusion that is part of reality
>   as illusion rather than the fake reality it pretends to
>   be
> >>
> >>When Bill! understands that logic is part of reality and
>   thus like everything else is a form manifesting Buddha
>   Nature rather than something contrary to and apart from
>   Buddha Nature, then and only then will Bill! allow himself
>   to completely realize Zen in his daily life as well as
>   when he is sitting mindlessly.

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

Bill! and Merle,

I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
structure."

And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is closed 
and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... Thus it 
imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:

> 
> 
>  i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... 
> merle
>  
> Merle,
> 
> It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. It 
> might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a closed 
> boundary nonetheless.
> 
> Edgar,
> 
> You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> 
> "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own internal 
> simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality except as it is 
> experienced by some observer or other This is a complex subject that 
> requires a deep understanding and more time than I have right now...
> 
> Your errors (IMO) are two:
> 
> One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it is a 
> PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is not 
> dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> 
> The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience of 
> reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You just have 
> to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, not the 
> experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the key and it 
> doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very 
> simple.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Â  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to break 
> > through..a stick would not do...merle
> > 
> > 
> > Â  
> > Kristopher,
> > 
> > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality differently 
> > each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there 
> > is no reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other 
> > This is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time 
> > than I have right now...
> > 
> > 
> > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering in 
> > his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by approaching 
> > Zen
> > 
> > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
> > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness and 
> > a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
> > 
> > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, but 
> > my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a favor by 
> > pointing out how we might each do better and that we should all be free and 
> > open in exchanging and receiving such insights.
> > 
> > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all in 
> > that respect and we should all take her lead on this..
> > 
> > 
> > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by 
> > directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of all 
> > things really really here right now in the present moment it can be said to 
> > reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of the seeker...
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> > 
> > Â  
> > >
> > >
> > >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not the 
> > >Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical construct 
> > >in your head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you will logically 
> > >think Bill! to be illogical. You will see what you think is Bill!'s error. 
> > >If you think them apart, you make the same error for him.
> > >
> > >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of him, no
> > other can be known. There is no difference.
> > >
> > >Same goes for 'Zen'
> > >
> > >KG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> > >
> > >Â  
> > >>Bill!,
> > >>
> > >>Bill! claims logic is NOT Zen...
> > >>
> > >>Bill! says he uses logic in his daily life...
> > >>
> > >>Therefore Bill must believe he CANNOT have Zen in his
> > daily life...
> > >>
> > >>This is a serious error...
> > >>
> > >>Zen is 24/7 whether one is using logic or sitting
> > mindlessly.
> > >>
> > >>It is a fundamental error to believe only mindless sitting
> > is Zen. That's mistaking a particular meditative state for
> > Zen.
> > >>
> > >>There is no part of reality that is not Buddha Nature.
> > Illusion is part of reality and thus is a man

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

Bill! and Merle,

It's Bill! that thinks dualistically because he separates illusion from 
reality. I understand illusion is part of reality which is a unity. That is NOT 
dualistic.

I think we may agree however that the dualistic separation between self and not 
self is an illusion since antecedent to both there is simply experience, which 
only then becomes categorized in many ways including into self not self.

Edgar


On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Merle,
> 
> I say he is in error, but that really depends on your perspective. He's 
> talking about reality from a dualistic point-of-view. That's okay for 
> scientists and philosophers, and is the way we all usually perceive things - 
> dualistically. That means there's a subject/object split. The most personal 
> dualism we create is the concept of 'self'. We think of ourselves as having 
> an individual and unique 'self' that is separate from everything else. I call 
> that the self/other split or dualism. Edgar's words below (which are 
> representative of most of his posts) are based on that dualistic view.
> 
> Zen training is a process of halting the creation of dualism, like self, 
> 'realizing' (making real, NOT 'understanding') that all products of dualistic 
> thought are illusory coming from your dualistic, discriminating, rational 
> mind. (The same one that creates the illusion of logic.)
> 
> When you halt this seemingly continual process of the generation of illusions 
> you are then able to experience (NOT understand) reality directly. That is 
> called Buddha Nature.
> 
> I've read a lot of Edgar's suggestions to you and believe many of them are 
> very good and I'm sure very helpful - but they're not zen, they're not useful 
> in leading you to a point where you can experience Buddha Nature.
> 
> Of course all this is my opinion. Edgar has a different opinion.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Â i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... 
> > merle
> > Â  
> > Merle,
> > 
> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. It 
> > might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
> > closed boundary nonetheless.
> > 
> > Edgar,
> > 
> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> > 
> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a complex 
> > subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I have right 
> > now...
> > 
> > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> > 
> > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it is 
> > a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is not 
> > dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> > 
> > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience of 
> > reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You just 
> > have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, not the 
> > experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the key and it 
> > doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very 
> > simple.
> > 
> > ...Bill! 
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to 
> > > break through..a stick would not do...merle
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > Kristopher,
> > > 
> > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality differently 
> > > each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there 
> > > is no reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other 
> > > This is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more 
> > > time than I have right now...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering 
> > > in his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by 
> > > approaching Zen
> > > 
> > > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
> > > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness 
> > > and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
> > > 
> > > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, 
> > > but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a 
> > > favor by pointing out how we might each do better and that we should all 
> > > be free and open in exchanging and receiving such insights.
> > > 
> > > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all in 
> > > that respect and we should all take her 

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Kristopher Grey]

One say black and white make grey
One says white and black
There's only grey

KG


On 9/5/2012 7:01 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Bill! and Merle,


I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in 
HIS structure."


And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it 
includes everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s 
theory that is closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as 
part of reality... Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually 
exist...


Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:




 i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
error?... merle

Merle,

It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my 
structure. It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive 
structure, but it's a closed boundary nonetheless.


Edgar,

You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:

"...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than 
I have right now...


Your errors (IMO) are two:

One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by 
some observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not 
reality, it is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality 
(Buddha Nature) is not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair 
created.


The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct 
experience of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you 
can do. You just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING 
that's complex, not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. 
EXPERIENCING is the key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. 
EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very simple.


...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
, Merle Lester  
wrote:

>
>
>
> Â  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to 
break through..a stick would not do...merle

>
>
> Â
> Kristopher,
>
> Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
understanding and more time than I have right now...

>
>
> Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and 
suffering in his life and made considerable strides in transcending 
that by approaching Zen

>
> However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a 
particular attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, 
hopelessness and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which 
really isn't Zen.

>
> Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is 
perfect, but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do 
each other a favor by pointing out how we might each do better and 
that we should all be free and open in exchanging and receiving such 
insights.

>
> Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us 
all in that respect and we should all take her lead on this..

