Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Bill,

Yes, nice quote IF you understand it correctly. The correct understanding is 
this is how the world of forms evolves and manifests in the sea of Buddha 
Nature.

Edgar



On May 24, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Bill! wrote:

> 
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Edgar,

So...does your statement below mean if you don't understand it correctly it's 
not a nice quote?  The sea foam is a metaphor for illusion.  It's something 
that has been churned up, appearing for a short time to be something separate 
from the sea, a dualistic set of sea:foam.  I think you've ignored the last 
line:

"And when the sea sends word each foaming body [illusion] melts back to 
ocean-breath."

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> Yes, nice quote IF you understand it correctly. The correct understanding is 
> this is how the world of forms evolves and manifests in the sea of Buddha 
> Nature.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 24, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> >
>






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
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] Nice Quote

[Merle Lester]

what the way you understand it guru edgar?..bit of fascism in your reply i 
note...merle
  
Bill,

Yes, nice quote IF you understand it correctly. The correct understanding is 
this is how the world of forms evolves and manifests in the sea of Buddha 
Nature.

Edgar




On May 24, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Bill! wrote:

  
>
>
>...Bill!
>
>

 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[siska_cen]

Hi Bill,

I followed until: "Waves broke".

The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.

Siska
-Original Message-
From: "Bill!" 
Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
To: 
Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote


..Bill!

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Siska,
As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite
opinion on just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with
this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
post.
Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
I looked for my self,But my self was gone.The boundaries of my beingHad
disappeared in the sea.Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.And a voice
returned me to myself.It always happens like this.Sea turns on itself
and foams,And with every foaming bit another body.Another being takes
form.And when the sea sends word,Each foaming body melts back to
ocean-breath.- Rumi
I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form,
come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by
slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
composing this poem.  My interpretation of it is:
I looked for my self,But my self was gone.The boundaries of my beingHad
disappeared in the sea.
Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The
illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something
independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has
vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.And a voice returned me to myself.It
always happens like this.
Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been
interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation
between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens
regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach.
Sea turns on itself and foams,And with every foaming bit another
body.Another being takes form.
Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions,
thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
And when the sea sends word,Each foaming body melts back to
ocean-breath.
But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back
into emptiness.
That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what
Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I followed until: "Waves broke".
>
> The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
>
> Siska
> -Original Message-
> From: "Bill!" BillSmart@...
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
>
>
> ..Bill!
>

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Merle Lester]

 yes i have often watch the waves... great poem.,...cloud formations are 
another wonder...merle


  
Siska,

As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;>) 
and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.

Rumi's poem/metaphor was:

I looked for my self,
But my self was gone.
The boundaries of my being
Had disappeared in the sea.
Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
And a voice returned me to myself.
It always happens like this.
Sea turns on itself and foams,
And with every foaming bit another body.
Another being takes form.
And when the sea sends word,
Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
- Rumi

I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this 
poem.  My interpretation of it is:

I looked for my self,
But my self was gone.
The boundaries of my being
Had disappeared in the sea.

Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion of 
dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent and 
apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into sea 
which is a metaphor for emptiness.

Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
And a voice returned me to myself.
It always happens like this.

Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been interrupted 
and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation between holism and 
dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like the waves 
surging rhythmically upon the beach. 

Sea turns on itself and foams,
And with every foaming bit another body.
Another being takes form.

Now that he is abiding in dualism all otherillusions, perceptions, thoughts, 
etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.

And when the sea sends word,
Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.

But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into 
emptiness.

That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...

...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> I followed until: "Waves broke".
> 
> The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> 
> Siska
> -Original Message-
> From: "Bill!" BillSmart@...
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> 
> 
> ..Bill!
>

 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Merle Lester]

 edgar's pole is somewhere in the land of reason..far far away...  merle


  
Siska,

As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement ;>) 
and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.

Rumi's poem/metaphor was:

I looked for my self,
But my self was gone.
The boundaries of my being
Had disappeared in the sea.
Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
And a voice returned me to myself.
It always happens like this.
Sea turns on itself and foams,
And with every foaming bit another body.
Another being takes form.
And when the sea sends word,
Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
- Rumi

I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this 
poem.  My interpretation of it is:

I looked for my self,
But my self was gone.
The boundaries of my being
Had disappeared in the sea.

Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion of 
dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent and 
apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into sea 
which is a metaphor for emptiness.

Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
And a voice returned me to myself.
It always happens like this.

Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been interrupted 
and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation between holism and 
dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like the waves 
surging rhythmically upon the beach. 

Sea turns on itself and foams,
And with every foaming bit another body.
Another being takes form.

Now that he is abiding in dualism all otherillusions, perceptions, thoughts, 
etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.

And when the sea sends word,
Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.

But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into 
emptiness.

That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...

...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> I followed until: "Waves broke".
> 
> The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> 
> Siska
> -Original Message-
> From: "Bill!" BillSmart@...
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> 
> 
> ..Bill!
>

 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Siska,

Yes - waves, cloud formations, staring into a fire - anything chaotic, that is 
not rational.  It allows your mind to disengage from trying to 'make sense' out 
of the changing forms and can enable you to slip into the experience of Buddha 
Nature.

This is the very same technique as koans.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  yes i have often watch the waves... great poem.,...cloud formations are 
> another wonder...merle
> 
> 
>   
> Siska,
> 
> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
> just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement 
> ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> 
> Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> - Rumi
> 
> I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this 
> poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> 
> Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion 
> of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent 
> and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into 
> sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> 
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> 
> Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation between 
> holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like 
> the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> 
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> 
> Now that he is abiding in dualism all otherillusions, perceptions, thoughts, 
> etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> 
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> 
> But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into 
> emptiness.
> 
> That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> 
> ...Bill!
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> > 
> > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > 
> > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > 
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > 
> > 
> > ..Bill!
> >
>






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
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] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

*** Re-Posting for Correction ***

Merle,

Yes - waves, cloud formations, staring into a fire - anything chaotic, that is
not rational. It allows your mind to disengage from trying to 'make sense' out
of the changing forms and can enable you to slip into the experience of Buddha
Nature.

This is the very same technique as koans.

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  yes i have often watch the waves... great poem.,...cloud formations are 
> another wonder...merle
> 
> 
>   
> Siska,
> 
> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
> just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement 
> ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> 
> Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> - Rumi
> 
> I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this 
> poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> 
> Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion 
> of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent 
> and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into 
> sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> 
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> 
> Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation between 
> holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like 
> the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> 
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> 
> Now that he is abiding in dualism all otherillusions, perceptions, thoughts, 
> etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> 
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> 
> But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into 
> emptiness.
> 
> That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> 
> ...Bill!
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> > 
> > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > 
> > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > 
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > 
> > 
> > ..Bill!
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
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] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Bill,

Total agreement as stated.

Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..

Edgar



On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:

> 
> Siska,
> 
> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
> just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement 
> ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> 
> Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> - Rumi
> 
> I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this 
> poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> 
> Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion of 
> dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent and 
> apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into sea 
> which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> 
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> 
> Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation between 
> holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like 
> the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> 
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> 
> Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, thoughts, 
> etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> 
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> 
> But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into 
> emptiness.
> 
> That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> > 
> > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > 
> > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > 
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@...
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > 
> > 
> > ..Bill!
> >
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Merle Lester]

 attention bill..note it's merle who said waves..etc..merle


  
Siska,

Yes - waves, cloud formations, staring into a fire - anything chaotic, that is 
not rational.  It allows your mind to disengage from trying to 'make sense' out 
of the changing forms and can enable you to slip into the experience of Buddha 
Nature.

This is the very same technique as koans.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  yes i have often watch the waves... great poem.,...cloud formations are 
> another wonder...merle
> 
> 
>   
> Siska,
> 
> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
> just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement 
> ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> 
> Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> - Rumi
> 
> I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this 
> poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> 
> Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion 
> of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent 
> and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into 
> sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> 
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> 
> Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation between 
> holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like 
> the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> 
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> 
> Now that he is abiding in dualism all otherillusions, perceptions, thoughts, 
> etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> 
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> 
> But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into 
> emptiness.
> 
> That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> 
> ...Bill!
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> > 
> > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > 
> > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > 
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > 
> > 
> > ..Bill!
> >
>


 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[uerusuboyo]

Merle,I think Bill! was referring to Siska's post where she said she 
followed the poem up to where the "waves broke". Bill! seems to have replied to 
Siska using your post so it's an understandable 
mistake.MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Edgar,

As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if you 
wish.  I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if illusions 
are real or not.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> Total agreement as stated.
> 
> Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
> instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Siska,
> > 
> > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion 
> > on just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this 
> > statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > 
> > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > 
> > I looked for my self,
> > But my self was gone.
> > The boundaries of my being
> > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > It always happens like this.
> > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > Another being takes form.
> > And when the sea sends word,
> > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > - Rumi
> > 
> > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> > rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> > back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing 
> > this poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> > 
> > I looked for my self,
> > But my self was gone.
> > The boundaries of my being
> > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > 
> > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion 
> > of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent 
> > and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into 
> > sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > 
> > Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > It always happens like this.
> > 
> > Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> > interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation 
> > between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, 
> > much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> > 
> > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > Another being takes form.
> > 
> > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, 
> > thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> > 
> > And when the sea sends word,
> > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > 
> > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back 
> > into emptiness.
> > 
> > That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> > comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bill,
> > > 
> > > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > > 
> > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > > 
> > > Siska
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ..Bill!
> > >
> > 
> >
>






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
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] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Bill,

People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get that 
through your solipsistic head!

Edgar



On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar,
> 
> As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if you 
> wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if illusions 
> are real or not.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> > 
> > Total agreement as stated.
> > 
> > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
> > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Siska,
> > > 
> > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite 
> > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with 
> > > this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > > 
> > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > 
> > > I looked for my self,
> > > But my self was gone.
> > > The boundaries of my being
> > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > It always happens like this.
> > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > Another being takes form.
> > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > - Rumi
> > > 
> > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, 
> > > come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by 
> > > slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later 
> > > composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
> > > 
> > > I looked for my self,
> > > But my self was gone.
> > > The boundaries of my being
> > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > 
> > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion 
> > > of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something 
> > > independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has 
> > > vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > > 
> > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > It always happens like this.
> > > 
> > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> > > interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation 
> > > between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, 
> > > much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> > > 
> > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > Another being takes form.
> > > 
> > > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, 
> > > thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> > > 
> > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > 
> > > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back 
> > > into emptiness.
> > > 
> > > That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to see what 
> > > Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> > > 
> > > ...Bill!
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Bill,
> > > > 
> > > > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > > > 
> > > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > > > 
> > > > Siska
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ..Bill!
> > > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Edgar,

People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real or 
not?

I say they're not.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get that 
> through your solipsistic head!
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > Edgar,
> > 
> > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if 
> > you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if 
> > illusions are real or not.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > > 
> > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > 
> > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
> > > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > > 
> > > Edgar
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Siska,
> > > > 
> > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite 
> > > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with 
> > > > this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this 
> > > > post.
> > > > 
> > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > 
> > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > - Rumi
> > > > 
> > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, 
> > > > come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by 
> > > > slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later 
> > > > composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
> > > > 
> > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > 
> > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The 
> > > > illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as 
> > > > something independent and apart from everything else has vanished with 
> > > > it. It has vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > > > 
> > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > 
> > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> > > > interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation 
> > > > between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens 
> > > > regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> > > > 
> > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > 
> > > > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, 
> > > > thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> > > > 
> > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > 
> > > > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt 
> > > > back into emptiness.
> > > > 
> > > > That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to see what 
> > > > Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> > > > 
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > > 
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Bill,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > > > > 
> > > > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Siska
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ..Bill!
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> >
>






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
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.co

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Chris Austin-Lane]

I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit
world view they carry with them.