>
>
> Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by 
directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of 
all things really really here right now in the present moment it can 
be said to reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of 
the seeker...

>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
>
> Â
> >
> >
> >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not 
the Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical 
construct in your head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you 
will logically think Bill! to be illogical. You will see what you 
think is Bill!'s error. If you think them apart, you make the same 
error for him.

> >
> >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of him, no
> other can be known. There is no difference.
> >
> >Same goes for 'Zen'
> >
> >KG
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> >
> >Â
> >>Bill!,
> >>
> >>Bill! claims logic is NOT Zen...
> >>
> >>Bill! says he uses logic in his daily life...
> >>
> >>Therefore Bill must believe he CANNOT have Zen in his
> daily life...
> >>
> >>This is a serious error...
> >>
> >>Zen is 24/7 whether one is using logic or sitting
> mindlessly.
> >>
> >>It is a fundamental error to believe only mindless sitting
> is Zen. That's mistaking a particular meditative state for
> Zen.
> >>
> >>There is no part of reality that is not Buddha Nature.
> Illusion is part of reality and thus is a manifestation of
> Buddha Nature.
> >>
> >>Realization is seeing the illusion that is part of reality
> as illusion rather than the fake real

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Kristopher Grey]

MU!

All thinking appears dual. Get over it.

KG

On 9/5/2012 7:32 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Bill! and Merle,


It's Bill! that thinks dualistically because he separates illusion 
from reality. I understand illusion is part of reality which is a 
unity. That is NOT dualistic.


I think we may agree however that the dualistic separation between 
self and not self is an illusion since antecedent to both there is 
simply experience, which only then becomes categorized in many ways 
including into self not self.


Edgar


On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Bill! wrote:


Merle,

I say he is in error, but that really depends on your perspective. 
He's talking about reality from a dualistic point-of-view. That's 
okay for scientists and philosophers, and is the way we all usually 
perceive things - dualistically. That means there's a subject/object 
split. The most personal dualism we create is the concept of 'self'. 
We think of ourselves as having an individual and unique 'self' that 
is separate from everything else. I call that the self/other split or 
dualism. Edgar's words below (which are representative of most of his 
posts) are based on that dualistic view.


Zen training is a process of halting the creation of dualism, like 
self, 'realizing' (making real, NOT 'understanding') that all 
products of dualistic thought are illusory coming from your 
dualistic, discriminating, rational mind. (The same one that creates 
the illusion of logic.)


When you halt this seemingly continual process of the generation of 
illusions you are then able to experience (NOT understand) reality 
directly. That is called Buddha Nature.


I've read a lot of Edgar's suggestions to you and believe many of 
them are very good and I'm sure very helpful - but they're not zen, 
they're not useful in leading you to a point where you can experience 
Buddha Nature.


Of course all this is my opinion. Edgar has a different opinion.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
, Merle Lester  
wrote:

>
>
>
> Â i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
error?... merle

> Â
> Merle,
>
> It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my 
structure. It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive 
structure, but it's a closed boundary nonetheless.

>
> Edgar,
>
> You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
>
> "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than 
I have right now...

>
> Your errors (IMO) are two:
>
> One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by 
some observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not 
reality, it is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality 
(Buddha Nature) is not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair 
created.

>
> The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct 
experience of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you 
can do. You just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING 
that's complex, not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. 
EXPERIENCING is the key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. 
EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very simple.

>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
, Merle Lester  wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> >   some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer 
to break through..a stick would not do...merle

> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Kristopher,
> >
> > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
understanding and more time than I have right now...

> >
> >
> > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and 
suffering in his life and made considerable strides in transcending 
that by approaching Zen

> >
> > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a 
particular attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, 
hopelessness and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which 
really isn't Zen.

> >
> > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is 
perfect, but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do 
each other a favor by pointing out how we might each do better and 
that we should all be free and open in exchanging and receiving such 
insights.

> >
> > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us 
all in that respect and we should all take her lead on this..

> >
> >
> > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary 
by directly realizing a

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

Bill!,

Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
we'd all be dead!

That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!

Sheeesh!

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar and Merle,
> 
> First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
> posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
> structure'. Mea culpa.
> 
> Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines and 
> limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like reality, 
> like chaos.
> 
> Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions. 
> Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real. 
> Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> 
> Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> 
> 1
> a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
> misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> 2
> a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
> deceives or misleads intellectually
> b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
> cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a 
> pattern capable of reversible perspective
> 
> Reality has no boundaries. Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
> boundaries - like structure and logic.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Bill! and Merle,
> > 
> > I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
> > structure."
> > 
> > And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
> > everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
> > closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... 
> > Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... 
> > > merle
> > > 
> > > Merle,
> > > 
> > > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. 
> > > It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
> > > closed boundary nonetheless.
> > > 
> > > Edgar,
> > > 
> > > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> > > 
> > > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> > > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> > > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
> > > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
> > > have right now...
> > > 
> > > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> > > 
> > > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> > > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it 
> > > is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is 
> > > not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> > > 
> > > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> > > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience 
> > > of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You 
> > > just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, 
> > > not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the 
> > > key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate 
> > > and very, very simple.
> > > 
> > > ...Bill! 
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Â some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to break 
> > > > through..a stick would not do...merle
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Â 
> > > > Kristopher,
> > > > 
> > > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
> > > > differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
> > > > deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> > > > observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> > > > understanding and more time than I have right now...
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering 
> > > > in his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by 
> > > > approaching Zen
> > > > 
> > > > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
> > > > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness 
> > > > and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
> > > > 
> > > > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, 
> > > > but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a 
> > > > favor by pointing out how we might e

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

Bill!,

Your first sentence is actually correct and is what I've been trying to tell 
you ad infinitum! 