I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a
frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog
jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads
to madness.

The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of
the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent
popular science fails to address it.

I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective
reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants
on.

Thanks,
--Chris
301-270-6524
 On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:

> Edgar,
>
> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real
> or not?
>
> I say they're not.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get
> that through your solipsistic head!
> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > > Edgar,
> > >
> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality'
> if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if
> illusions are real or not.
> > >
> > > ...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > >
> > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > >
> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
> reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > > >
> > > > Edgar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Siska,
> > > > >
> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite
> opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this
> statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > > - Rumi
> > > > >
> > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves
> form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves
> by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
> composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The
> illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something
> independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has
> vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > > > >
> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation between
> holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like
> the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions,
> perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> > > > >
> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > >
> > > > > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions
> melt back into emptiness.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to see
> what Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> > > > >
> > > > > ...Bill!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Bill,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Siska
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29
> > > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Nic

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Chris,

Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your 
rational mind.

Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his Zen...

Edgar



On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:

> 
> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit world 
> view they carry with them. 
> 
> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a 
> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog 
> jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads to 
> madness.
> 
> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of 
> the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent popular 
> science fails to address it. 
> 
> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective 
> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants on. 
> 
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
> On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
> Edgar,
> 
> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real or 
> not?
> 
> I say they're not.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get 
> > that through your solipsistic head!
> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > > Edgar,
> > >
> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if 
> > > you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if 
> > > illusions are real or not.
> > >
> > > ...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > >
> > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > >
> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in 
> > > > reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole 
> > > > meaning..
> > > >
> > > > Edgar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Siska,
> > > > >
> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite 
> > > > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree 
> > > > > with this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of 
> > > > > this post.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > > - Rumi
> > > > >
> > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves 
> > > > > form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend 
> > > > > themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha 
> > > > > Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The 
> > > > > illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as 
> > > > > something independent and apart from everything else has vanished 
> > > > > with it. It has vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > > > >
> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> > > > > interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation 
> > > > > between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens 
> > > > > regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, 
> > > > > thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> > > > >
> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > >
> > > > > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt 
> > > > > back into emptiness.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to see what 
> > > > > Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for 
> > > > > him...
> > > > >
> > > > > ...Bill!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Chris Austin-Lane]

I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning circuits.
Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be used. But
not what I think Bill means by rationality.

To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous system
calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours tea out,
or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a lrg through
the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less effort, or
intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen writers mean by
rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied directly but simulated in
the nervous system.  Trying to think, thoughts that try to be more than
thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of activity. Mistaking that sort
of activity for reality is what Zen cautions against, not the embodied
practical reason of the nervous system.

Thanks,
--Chris
301-270-6524
 On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:

>
>
> Chris,
>
> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your
> rational mind.
>
> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his
> Zen...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>
>
>
> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit
> world view they carry with them.
>
> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a
> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog
> jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads
> to madness.
>
> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part
> of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent
> popular science fails to address it.
>
> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective
> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants
> on.
>
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
>  On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're
>> real or not?
>>
>> I say they're not.
>>
>> ...Bill!
>>
>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Bill,
>> >
>> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does!
>> Get that through your solipsistic head!
>> >
>> > Edgar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> >
>> > > Edgar,
>> > >
>> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality'
>> if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if
>> illusions are real or not.
>> > >
>> > > ...Bill!
>> > >
>> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Bill,
>> > > >
>> > > > Total agreement as stated.
>> > > >
>> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
>> reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
>> > > >
>> > > > Edgar
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Siska,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar
>> opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree
>> with this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
>> post.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I looked for my self,
>> > > > > But my self was gone.
>> > > > > The boundaries of my being
>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
>> > > > > It always happens like this.
>> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
>> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
>> > > > > Another being takes form.
>> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
>> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
>> > > > > - Rumi
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves
>> form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves
>> by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
>> composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I looked for my self,
>> > > > > But my self was gone.
>> > > > > The boundaries of my being
>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The
>> illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something
>> independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has
>> vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
>> > > > > It always happens like this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has
>> been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation
>> between holi

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Chris,

By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to function. 
Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones.

Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen...

Edgar



On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:

> 
> 
> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning circuits. 
> Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be used. But not 
> what I think Bill means by rationality.
> 
> To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous system 
> calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours tea out, or 
> you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a lrg through the 
> pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less effort, or intuitive 
> action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen writers mean by rationality is 
> an add on - cognition not embodied directly but simulated in the nervous 
> system.  Trying to think, thoughts that try to be more than thoughts, 
> conscious reasoning, that sort of activity. Mistaking that sort of activity 
> for reality is what Zen cautions against, not the embodied practical reason 
> of the nervous system.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
> On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your 
> rational mind.
> 
> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his 
> Zen...
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> 
>>  
>> 
>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit world 
>> view they carry with them. 
>> 
>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a 
>> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog 
>> jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads to 
>> madness.
>> 
>> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of 
>> the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent 
>> popular science fails to address it. 
>> 
>> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective 
>> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants 
>> on. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --Chris
>> 301-270-6524
>> On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
>> Edgar,
>> 
>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real 
>> or not?
>> 
>> I say they're not.
>> 
>> ...Bill!
>> 
>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Bill,
>> >
>> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get 
>> > that through your solipsistic head!
>> >
>> > Edgar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> >
>> > > Edgar,
>> > >
>> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' if 
>> > > you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if 
>> > > illusions are real or not.
>> > >
>> > > ...Bill!
>> > >
>> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Bill,
>> > > >
>> > > > Total agreement as stated.
>> > > >
>> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in 
>> > > > reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole 
>> > > > meaning..
>> > > >
>> > > > Edgar
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Siska,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite 
>> > > > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree 
>> > > > > with this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of 
>> > > > > this post.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I looked for my self,
>> > > > > But my self was gone.
>> > > > > The boundaries of my being
>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
>> > > > > It always happens like this.
>> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
>> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
>> > > > > Another being takes form.
>> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
>> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
>> > > > > - Rumi
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves 
>> > > > > form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend 
>> > > > > themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha 
>> > > > > Nature and later composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I looked for my self,
>> > > > > But my self was gone.
>> > > > > The boundaries of my being
>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The 
>> > > > > illusion of dualism has vanished and his ill

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Chris Austin-Lane]

I thought in your view inanimate stones compute their next state?

And what I mean by rationality is not intelligent computation but
meandering through the associative network of concepts which seem to make
up my conscious arena.

The putting on of pants need not involve that arena at all and may consist
solely of neural level computations, which seems to be your idea of
rationality.

Thanks,
--Chris
301-270-6524
 On May 25, 2013 2:15 PM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:

>
>
> Chris,
>
> By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to
> function. Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones.
>
> Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning
> circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be
> used. But not what I think Bill means by rationality.
>
> To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous
> system calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours
> tea out, or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a lrg
> through the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less effort, or
> intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen writers mean by
> rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied directly but simulated in
> the nervous system.  Trying to think, thoughts that try to be more than
> thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of activity. Mistaking that sort
> of activity for reality is what Zen cautions against, not the embodied
> practical reason of the nervous system.
>
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
>  On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your
>> rational mind.
>>
>> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his
>> Zen...
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit
>> world view they carry with them.
>>
>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a
>> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog
>> jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads
>> to madness.
>>
>> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part
>> of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent
>> popular science fails to address it.
>>
>> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective
>> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants
>> on.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Chris
>> 301-270-6524
>>  On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
>>
>>> Edgar,
>>>
>>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're
>>> real or not?
>>>
>>> I say they're not.
>>>
>>> ...Bill!
>>>
>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Bill,
>>> >
>>> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does!
>>> Get that through your solipsistic head!
>>> >
>>> > Edgar
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Edgar,
>>> > >
>>> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it
>>> 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for
>>> themselves if illusions are real or not.
>>> > >
>>> > > ...Bill!
>>> > >
>>> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Bill,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Total agreement as stated.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
>>> reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Edgar
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Siska,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar
>>> opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree
>>> with this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
>>> post.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I looked for my self,
>>> > > > > But my self was gone.
>>> > > > > The boundaries of my being
>>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
>>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
>>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
>>> > > > > It always happens like this.
>>> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
>>> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
>>> > > > > Another being takes form.
>>> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
>>> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
>>> > > > > - Rumi
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves
>>> form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach an

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Chris Austin-Lane]

I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning circuits.
Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be used. But
not what I mean by rational thought, nor what I think Bill! means by
rational thought.

It is perfectly possible to put pants on without using any rational
thinking at all, just the unconscious firing of neurons.

--Chris

Thanks,
--Chris
301-270-6524
 On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:

>
>
> Chris,
>
> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your
> rational mind.
>
> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his
> Zen...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>
>
>
> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit
> world view they carry with them.
>
> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a
> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog
> jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads
> to madness.
>
> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part
> of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent
> popular science fails to address it.
>
> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective
> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants
> on.
>
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
>  On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're
>> real or not?
>>
>> I say they're not.
>>
>> ...Bill!
>>
>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Bill,
>> >
>> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does!
>> Get that through your solipsistic head!
>> >
>> > Edgar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> >
>> > > Edgar,
>> > >
>> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality'
>> if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselves if
>> illusions are real or not.
>> > >
>> > > ...Bill!
>> > >
>> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Bill,
>> > > >
>> > > > Total agreement as stated.
>> > > >
>> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
>> reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
>> > > >
>> > > > Edgar
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Siska,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar
>> opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree
>> with this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
>> post.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I looked for my self,
>> > > > > But my self was gone.
>> > > > > The boundaries of my being
>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
>> > > > > It always happens like this.
>> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
>> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
>> > > > > Another being takes form.
>> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
>> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
>> > > > > - Rumi
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves
>> form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves
>> by slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
>> composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I looked for my self,
>> > > > > But my self was gone.
>> > > > > The boundaries of my being
>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The
>> illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something
>> independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has
>> vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
>> > > > > It always happens like this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has
>> been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation
>> between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly,
>> much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
>> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
>> > > > > Another being takes form.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions,
>> perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
>> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
>

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Chris Austin-Lane]

Hmm, I seem to be sending out multiple replies - they keep showing up as
drafts and so I finish them (differently as you may see).  Since I've
already lurched off the path of a good internet debate, let me bring up a
book I am reading:

Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking [Kindle
Edition] Douglas
Hofstadter
 (Author), Emmanuel
Sander
 (Author)

Hofstadter is an interesting thinking - not necessarily a zennist, tho he
writes about koans a fair amount in Gödel Escher Bach, and is vegetarian
for basically Buddhist grounds.  He's a smart person that is very
interested in the nature of our cognitive processes, a natural topic of
interest to one who has spent a lot of time meditating.

His point in this book is that "reasoning by analogy" is at the heart of
the "easy for people" type thinking that has so far eluded artificial
intelligence research.