However it contradicts most of what you say

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar and Merle,
> 
> To think dualistically is to think that reality has parts, like has a part 
> which is called illusion. Holistic (non-dualistic) experience (not thinking) 
> reveals only One - and that can be called Reality, or Buddha Nature or Just 
> THIS!
> 
> I do agree with Edgar that self/not-self is an illusion and before that 
> duality is created there is simply experience - what I call reality, Buddha 
> Nature, Just THIS!.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Bill! and Merle,
> > 
> > It's Bill! that thinks dualistically because he separates illusion from 
> > reality. I understand illusion is part of reality which is a unity. That is 
> > NOT dualistic.
> > 
> > I think we may agree however that the dualistic separation between self and 
> > not self is an illusion since antecedent to both there is simply 
> > experience, which only then becomes categorized in many ways including into 
> > self not self.
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > Merle,
> > > 
> > > I say he is in error, but that really depends on your perspective. He's 
> > > talking about reality from a dualistic point-of-view. That's okay for 
> > > scientists and philosophers, and is the way we all usually perceive 
> > > things - dualistically. That means there's a subject/object split. The 
> > > most personal dualism we create is the concept of 'self'. We think of 
> > > ourselves as having an individual and unique 'self' that is separate from 
> > > everything else. I call that the self/other split or dualism. Edgar's 
> > > words below (which are representative of most of his posts) are based on 
> > > that dualistic view.
> > > 
> > > Zen training is a process of halting the creation of dualism, like self, 
> > > 'realizing' (making real, NOT 'understanding') that all products of 
> > > dualistic thought are illusory coming from your dualistic, 
> > > discriminating, rational mind. (The same one that creates the illusion of 
> > > logic.)
> > > 
> > > When you halt this seemingly continual process of the generation of 
> > > illusions you are then able to experience (NOT understand) reality 
> > > directly. That is called Buddha Nature.
> > > 
> > > I've read a lot of Edgar's suggestions to you and believe many of them 
> > > are very good and I'm sure very helpful - but they're not zen, they're 
> > > not useful in leading you to a point where you can experience Buddha 
> > > Nature.
> > > 
> > > Of course all this is my opinion. Edgar has a different opinion.
> > > 
> > > ...Bill! 
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Â i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
> > > > error?... merle
> > > > Â 
> > > > Merle,
> > > > 
> > > > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my 
> > > > structure. It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive 
> > > > structure, but it's a closed boundary nonetheless.
> > > > 
> > > > Edgar,
> > > > 
> > > > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> > > > 
> > > > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> > > > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> > > > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
> > > > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
> > > > have right now...
> > > > 
> > > > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> > > > 
> > > > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> > > > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, 
> > > > it is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha 
> > > > Nature) is not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> > > > 
> > > > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> > > > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience 
> > > > of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You 
> > > > just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, 
> > > > not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the 
> > > > key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate 
> > > > and very, very simple.
> > > > 
> > > > ...Bill! 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to 
> > > > > break through..a stick would not do...merle
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > Kristopher,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
> > > > > differently each i

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

Kristopher,

In America there are now 50 shades of grey!

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:

> One say black and white make grey
> One says white and black
> There's only grey
> 
> KG
> 
> 
> On 9/5/2012 7:01 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>> 
>> Bill! and Merle,
>> 
>> 
>> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
>> structure."
>> 
>> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
>> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
>> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... Thus 
>> it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
>> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... 
>>> merle
>>> Merle,
>>> 
>>> It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. It 
>>> might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
>>> closed boundary nonetheless.
>>> 
>>> Edgar,
>>> 
>>> You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
>>> 
>>> "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
>>> internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
>>> except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a complex 
>>> subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I have right 
>>> now...
>>> 
>>> Your errors (IMO) are two:
>>> 
>>> One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
>>> observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it is 
>>> a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is not 
>>> dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
>>> 
>>> The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
>>> understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience of 
>>> reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You just 
>>> have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, not the 
>>> experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the key and it 
>>> doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very 
>>> simple.
>>> 
>>> ...Bill!
>>> 
>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
>>> Merle Lester  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Â  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to break 
>>> > through..a stick would not do...merle
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Â
>>> > Kristopher,
>>> >
>>> > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality differently 
>>> > each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there 
>>> > is no reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other 
>>> > This is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more 
>>> > time than I have right now...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering 
>>> > in his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by 
>>> > approaching Zen
>>> >
>>> > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
>>> > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness 
>>> > and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
>>> >
>>> > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, 
>>> > but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a 
>>> > favor by pointing out how we might each do better and that we should all 
>>> > be free and open in exchanging and receiving such insights.
>>> >
>>> > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us all in 
>>> > that respect and we should all take her lead on this..
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by 
>>> > directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of all 
>>> > things really really here right now in the present moment it can be said 
>>> > to reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of the seeker...
>>> >
>>> > Edgar
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Â
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not the 
>>> > >Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical construct 
>>> > >in your head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you will logically 
>>> > >think Bill! to be illogical. You will see what you think is Bill!'s 
>>> > >error. If you think them apart, you make the same error for him.
>>> > >
>>> > >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of him, no
>>> > other can be known. There is no difference.
>>> > >
>>> > >Same goes for 'Zen'
>>> > >
>>> > >KG
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >Â
>>> > >>Bill!,
>>> > >>
>>> > >>Bill! claim

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Kristopher Grey]

Infinite discriminations can me made. Discernment reveals the obvious.

KG

PS - that last line was supposed to read: :There's only greyness" - but 
just a subtle difference, a worthless discrimination.


On 9/5/2012 10:22 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Kristopher,

In America there are now 50 shades of grey!

Edgar

On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:

> One say black and white make grey
> One says white and black
> There's only grey
>
> KG
>
>
> On 9/5/2012 7:01 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>>
>> Bill! and Merle,
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed 
in HIS structure."

>>
>> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it 
includes everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s 
theory that is closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as 
part of reality... Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually 
exist...

>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
error?... merle

>>> Merle,
>>>
>>> It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my 
structure. It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive 
structure, but it's a closed boundary nonetheless.

>>>
>>> Edgar,
>>>
>>> You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
>>>
>>> "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their 
own internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no 
reality except as it is experienced by some observer or other This 
is a complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time 
than I have right now...

>>>
>>> Your errors (IMO) are two:
>>>
>>> One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by 
some observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not 
reality, it is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality 
(Buddha Nature) is not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.

>>>
>>> The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct 
experience of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you 
can do. You just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING 
that's complex, not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. 
EXPERIENCING is the key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. 
EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very simple.

>>>
>>> ...Bill!
>>>
>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
 
, Merle Lester  
wrote:

>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Â some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer 
to break through..a stick would not do...merle

>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Â
>>> > Kristopher,
>>> >
>>> > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
understanding and more time than I have right now...

>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and 
suffering in his life and made considerable strides in transcending 
that by approaching Zen

>>> >
>>> > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a 
particular attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, 
hopelessness and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which 
really isn't Zen.

>>> >
>>> > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is 
perfect, but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do 
each other a favor by pointing out how we might each do better and 
that we should all be free and open in exchanging and receiving such 
insights.

>>> >
>>> > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for 
us all in that respect and we should all take her lead on this..

>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary 
by directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality 
of all things really really here right now in the present moment it 
can be said to reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus 
of the seeker...

>>> >
>>> > Edgar
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Â
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. 
Not the Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical 
construct in your head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you 
will logically think Bill! to be illogical. You will see what you 
think is Bill!'s error. If you think them apart, you make the same 
error for him.