Thanks,

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


On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:

>
> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning
> circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be
> used. But not what I mean by rational thought, nor what I think Bill! means
> by rational thought.
>
> It is perfectly possible to put pants on without using any rational
> thinking at all, just the unconscious firing of neurons.
>
> --Chris
>
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
>  On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your
>> rational mind.
>>
>> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his
>> Zen...
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit
>> world view they carry with them.
>>
>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a
>> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog
>> jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads
>> to madness.
>>
>> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part
>> of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent
>> popular science fails to address it.
>>
>> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective
>> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants
>> on.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Chris
>> 301-270-6524
>>  On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
>>
>>> Edgar,
>>>
>>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're
>>> real or not?
>>>
>>> I say they're not.
>>>
>>> ...Bill!
>>>
>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Bill,
>>> >
>>> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does!
>>> Get that through your solipsistic head!
>>> >
>>> > Edgar
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Edgar,
>>> > >
>>> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it
>>> 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for
>>> themselves if illusions are real or not.
>>> > >
>>> > > ...Bill!
>>> > >
>>> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Bill,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Total agreement as stated.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
>>> reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Edgar
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Siska,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar
>>> opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree
>>> with this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
>>> post.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I looked for my self,
>>> > > > > But my self was gone.
>>> > > > > The boundaries of my being
>>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
>>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
>>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
>>> > > > > It always happens like this.
>>> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
>>> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
>>> > > > > Another being takes form.
>>> > > > > And when the sea sends word,
>>> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
>>> > > > > - Rumi
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves
>>> form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Chris,

I'm proud of your understanding of my theory, at least in your first sentence.

Yes, it is true that stones are fundamentally result states of computations 
occurring in the world of forms. What WE experience as stones are OUR 
computations of the interactions of our empty form with the empty forms of 
stones. However stones don't themselves compute their next state at least in 
the usual sense of the stone itself as an active intelligence.

As to the definition of reason and rationality I repeat that all organisms can 
be considered as intelligent 'programs' running in the information world of the 
world of forms. They are intelligent in the sense that they are able to compute 
actions that enable them to function more effectively than would be the case if 
they just followed the laws of inanimate nature as the computations that are 
stones do.

So rationality and reason in my definition doesn't mean someone is 
exceptionally intelligent. It just means that they do better than randomly 
following the laws of inanimate nature. Even worms and bacteria are this kind 
of intelligent system and in my sense they do reason.

Hmmm, maybe I should start using intelligence instead of reason or rationality? 

Do you think that would help people understand what I'm saying better?

Edgar



On May 25, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:

> 
> I thought in your view inanimate stones compute their next state? 
> 
> And what I mean by rationality is not intelligent computation but  meandering 
> through the associative network of concepts which seem to make up my 
> conscious arena.
> 
> The putting on of pants need not involve that arena at all and may consist 
> solely of neural level computations, which seems to be your idea of 
> rationality.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
> On May 25, 2013 2:15 PM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to 
> function. Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones.
> 
> Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen...
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning circuits. 
>> Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be used. But 
>> not what I think Bill means by rationality.
>> 
>> To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous system 
>> calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours tea out, 
>> or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a lrg through 
>> the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less effort, or intuitive 
>> action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen writers mean by rationality is 
>> an add on - cognition not embodied directly but simulated in the nervous 
>> system.  Trying to think, thoughts that try to be more than thoughts, 
>> conscious reasoning, that sort of activity. Mistaking that sort of activity 
>> for reality is what Zen cautions against, not the embodied practical reason 
>> of the nervous system.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --Chris
>> 301-270-6524
>> On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your 
>> rational mind.
>> 
>> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his 
>> Zen...
>> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit 
>>> world view they carry with them. 
>>> 
>>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a 
>>> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog 
>>> jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads 
>>> to madness.
>>> 
>>> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part of 
>>> the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent 
>>> popular science fails to address it. 
>>> 
>>> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective 
>>> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants 
>>> on. 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Chris
>>> 301-270-6524
>>> On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
>>> Edgar,
>>> 
>>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real 
>>> or not?
>>> 
>>> I say they're not.
>>> 
>>> ...Bill!
>>> 
>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Bill,
>>> >
>>> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! Get 
>>> > that through your solipsistic head!
>>> >
>>> > Edgar
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Edgar,
>>> > >
>>> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it 'reality' 
>>> > > if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for themselve

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Chris,

When I was working with AI I read a book by Roger Schank called TELL ME A STORY 
that may be related to what Hofstadler explores in his book.  Schank postulates 
that humans actually do very little creative thinking but instead just 
rearrange 'stories' (blocks of information)  they've heard before.  Here's a 
link to his book:

http://books.google.co.th/books/about/Tell_me_a_story.html?id=3fah9UGzVJ8C&redir_esc=y

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane  wrote:
>
> Hmm, I seem to be sending out multiple replies - they keep showing up as
> drafts and so I finish them (differently as you may see).  Since I've
> already lurched off the path of a good internet debate, let me bring up a
> book I am reading:
> 
> Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking [Kindle
> Edition] Douglas
> Hofstadter
>  (Author), Emmanuel
> Sander
>  (Author)
> 
> Hofstadter is an interesting thinking - not necessarily a zennist, tho he
> writes about koans a fair amount in Gödel Escher Bach, and is vegetarian
> for basically Buddhist grounds.  He's a smart person that is very
> interested in the nature of our cognitive processes, a natural topic of
> interest to one who has spent a lot of time meditating.
> 
> His point in this book is that "reasoning by analogy" is at the heart of
> the "easy for people" type thinking that has so far eluded artificial
> intelligence research.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Chris
> chris@...
> +1-301-270-6524
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> 
> >
> > I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning
> > circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be
> > used. But not what I mean by rational thought, nor what I think Bill! means
> > by rational thought.
> >
> > It is perfectly possible to put pants on without using any rational
> > thinking at all, just the unconscious firing of neurons.
> >
> > --Chris
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Chris
> > 301-270-6524
> >  On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your
> >> rational mind.
> >>
> >> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his
> >> Zen...
> >>
> >> Edgar
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit
> >> world view they carry with them.
> >>
> >> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a
> >> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a frog
> >> jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way leads
> >> to madness.
> >>
> >> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part
> >> of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent
> >> popular science fails to address it.
> >>
> >> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective
> >> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants
> >> on.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --Chris
> >> 301-270-6524
> >>  On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Edgar,
> >>>
> >>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're
> >>> real or not?
> >>>
> >>> I say they're not.
> >>>
> >>> ...Bill!
> >>>
> >>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Bill,
> >>> >
> >>> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does!
> >>> Get that through your solipsistic head!
> >>> >
> >>> > Edgar
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Edgar,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it
> >>> 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide for
> >>> themselves if illusions are real or not.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ...Bill!
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Bill,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Total agreement as stated.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
> >>> reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Edgar
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Siska,
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar
> >>> opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree
> >>> with this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
> >>> 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Edgar,

What would you consider the action of plants turning toward a light source?  
Would you consider that rationality, reason, intelligence, reaction or what?

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Chris,
> 
> I'm proud of your understanding of my theory, at least in your first sentence.
> 
> Yes, it is true that stones are fundamentally result states of computations 
> occurring in the world of forms. What WE experience as stones are OUR 
> computations of the interactions of our empty form with the empty forms of 
> stones. However stones don't themselves compute their next state at least in 
> the usual sense of the stone itself as an active intelligence.
> 
> As to the definition of reason and rationality I repeat that all organisms 
> can be considered as intelligent 'programs' running in the information world 
> of the world of forms. They are intelligent in the sense that they are able 
> to compute actions that enable them to function more effectively than would 
> be the case if they just followed the laws of inanimate nature as the 
> computations that are stones do.
> 
> So rationality and reason in my definition doesn't mean someone is 
> exceptionally intelligent. It just means that they do better than randomly 
> following the laws of inanimate nature. Even worms and bacteria are this kind 
> of intelligent system and in my sense they do reason.
> 
> Hmmm, maybe I should start using intelligence instead of reason or 
> rationality? 
> 
> Do you think that would help people understand what I'm saying better?
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I thought in your view inanimate stones compute their next state? 
> > 
> > And what I mean by rationality is not intelligent computation but  
> > meandering through the associative network of concepts which seem to make 
> > up my conscious arena.
> > 
> > The putting on of pants need not involve that arena at all and may consist 
> > solely of neural level computations, which seems to be your idea of 
> > rationality.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > --Chris
> > 301-270-6524
> > On May 25, 2013 2:15 PM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Chris,
> > 
> > By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to 
> > function. Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones.
> > 
> > Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen...
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> > 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning 
> >> circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be 
> >> used. But not what I think Bill means by rationality.
> >> 
> >> To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous 
> >> system calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours 
> >> tea out, or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a 
> >> lrg through the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less 
> >> effort, or intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen writers 
> >> mean by rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied directly but 
> >> simulated in the nervous system.  Trying to think, thoughts that try to be 
> >> more than thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of activity. Mistaking 
> >> that sort of activity for reality is what Zen cautions against, not the 
> >> embodied practical reason of the nervous system.
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> --Chris
> >> 301-270-6524
> >> On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Chris,
> >> 
> >> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your 
> >> rational mind.
> >> 
> >> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his 
> >> Zen...
> >> 
> >> Edgar
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> >> 
> >>>  
> >>> 
> >>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit 
> >>> world view they carry with them. 
> >>> 
> >>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing a 
> >>> frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a 
> >>> frog jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way 
> >>> leads to madness.
> >>> 
> >>> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part 
> >>> of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent 
> >>> popular science fails to address it. 
> >>> 
> >>> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective 
> >>> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants 
> >>> on. 
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> --Chris
> >>> 301-270-6524
> >>> On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!"  wrote:
> >>> Edgar,
> >>> 
> >>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're 
> >>> real or not?
> >>> 
> >>> I say they're not.
> >>> 
>

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[siska_cen]

Hi Bill,

> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
> just about everything. 

Yes, it amazes me sometimes that you two are, in fact, co-moderators of this 
forum :-P

Your interpretation below was how I understood the poem too. But because I 
thought it was supposed to be all about Buddha Nature, the part after waves 
broke didn't make sense to me. It's not Buddha Nature...

I guess I had pre-conceived ideas about Rumi's poems ;-)


Siska
-Original Message-
From: "Bill!" 
Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:41:22 
To: 
Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

Siska,
As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite
opinion on just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with
this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
post.
Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
I looked for my self,But my self was gone.The boundaries of my beingHad
disappeared in the sea.Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.And a voice
returned me to myself.It always happens like this.Sea turns on itself
and foams,And with every foaming bit another body.Another being takes
form.And when the sea sends word,Each foaming body melts back to
ocean-breath.- Rumi
I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form,
come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by
slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
composing this poem.  My interpretation of it is:
I looked for my self,But my self was gone.The boundaries of my beingHad
disappeared in the sea.
Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The
illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something
independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has
vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.And a voice returned me to myself.It
always happens like this.
Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been
interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation
between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens
regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach.
Sea turns on itself and foams,And with every foaming bit another
body.Another being takes form.
Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions,
thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
And when the sea sends word,Each foaming body melts back to
ocean-breath.
But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back
into emptiness.
That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what
Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I followed until: "Waves broke".
>
> The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
>
> Siska
> -Original Message-
> From: "Bill!" BillSmart@...
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
>
>
> ..Bill!
>

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[siska_cen]

Bill,

Anything that is still (or look still), like a clear blue sky or a mountain 
usually does the job for me. 

Siska
-Original Message-
From: "Bill!" 
Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:22:55 
To: 
Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

Siska,

Yes - waves, cloud formations, staring into a fire - anything chaotic, that is 
not rational.  It allows your mind to disengage from trying to 'make sense' out 
of the changing forms and can enable you to slip into the experience of Buddha 
Nature.