>>> > >
>>> > >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of him, no
>>> > other can be known. There is no difference.
>>> > >
>>> > >Same goes for 'Zen'
>>> > >
>>> > >KG
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, 

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Merle Lester]

 bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a cell...and 
it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle


Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
we'd all be dead!

That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!

Sheeesh!

Edgar




On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:

  
>Edgar and Merle,
>
>First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
>posted.  That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
>structure'.  Mea culpa.
>
>Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure.  Structure defines and 
>limits.  The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like reality, 
>like chaos.
>
>Reality does not include illusions.  Reality does not support illusions.  
>Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.  
>Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
>
>Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
>
>1
>a obsolete : the action of deceiving
>b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
>misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
>2
>a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
>deceives or misleads intellectually
>b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause 
>misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a pattern 
>capable of reversible perspective
>
>Reality has no boundaries.  Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
>boundaries - like structure and logic.
>
>...Bill! 
>
>--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Bill! and Merle,
>> 
>> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
>> structure."
>> 
>> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
>> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
>> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... Thus 
>> it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
>> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in error?... 
>> > merle
>> > 
>> > Merle,
>> > 
>> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. 
>> > It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
>> > closed boundary nonetheless.
>> > 
>> > Edgar,
>> > 
>> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
>> > 
>> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
>> > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
>> > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
>> > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
>> > have right now...
>> > 
>> > Your errors (IMO) are two:
>> > 
>> > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
>> > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it 
>> > is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) is 
>> > not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
>> > 
>> > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
>> > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience of 
>> > reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You just 
>> > have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, not the 
>> > experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the key and it 
>> > doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, 
>> > very simple.
>> > 
>> > ...Bill! 
>> > 
>> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Â  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to break 
>> > > through..a stick would not do...merle
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Â 
>> > > Kristopher,
>> > > 
>> > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
>> > > differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
>> > > deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
>> > > observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
>> > > understanding and more time than I have right now...
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and suffering 
>> > > in his life and made considerable strides in transcending that by 
>> > > approaching Zen
>> > > 
>> > > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a particular 
>> > > attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, hopelessness 
>> > > and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which really isn't Zen.
>> > > 
>> > > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is perfect, 
>> > > but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do each other a 
>> > > favor by pointing

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Merle Lester]

the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
 



  
Merle,

Life has no purpose.  If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
there.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> 
> 
> Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
> we'd all be dead!
> 
> That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> 
> Sheeesh!
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
>   
> >Edgar and Merle,
> >
> >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
> >posted.  That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
> >structure'.  Mea culpa.
> >
> >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure.  Structure defines and 
> >limits.  The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
> >reality, like chaos.
> >
> >Reality does not include illusions.  Reality does not support illusions.  
> >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.  
> >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> >
> >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> >
> >1
> >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
> >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> >2
> >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
> >deceives or misleads intellectually
> >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
> >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a 
> >pattern capable of reversible perspective
> >
> >Reality has no boundaries.  Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
> >boundaries - like structure and logic.
> >
> >...Bill! 
> >
> >--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill! and Merle,
> >> 
> >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
> >> structure."
> >> 
> >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
> >> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
> >> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... 
> >> Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
> >> 
> >> Edgar
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >  i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
> >> > error?... merle
> >> > 
> >> > Merle,
> >> > 
> >> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. 
> >> > It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
> >> > closed boundary nonetheless.
> >> > 
> >> > Edgar,
> >> > 
> >> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> >> > 
> >> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> >> > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> >> > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
> >> > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than I 
> >> > have right now...
> >> > 
> >> > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> >> > 
> >> > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> >> > observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not reality, it 
> >> > is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality (Buddha Nature) 
> >> > is not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair created.
> >> > 
> >> > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> >> > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct experience 
> >> > of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you can do. You 
> >> > just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING that's complex, 
> >> > not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. EXPERIENCING is the 
> >> > key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. EXPERIENCE is immediate 
> >> > and very, very simple.
> >> > 
> >> > ...Bill! 
> >> > 
> >> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Â  some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to 
> >> > > break through..a stick would not do...merle
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Â 
> >> > > Kristopher,
> >> > > 
> >> > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality 
> >> > > differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a 
> >> > > deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some 
> >> > > observer or other This is a complex subject that requires a deep 
> >> > > understanding and more time than I have right now...
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and 
> >> > > suffering in his life and made consid

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[mike brown]

Merle,

Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the heart is also 
to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood. All our vital 
organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore deserve the title 
of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, and even the 
simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even bacteria!). It's 
also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't have any control 
over these organs - they just function without any input/control from us at all 
(just try holding your breath or not going to the loo!). If you really meditate 
and focus on the breath you'll often find that it feels like the universe is 
breathing us, rather than the other way around.


Mike



 From: Merle Lester 
To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
 

  
the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
 



  
Merle,

Life has no purpose.  If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
there.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> 
> 
> Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
> we'd all be dead!
> 
> That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> 
> Sheeesh!
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
>   
> >Edgar and Merle,
> >
> >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
> >posted.  That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
> >structure'.  Mea culpa.
> >
> >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure.  Structure defines and 
> >limits.  The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
> >reality, like chaos.
> >
> >Reality does not include illusions.  Reality does not support illusions.  
> >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.  
> >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> >
> >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> >
> >1
> >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
> >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> >2
> >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
> >deceives or misleads intellectually
> >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
> >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a 
> >pattern capable of reversible perspective
> >
> >Reality has no boundaries.  Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
> >boundaries - like structure and logic.
> >
> >...Bill! 
> >
> >--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill! and Merle,
> >> 
> >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in HIS 
> >> structure."
> >> 
> >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
> >> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
> >> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... 
> >> Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
> >> 
> >> Edgar
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >  i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
> >> > error?... merle
> >> > 
> >> > Merle,
> >> > 
> >> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my structure. 
> >> > It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive structure, but it's a 
> >> > closed boundary nonetheless.
> >> > 
> >> > Edgar,
> >> > 
> >> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> >> > 
> >> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> >> > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> >> > except a

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

Bill!

Both right and wrong in several different ways..

Life can have a purpose or not depending on what purpose you yourself give it. 
Purpose is not non-existent, it's relative.

If you give your life a purpose that purpose is real, but only so long as you 
realize it's a purpose you gave it... Nothing wrong with that... It can be 
admirable and fulfilling...