This is the very same technique as koans.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  yes i have often watch the waves... great poem.,...cloud formations are 
> another wonder...merle
> 
> 
>   
> Siska,
> 
> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
> just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement 
> ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> 
> Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> - Rumi
> 
> I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this 
> poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> 
> Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion 
> of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent 
> and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into 
> sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> 
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> 
> Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation between 
> holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like 
> the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> 
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> 
> Now that he is abiding in dualism all otherillusions, perceptions, thoughts, 
> etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> 
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> 
> But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into 
> emptiness.
> 
> That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> 
> ...Bill!
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> > 
> > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > 
> > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > 
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > 
> > 
> > ..Bill!
> >
>

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Siska,

Rumi is just describing what happens to all of us - phasing in and out of 
awareness of Buddha Nature.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion 
> > on just about everything. 
> 
> Yes, it amazes me sometimes that you two are, in fact, co-moderators of this 
> forum :-P
> 
> Your interpretation below was how I understood the poem too. But because I 
> thought it was supposed to be all about Buddha Nature, the part after waves 
> broke didn't make sense to me. It's not Buddha Nature...
> 
> I guess I had pre-conceived ideas about Rumi's poems ;-)
> 
> 
> Siska
> -Original Message-
> From: "Bill!" 
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:41:22 
> To: 
> Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> 
> Siska,
> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite
> opinion on just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with
> this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
> post.
> Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> I looked for my self,But my self was gone.The boundaries of my beingHad
> disappeared in the sea.Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.And a voice
> returned me to myself.It always happens like this.Sea turns on itself
> and foams,And with every foaming bit another body.Another being takes
> form.And when the sea sends word,Each foaming body melts back to
> ocean-breath.- Rumi
> I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form,
> come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by
> slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
> composing this poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> I looked for my self,But my self was gone.The boundaries of my beingHad
> disappeared in the sea.
> Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The
> illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something
> independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has
> vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.And a voice returned me to myself.It
> always happens like this.
> Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation
> between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens
> regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach.
> Sea turns on itself and foams,And with every foaming bit another
> body.Another being takes form.
> Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions,
> thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> And when the sea sends word,Each foaming body melts back to
> ocean-breath.
> But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back
> into emptiness.
> That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what
> Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> ...Bill!
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> >
> > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> >
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> >
> >
> > ..Bill!
> >
>






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
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] Nice Quote

[siska_cen]

Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!

:-)
Siska
-Original Message-
From: Edgar Owen 
Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
To: 
Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

Bill,

Total agreement as stated.

Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..

Edgar



On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:

> 
> Siska,
> 
> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion on 
> just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this statement 
> ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> 
> Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> - Rumi
> 
> I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this 
> poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> 
> I looked for my self,
> But my self was gone.
> The boundaries of my being
> Had disappeared in the sea.
> 
> Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion of 
> dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent and 
> apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into sea 
> which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> 
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> And a voice returned me to myself.
> It always happens like this.
> 
> Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation between 
> holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, much like 
> the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> 
> Sea turns on itself and foams,
> And with every foaming bit another body.
> Another being takes form.
> 
> Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, thoughts, 
> etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> 
> And when the sea sends word,
> Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> 
> But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back into 
> emptiness.
> 
> That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> > 
> > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > 
> > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > 
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@...
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > 
> > 
> > ..Bill!
> >
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[siska_cen]

Hi Bill,

Yes, it was my perception that he always talk about Buddha Nature and that 
only

My error,

Siska
-Original Message-
From: "Bill!" 
Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 08:35:41 
To: 
Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

Siska,

Rumi is just describing what happens to all of us - phasing in and out of 
awareness of Buddha Nature.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion 
> > on just about everything. 
> 
> Yes, it amazes me sometimes that you two are, in fact, co-moderators of this 
> forum :-P
> 
> Your interpretation below was how I understood the poem too. But because I 
> thought it was supposed to be all about Buddha Nature, the part after waves 
> broke didn't make sense to me. It's not Buddha Nature...
> 
> I guess I had pre-conceived ideas about Rumi's poems ;-)
> 
> 
> Siska
> -Original Message-
> From: "Bill!" 
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:41:22 
> To: 
> Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> 
> Siska,
> As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite
> opinion on just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with
> this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
> post.
> Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> I looked for my self,But my self was gone.The boundaries of my beingHad
> disappeared in the sea.Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.And a voice
> returned me to myself.It always happens like this.Sea turns on itself
> and foams,And with every foaming bit another body.Another being takes
> form.And when the sea sends word,Each foaming body melts back to
> ocean-breath.- Rumi
> I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form,
> come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by
> slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
> composing this poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> I looked for my self,But my self was gone.The boundaries of my beingHad
> disappeared in the sea.
> Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The
> illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something
> independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has
> vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.And a voice returned me to myself.It
> always happens like this.
> Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been
> interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation
> between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens
> regularly, much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach.
> Sea turns on itself and foams,And with every foaming bit another
> body.Another being takes form.
> Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions,
> thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> And when the sea sends word,Each foaming body melts back to
> ocean-breath.
> But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back
> into emptiness.
> That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what
> Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> ...Bill!
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> >
> > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> >
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> >
> >
> > ..Bill!
> >
>

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Siska,

No, unfortunately not.

Edgar does this all the time.  He says something that seems to agree with what 
I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have stated.  In 
this case the word is 'forms'.

Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us and we 
perceive it with our intellect.  I believe we create the structures and 
superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.

The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are 
part of reality.

We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, but in 
some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.

Other than that all is well...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> 
> :-)
> Siska
> -Original Message-
> From: Edgar Owen 
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> To: 
> Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Total agreement as stated.
> 
> Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
> instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Siska,
> > 
> > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion 
> > on just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this 
> > statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > 
> > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > 
> > I looked for my self,
> > But my self was gone.
> > The boundaries of my being
> > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > It always happens like this.
> > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > Another being takes form.
> > And when the sea sends word,
> > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > - Rumi
> > 
> > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> > rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> > back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing 
> > this poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> > 
> > I looked for my self,
> > But my self was gone.
> > The boundaries of my being
> > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > 
> > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion 
> > of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent 
> > and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into 
> > sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > 
> > Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > It always happens like this.
> > 
> > Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> > interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation 
> > between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, 
> > much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> > 
> > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > Another being takes form.
> > 
> > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, 
> > thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> > 
> > And when the sea sends word,
> > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > 
> > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back 
> > into emptiness.
> > 
> > That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> > comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bill,
> > > 
> > > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > > 
> > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > > 
> > > Siska
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ..Bill!
> > >
> > 
> >
>






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
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] Nice Quote

[siska_cen]

Hi Bill,

> The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they 
> are part of reality.