The statement "Life has no purpose." is a negative dualistic statement. It's an 
intellectual judgement. The correct understanding is that lives have purposes 
or not relative to who is making the call or not, and how they are defining 
'purpose'. The logical structure of reality is relative continually seen 
through the eyes of every observer

This is the first understanding


However the deep understanding is that the 'purpose' of life is realization. 
The 'purpose' of life is to realize yourself as a manifestation of Buddha 
Nature, as part of a universe of Buddha Nature. Thus the purpose of your 
individual existence becomes a fulfillment of the purpose of the universe, of 
the purpose of reality

The essence of Buddha Nature continually manifests itself through the world of 
forms and their laws of nature. The 'purpose' of life is to realize your 
existence as a direct manifestation of Buddha Nature in the world of forms in 
which we all exist 

Edgar




On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Bill! wrote:

> Merle,
> 
> Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
> there.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
> > cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> > 
> > 
> > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
> > we'd all be dead!
> > 
> > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> > 
> > Sheeesh!
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > Â  
> > >Edgar and Merle,
> > >
> > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
> > >posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
> > >structure'. Mea culpa.
> > >
> > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines 
> > >and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
> > >reality, like chaos.
> > >
> > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions. 
> > >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real. 
> > >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> > >
> > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> > >
> > >1
> > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
> > >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> > >2
> > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
> > >deceives or misleads intellectually
> > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
> > >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a 
> > >pattern capable of reversible perspective
> > >
> > >Reality has no boundaries. Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
> > >boundaries - like structure and logic.
> > >
> > >...Bill! 
> > >
> > >--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Bill! and Merle,
> > >> 
> > >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in 
> > >> HIS structure."
> > >> 
> > >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
> > >> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
> > >> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... 
> > >> Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
> > >> 
> > >> Edgar
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> > 
> > >> > 
> > >> > i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in 
> > >> > error?... merle
> > >> > 
> > >> > Merle,
> > >> > 
> > >> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my 
> > >> > structure. It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive 
> > >> > structure, but it's a closed boundary nonetheless.
> > >> > 
> > >> > Edgar,
> > >> > 
> > >> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG:
> > >> > 
> > >> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own 
> > >> > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality 
> > >> > except as it is experienced by some observer or other This is a 
> > >> > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than 
> > >> > I have right now...
> > >> > 
> > >> > Your errors (IMO) are two:
> > >> > 
> > >> > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by 
> > >> > some observer or other..." What you ar

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

Mike and Merle and Bill!

Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...

Most arguments are about definitions...

Edgar



On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:

> 
> Merle,
> 
> Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
> super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the heart is 
> also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood. All our 
> vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore deserve the 
> title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, and 
> even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even 
> bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't 
> have any control over these organs - they just function without any 
> input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to 
> the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find 
> that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way 
> around.
> 
> Mike
> From: Merle Lester 
> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> 
>  
> the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
>  
> 
> 
>  
> Merle,
> 
> Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
> there.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
> > cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> > 
> > 
> > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
> > we'd all be dead!
> > 
> > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> > 
> > Sheeesh!
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > Â  
> > >Edgar and Merle,
> > >
> > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
> > >posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
> > >structure'. Mea culpa.
> > >
> > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines 
> > >and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
> > >reality, like chaos.
> > >
> > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions. 
> > >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real. 
> > >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> > >
> > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> > >
> > >1
> > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
> > >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> > >2
> > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
> > >deceives or misleads intellectually
> > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
> > >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a 
> > >pattern capable of reversible perspective
> > >
> > >Reality has no boundaries. Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
> > >boundaries - like structure and logic.
> > >
> > >...Bill! 
> > >
> > >--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Bill! and Merle,
> > >> 
> > >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in 
> > >> HIS structure."
> > >> 
> > >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
> > >> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is 
> > >> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... 
> > >> Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist...
> > >> 
> > >> Edgar
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> > 
> > >> > 
> > >> > i understand what ed

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Chris Austin-Lane]

That's not true - the evolutionary purpose of a heart is to allow larger
organisms.  of course evolution is not really purpose driven, so it's more
fair to speak of function or perhaps.enabling adaptations. A suite of
changes allowing organisms to expand into niches needing larger size.

Not sure what this has to do with experiencing our life non-dually.
On Sep 6, 2012 6:54 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:

>
>
> Mike and Merle and Bill!
>
> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart
> is certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
>
> Most arguments are about definitions...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>
>
>
> Merle,
>
> Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something
> we've super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the
> heart is also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood.
> All our vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore
> deserve the title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic
> picture, and even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive
> - even bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of
> ego) don't have any control over these organs - they just function without
> any input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going
> to the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often
> find that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other
> way around.
>
> Mike
>   --
> *From:* Merle Lester 
> *To:* "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
> *Subject:* Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>
>
> the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
>
>
>
>
> Merle,
>
> Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting
> that there.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a
> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> >
> >
> > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and
> chaotic we'd all be dead!
> >
> > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> >
> > Sheeesh!
> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > Â
> > >Edgar and Merle,
> > >
> > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed
> after I posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not
> 'my structure'. Mea culpa.
> > >
> > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines
> and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like
> reality, like chaos.
> > >
> > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions.
> Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.
> Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> > >
> > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> > >
> > >1
> > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled :
> misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> > >2
> > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that
> deceives or misleads intellectually
> > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as
> to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) :
> a pattern capable of reversible perspective
> > >
> > >Reality has no boundaries. Illusions deceive you into believing there
> are boundaries - like structure and logic.
> > >
> > >...Bill!
> > >
> > >--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Bill! and Merle,
> > >>
> > >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed
> in HIS structure."
> > >>
> > >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it
> includes everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory
> that is closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of
> reality... Thus it imposes boundaries t

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[mike brown]

Edgar,

I don't agree at all. We couldn't survive without a heart, but equally we 
wouldn't last too long without a number of organs which make up the body 
either. To say "life" is the purpose of the heart is such an obvious statement 
of the ego. You could just as easily claim that the purpose of water is to 
create/sustain life.

Mike




 From: Edgar Owen 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 14:54
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
 

  
Mike and Merle and Bill!

Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...

Most arguments are about definitions...

Edgar




On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:

  
>
>
>Merle,
>
>
>Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
>super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the heart is 
>also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood. All our 
>vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore deserve the 
>title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, and 
>even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even 
>bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't 
>have any control over these organs - they just function without any 
>input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to the 
>loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find that 
>it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way around.
>
>
>Mike
>
>
>
> From: Merle Lester 
>To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> 
>
>  
>the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>Merle,
>
>Life has no purpose.  If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
>there.
>
>...Bill!
>
>--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> 
>>  bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
>> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
>> 
>> 
>> Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
>> we'd all be dead!
>> 
>> That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
>> 
>> Sheeesh!
>> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> 
>>   
>> >Edgar and Merle,
>> >
>> >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
>> >posted.  That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
>> >structure'.  Mea culpa.
>> >
>> >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure.  Structure defines 
>> >and limits.  The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
>> >reality, like chaos.
>> >
>> >Reality does not include illusions.  Reality does not support illusions.  
>> >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.  
>> >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
>> >
>> >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
>> >
>> >1
>> >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
>> >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
>> >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
>> >2
>> >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
>> >deceives or misleads intellectually
>> >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
>> >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a 
>> >pattern capable of reversible perspective
>> >
>> >Reality has no boundaries.  Illusions deceive you into believing there are 
>> >boundaries - like structure and logic.
>> >
>> >...Bill! 
>> >
>> >--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bill! and Merle,
>> >> 
>> >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in 
>> >> HIS structure."
>> >> 
>> >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes 
>> >> every

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

That's NOT what I said MIke. Reread it...

Edgar


On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:29 PM, mike brown wrote:

> 
> Edgar,
> 
> I don't agree at all. We couldn't survive without a heart, but equally we 
> wouldn't last too long without a number of organs which make up the body 
> either. To say "life" is the purpose of the heart is such an obvious 
> statement of the ego. You could just as easily claim that the purpose of 
> water is to create/sustain life.
> 
> Mike
> 
> From: Edgar Owen 
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 14:54
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> 
>  
> Mike and Merle and Bill!
> 
> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
> certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
> 
> Most arguments are about definitions...
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
> 
>>  
>> 
>> Merle,
>> 
>> Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
>> super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the heart is 
>> also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood. All our 
>> vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore deserve 
>> the title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, 
>> and even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even 
>> bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't 
>> have any control over these organs - they just function without any 
>> input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to 
>> the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find 
>> that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way 
>> around.
>> 
>> Mike
>> From: Merle Lester 
>> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
>> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>> 
>>  
>> the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> Merle,
>> 
>> Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
>> there.
>> 
>> ...Bill!
>> 
>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>> >
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
>> > cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and 
>> > chaotic we'd all be dead!
>> > 
>> > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
>> > 
>> > Sheeesh!
>> > 
>> > Edgar
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> > 
>> > Â  
>> > >Edgar and Merle,
>> > >
>> > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after 
>> > >I posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
>> > >structure'. Mea culpa.
>> > >
>> > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines 
>> > >and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
>> > >reality, like chaos.
>> > >
>> > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions. 
>> > >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real. 
>> > >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
>> > >
>> > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
>> > >
>> > >1
>> > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
>> > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
>> > >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
>> > >2
>> > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
>> > >deceives or misleads intellectually
>> > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
>> > >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : 
>> > >a pattern capable of reversible perspective
>> > >
>> > >Reality has no boundaries. Illusions d

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[mike brown]

Edgar,

Reread it, but I still read that 'the evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
[life]'.  What did I mis-read? 




 From: Edgar Owen 
>
>Edgar,
>
>
>I don't agree at all. We couldn't survive without a heart, but equally we 
>wouldn't last too long without a number of organs which make up the body 
>either. To say "life" is the purpose of the heart is such an obvious statement 
>of the ego. You could just as easily claim that the purpose of water is to 
>create/sustain life.
>
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Edgar Owen 
>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 14:54
>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> 
>
>  
>Mike and Merle and Bill!
>
>
>Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
>certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
>
>
>Most arguments are about definitions...
>
>
>Edgar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>
>  
>>
>>
>>Merle,
>>
>>
>>Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
>>super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the heart is 
>>also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood. All our 
>>vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore deserve the 
>>title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, and 
>>even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even 
>>bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't 
>>have any control over these organs - they just function without any 
>>input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to 
>>the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find 
>>that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way 
>>around.
>>
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Merle Lester 
>>To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
>>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>> 
>>
>>  
>>the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>Merle,
>>
>>Life has no purpose.  If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
>>there.
>>
>>...Bill!
>>
>>--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
>>> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic 
>>> we'd all be dead!
>>> 
>>> That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
>>> 
>>> Sheeesh!
>>> 
>>> Edgar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
>>> 
>>>   
>>> >Edgar and Merle,
>>> >
>>> >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I 
>>> >posted.  That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
>>> >structure'.  Mea culpa.
>>> >
>>> >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure.  Structure defines 
>>> >and limits.  The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
>>> >reality, like chaos.
>>> >
>>> >Reality does not include illusions.  Reality does not support illusions.  
>>> >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.  
>>> >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
>>> >
>>> >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
>>> >
>>> >1
>>> >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
>>> >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : 
>>> >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
>>> >2
>>> >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that 
>>> >deceives or misleads intellectually
>>> >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to 
>>> >cause misinterpretatio

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Chris Austin-Lane]

And as stated, still not true. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is
size. Not that evolutionary purpose is a scientifically useful phrase.
On Sep 6, 2012 10:52 AM, "mike brown"  wrote:

>
>
> Edgar,
>
> Reread it, but I still read that 'the evolutionary purpose of the heart is
> [life]'.  What did I mis-read?
>
>   --
> *From:* Edgar Owen  *To:* Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:47
> *Subject:* Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>
>
> That's NOT what I said MIke. Reread it...
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:29 PM, mike brown wrote:
>
>
>
> Edgar,
>
> I don't agree at all. We couldn't survive without a heart, but equally we
> wouldn't last too long without a number of organs which make up the body
> either. To say "life" is the purpose of the heart is such an obvious
> statement of the ego. You could just as easily claim that the purpose of
> water is to create/sustain life.
>
> Mike
>
>   --------------
> *From:* Edgar Owen 
> *To:* Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 September 2012, 14:54
> *Subject:* Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>
>
> Mike and Merle and Bill!
>
> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart
> is certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
>
> Most arguments are about definitions...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>
>
>
> Merle,
>
> Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something
> we've super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the
> heart is also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood.
> All our vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore
> deserve the title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic
> picture, and even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive
> - even bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of
> ego) don't have any control over these organs - they just function without
> any input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going
> to the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often
> find that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other
> way around.
>
> Mike
>   --
> *From:* Merle Lester 
> *To:* "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
> *Subject:* Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>
>
> the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
>
>
>
>
> Merle,
>
> Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting
> that there.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a
> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
> >
> >
> > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and
> chaotic we'd all be dead!
> >
> > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
> >
> > Sheeesh!
> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > Â
> > >Edgar and Merle,
> > >
> > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed
> after I posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not
> 'my structure'. Mea culpa.
> > >
> > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines
> and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like
> reality, like chaos.
> > >
> > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions.
> Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real.
> Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
> > >
> > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> > >
> > >1
> > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled :
> misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
> > >2
> > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that
> deceives or misleads intellectually
> > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as
> to cause misinterpretation of i

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[mike brown]

I agree. But I think it goes even beyond that. For example, a plant doesn't 
have a heart, but is still a form of life. Then again, I suspect Merle was 
being more generous than us when she was talking in terms of the heart's 
purpose being life.


Mike




 From: Chris Austin-Lane 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 20:33
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
 

  
And as stated, still not true. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is size. 
Not that evolutionary purpose is a scientifically useful phrase. 
On Sep 6, 2012 10:52 AM, "mike brown"  wrote:


>
>
>Edgar,
>
>
>Reread it, but I still read that 'the evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
>[life]'.  What did I mis-read? 
>
>
>
>
> From: Edgar Owen To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:47
>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> 
>
>  
>That's NOT what I said MIke. Reread it...
>
>
>Edgar
>
>
>
>
>On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:29 PM, mike brown wrote:
>
>  
>>
>>
>>Edgar,
>>
>>
>>I don't agree at all. We couldn't survive without a heart, but equally we 
>>wouldn't last too long without a number of organs which make up the body 
>>either. To say "life" is the purpose of the heart is such an obvious 
>>statement of the ego. You could just as easily claim that the purpose of 
>>water is to create/sustain life.
>>
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Edgar Owen 
>>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
>>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 14:54
>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>> 
>>
>>  
>>Mike and Merle and Bill!
>>
>>
>>Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
>>certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
>>
>>
>>Most arguments are about definitions...
>>
>>
>>Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>>
>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>Merle,
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
>>>super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the heart is 
>>>also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood. All our 
>>>vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore deserve 
>>>the title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, 
>>>and even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even 
>>>bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't 
>>>have any control over these organs - they just function without any 
>>>input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to 
>>>the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find 
>>>that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way 
>>>around.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Merle Lester 
>>>To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
>>>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>Merle,
>>>
>>>Life has no purpose.  If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
>>>there.
>>>
>>>...Bill!
>>>
>>>--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
>>>> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and 
>>>> chaotic we'd all be dead!
>>>> 
>>>> That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
>>>> 
>>>> Sheeesh!
>>>> 
>>>> Edgar
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   
&

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Chris Austin-Lane]

There is a story in three pillars of zen of a modern classical musician
playing some modern piano piece, odd an atonal no doubt, and then a
listener asking, "but what does it mean?"  A bit angered, the pianist said,
"What does it mean?!?"  and sat down and played it again.

There's no doubt to what our life's meaning is - it is a unique and
personal sequence of amazing moments.  If you like the death and rebirth
each second language, my life's meaning is here, all around, silent
mysterious and well, interesting, not to be missed; even, if one is in an
excitable mood, rather amazing.  If you wonder what your life's meaning is,
sit zazen more, or work harder for those around you, or rest more
thoroughly, or something - please.  Assuming your body/mind is somewhat
like mine, you are a feast of meaning dancing in a wonderful garden of
creation.  (Unlike Bill!'s emails, not particularly addressed to you, Mike,
just my artistic impulse of the moment expressed in typing.)

Nice example on the plants, tho:  they have circulatory systems but not
hearts like we do (tho I do enjoy hearts of artichokes since moving to
California).

Thanks,

--Chris
ch...@austin-lane.net
+1-301-270-6524


On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM, mike brown  wrote:

>
>
> I agree. But I think it goes even beyond that. For example, a plant
> doesn't have a heart, but is still a form of life. Then again, I suspect
> Merle was being more generous than us when she was talking in terms of the
> heart's purpose being life.
>
> Mike
>
>   --
> *From:* Chris Austin-Lane 
> *To:* Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 September 2012, 20:33
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>
>
> And as stated, still not true. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is
> size. Not that evolutionary purpose is a scientifically useful phrase.
> On Sep 6, 2012 10:52 AM, "mike brown"  wrote:
>
>
>
> Edgar,
>
> Reread it, but I still read that 'the evolutionary purpose of the heart is
> [life]'.  What did I mis-read?
>
>   ------
> *From:* Edgar Owen  *To:* Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:47
> *Subject:* Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>
>
> That's NOT what I said MIke. Reread it...
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:29 PM, mike brown wrote:
>
>
>
> Edgar,
>
> I don't agree at all. We couldn't survive without a heart, but equally we
> wouldn't last too long without a number of organs which make up the body
> either. To say "life" is the purpose of the heart is such an obvious
> statement of the ego. You could just as easily claim that the purpose of
> water is to create/sustain life.
>
> Mike
>
>   --
> *From:* Edgar Owen 
> *To:* Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 September 2012, 14:54
> *Subject:* Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>
>
> Mike and Merle and Bill!
>
> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart
> is certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
>
> Most arguments are about definitions...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>
>
>
> Merle,
>
> Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something
> we've super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the
> heart is also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood.
> All our vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore
> deserve the title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic
> picture, and even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive
> - even bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of
> ego) don't have any control over these organs - they just function without
> any input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going
> to the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often
> find that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other
> way around.
>
> Mike
>   --
> *From:* Merle Lester 
> *To:* "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
> *Subject:* Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>
>
> the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
>
>
>
>
> Merle,
>
> Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting
> that there.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
&

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[mike brown]

Thanks Chris - I enjoyed that reading that post immensely!

> If you wonder what your life's meaning is,..

I think my life's meaning is looking for what my life's meaning is. I honestly 
don't think I'll find it, but that's not a problem at all - the journey is good 
enough for me. I do have passions for things/experiences (karate, travelling, 
music etc), but they wax and wane. Then again, maybe it's a search for freedom. 
Ultimate freedom. Liberation.

Mike




 From: Chris Austin-Lane 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 21:11
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
 

  
There is a story in three pillars of zen of a modern classical musician playing 
some modern piano piece, odd an atonal no doubt, and then a listener asking, 
"but what does it mean?"  A bit angered, the pianist said, "What does it 
mean?!?"  and sat down and played it again.  

There's no doubt to what our life's meaning is - it is a unique and personal 
sequence of amazing moments.  If you like the death and rebirth each second 
language, my life's meaning is here, all around, silent mysterious and well, 
interesting, not to be missed; even, if one is in an excitable mood, rather 
amazing.  If you wonder what your life's meaning is, sit zazen more, or work 
harder for those around you, or rest more thoroughly, or something - please.  
Assuming your body/mind is somewhat like mine, you are a feast of meaning 
dancing in a wonderful garden of creation.  (Unlike Bill!'s emails, not 
particularly addressed to you, Mike, just my artistic impulse of the moment 
expressed in typing.)  

Nice example on the plants, tho:  they have circulatory systems but not hearts 
like we do (tho I do enjoy hearts of artichokes since moving to California).  

Thanks,

--Chris
ch...@austin-lane.net
+1-301-270-6524



On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM, mike brown  wrote:


>
>
>I agree. But I think it goes even beyond that. For example, a plant doesn't 
>have a heart, but is still a form of life. Then again, I suspect Merle was 
>being more generous than us when she was talking in terms of the heart's 
>purpose being life.
>
>
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>____________
> From: Chris Austin-Lane 
>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 20:33
>
>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> 
>
>
>  
>And as stated, still not true. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is size. 
>Not that evolutionary purpose is a scientifically useful phrase. 
>On Sep 6, 2012 10:52 AM, "mike brown"  wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>Edgar,
>>
>>
>>Reread it, but I still read that 'the evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
>>[life]'.  What did I mis-read? 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Edgar Owen >To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
>>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:47
>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>> 
>>
>>  
>>That's NOT what I said MIke. Reread it...
>>
>>
>>Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:29 PM, mike brown wrote:
>>
>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>Edgar,
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't agree at all. We couldn't survive without a heart, but equally we 
>>>wouldn't last too long without a number of organs which make up the body 
>>>either. To say "life" is the purpose of the heart is such an obvious 
>>>statement of the ego. You could just as easily claim that the purpose of 
>>>water is to create/sustain life.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Edgar Owen 
>>>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
>>>Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 14:54
>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>Mike and Merle and Bill!
>>>
>>>
>>>Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
>>>certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
>>>
>>>
>>>Most arguments are about definitions...
>>>
>>>
>>>Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Merle,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
>>>>super

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Kristopher Grey]

On 9/6/2012 3:33 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> Not that evolutionary purpose is a scientifically useful phrase. 

It is essentially redundant though, which for some passes as a form of 
verification. ;)

KG




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:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Edgar Owen]

Bill!,

Yes I understand all that fine but purpose does not imply a goal, it has to do 
with function.

The purpose of the heart is to pump blood through the body thus sustaining life.

However I really don't want to get into arguing over biology on this group. I 
do plenty of that on other groups as Merle knows well...

Can we drop this thread now?

PLease?

Edgar



On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:34 AM, billsmart wrote:

> Edgar, Edgar, Edgar...
> 
> Qualities to not evolve for a purpose.  That would be engineering, not 
> evolution.  New qualities appear primarily by random mutation.  If the 
> quality is advantageous (gives the organism an advantage over competing 
> organisms) or at least is not a disadvantage it is likely it will be passed 
> on to succeeding generations.  If it is a disadvantage it is less likely that 
> it will be passed on to succeeding generations.
> 
> There is no purpose here, as in there is no goal.  There is only selection 
> based on survive-ability.
> 
> That's the theory anyway...
> 
> ...Bill!   
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> 
>> Mike and Merle and Bill!
>> 
>> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the heart is 
>> certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...
>> 
>> Most arguments are about definitions...
>> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Merle,
>>> 
>>> Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' something we've 
>>> super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the purpose of the heart is 
>>> also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood into oxygenated blood. All our 
>>> vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) keep us alive and therefore deserve 
>>> the title of 'keeping us alive' (What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, 
>>> and even the simplest part of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even 
>>> bacteria!). It's also interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't 
>>> have any control over these organs - they just function without any 
>>> input/control from us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to 
>>> the loo!). If you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find 
>>> that it feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way 
>>> around.
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> From: Merle Lester 
>>> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
>>> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
>>> 
>>> 
>>> the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Merle,
>>> 
>>> Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that 
>>> there.
>>> 
>>> ...Bill!
>>> 
>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a 
>>>> cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and 
>>>> chaotic we'd all be dead!
>>>> 
>>>> That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin!
>>>> 
>>>> Sheeesh!
>>>> 
>>>> Edgar
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Â  
>>>>> Edgar and Merle,
>>>>> 
>>>>> First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after 
>>>>> I posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my 
>>>>> structure'. Mea culpa.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines 
>>>>> and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like 
>>>>> reality, like chaos.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions. 
>>>>> Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real. 
>>>>> Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Definition of I

Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through

[Kristopher Grey]

Our particular 'mutation' being this business of thinking  that some 
appearances are random, some purposeful. Some advantageous, some 
disadvantageous - while thinking them so is so is clearly not a matter 
of either or but both/and- simply a matter of how this appears.


KG

On 9/7/2012 4:34 AM, billsmart wrote:


Edgar, Edgar, Edgar...

Qualities to not evolve for a purpose. That would be engineering, not 
evolution. New qualities appear primarily by random mutation. If the 
quality is advantageous (gives the organism an advantage over 
competing organisms) or at least is not a disadvantage it is likely it 
will be passed on to succeeding generations. If it is a disadvantage 
it is less likely that it will be passed on to succeeding generations.


There is no purpose here, as in there is no goal. There is only 
selection based on survive-ability.


That's the theory anyway...

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, 
Edgar Owen  wrote:

>
> Mike and Merle and Bill!
>
> Depends on how you define purpose. The evolutionary purpose of the 
heart is certainly what Merle says it is... That's why a heart evolved...

>
> Most arguments are about definitions...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:49 AM, mike brown wrote:
>
> >
> > Merle,
> >
> > Is this rerally the "purpose" of the heart, or is 'purpose' 
something we've super-imposed on top of it. You could say that the 
purpose of the heart is also to simply convert de-oxygenated blood 
into oxygenated blood. All our vital organs (brain, skin, liver etc) 
keep us alive and therefore deserve the title of 'keeping us alive' 
(What I'm driving at is a holistic picture, and even the simplest part 
of us has a 'purpose' to keep us alive - even bacteria!). It's also 
interesting to note that 'we' (in terms of ego) don't have any control 
over these organs - they just function without any input/control from 
us at all (just try holding your breath or not going to the loo!). If 
you really meditate and focus on the breath you'll often find that it 
feels like the universe is breathing us, rather than the other way around.

> >
> > Mike
> > From: Merle Lester 
> > To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>

> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:16
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: breaking through
> >
> >
> > the purpose of your heart to keep beating is to keep you alive...merle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Merle,
> >
> > Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is 
projecting that there.

> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Merle Lester  wrote:

> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so 
is a cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle

> > >
> > >
> > > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random 
and chaotic we'd all be dead!

> > >
> > > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny 
bin!

> > >
> > > Sheeesh!
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > Â
> > > >Edgar and Merle,
> > > >
> > > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I 
noticed after I posted. That should read "It's been closed in by 
structure", not 'my structure'. Mea culpa.

> > > >
> > > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure 
defines and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured 
system - like reality, like chaos.

> > > >
> > > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support 
illusions. Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not 
real. Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception.

> > > >
> > > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)
> > > >
> > > >1
> > > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving
> > > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or 
misled : misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception

> > > >2
> > > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : 
something that deceives or misleads intellectually
> > > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a 
way as to cause misinterpretat