If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 
'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because 
we are still trapped in duality. 

Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is 
what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the 
reality.

I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing

Siska
-Original Message-
From: "Bill!" 
Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 
To: 
Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

Siska,

No, unfortunately not.

Edgar does this all the time.  He says something that seems to agree with what 
I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have stated.  In 
this case the word is 'forms'.

Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us and we 
perceive it with our intellect.  I believe we create the structures and 
superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.

The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they are 
part of reality.

We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, but in 
some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.

Other than that all is well...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> 
> :-)
> Siska
> -Original Message-
> From: Edgar Owen 
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> To: 
> Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Total agreement as stated.
> 
> Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
> instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Siska,
> > 
> > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite opinion 
> > on just about everything.  In fact he'll probably disagree with this 
> > statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > 
> > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > 
> > I looked for my self,
> > But my self was gone.
> > The boundaries of my being
> > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > It always happens like this.
> > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > Another being takes form.
> > And when the sea sends word,
> > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > - Rumi
> > 
> > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, come 
> > rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by slipping 
> > back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later composing 
> > this poem.  My interpretation of it is:
> > 
> > I looked for my self,
> > But my self was gone.
> > The boundaries of my being
> > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > 
> > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature.  The illusion 
> > of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something independent 
> > and apart from everything else has vanished with it.  It has vanished into 
> > sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > 
> > Waves broke.  Awareness rose again.
> > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > It always happens like this.
> > 
> > Dualism returns.  His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> > interrupted and his illusion of self has returned.  This alternation 
> > between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, 
> > much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> > 
> > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > Another being takes form.
> > 
> > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, perceptions, 
> > thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things appear.
> > 
> > And when the sea sends word,
> > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > 
> > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions melt back 
> > into emptiness.
> > 
> > That's my reading of this anyway.  It will be interesting to see what Edgar 
> > comes up with although I think I could almost write it for him...
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bill,
> > > 
> > > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > > 
> > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > > 
> > > Siska
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ..Bill!
> > >
> > 
> >
>

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Bill,

It's an intelligently computed reaction...

Edgar



On May 26, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar,
> 
> What would you consider the action of plants turning toward a light source? 
> Would you consider that rationality, reason, intelligence, reaction or what?
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> > 
> > I'm proud of your understanding of my theory, at least in your first 
> > sentence.
> > 
> > Yes, it is true that stones are fundamentally result states of computations 
> > occurring in the world of forms. What WE experience as stones are OUR 
> > computations of the interactions of our empty form with the empty forms of 
> > stones. However stones don't themselves compute their next state at least 
> > in the usual sense of the stone itself as an active intelligence.
> > 
> > As to the definition of reason and rationality I repeat that all organisms 
> > can be considered as intelligent 'programs' running in the information 
> > world of the world of forms. They are intelligent in the sense that they 
> > are able to compute actions that enable them to function more effectively 
> > than would be the case if they just followed the laws of inanimate nature 
> > as the computations that are stones do.
> > 
> > So rationality and reason in my definition doesn't mean someone is 
> > exceptionally intelligent. It just means that they do better than randomly 
> > following the laws of inanimate nature. Even worms and bacteria are this 
> > kind of intelligent system and in my sense they do reason.
> > 
> > Hmmm, maybe I should start using intelligence instead of reason or 
> > rationality? 
> > 
> > Do you think that would help people understand what I'm saying better?
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 25, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I thought in your view inanimate stones compute their next state? 
> > > 
> > > And what I mean by rationality is not intelligent computation but 
> > > meandering through the associative network of concepts which seem to make 
> > > up my conscious arena.
> > > 
> > > The putting on of pants need not involve that arena at all and may 
> > > consist solely of neural level computations, which seems to be your idea 
> > > of rationality.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > --Chris
> > > 301-270-6524
> > > On May 25, 2013 2:15 PM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Chris,
> > > 
> > > By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to 
> > > function. Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones.
> > > 
> > > Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen...
> > > 
> > > Edgar
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> > > 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning 
> > >> circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may 
> > >> be used. But not what I think Bill means by rationality.
> > >> 
> > >> To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous 
> > >> system calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours 
> > >> tea out, or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a 
> > >> lrg through the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less 
> > >> effort, or intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen 
> > >> writers mean by rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied 
> > >> directly but simulated in the nervous system. Trying to think, thoughts 
> > >> that try to be more than thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of 
> > >> activity. Mistaking that sort of activity for reality is what Zen 
> > >> cautions against, not the embodied practical reason of the nervous 
> > >> system.
> > >> 
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> --Chris
> > >> 301-270-6524
> > >> On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> Chris,
> > >> 
> > >> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using 
> > >> your rational mind.
> > >> 
> > >> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his 
> > >> Zen...
> > >> 
> > >> Edgar
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit 
> > >>> world view they carry with them. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing 
> > >>> a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a 
> > >>> frog jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that 
> > >>> way leads to madness.
> > >>> 
> > >>> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind 
> > >>> part of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from 
> > >>> recent popular science fails to address it. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Merle Lester]

  no it's nature and how she works!... merle


  
Bill,

It's an intelligently computed reaction...

Edgar




On May 26, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Bill! wrote:

  
>Edgar,
>
>What would you consider the action of plants turning toward a light source?  
>Would you consider that rationality, reason, intelligence, reaction or what?
>
>...Bill!
>
>--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Chris,
>> 
>> I'm proud of your understanding of my theory, at least in your first 
>> sentence.
>> 
>> Yes, it is true that stones are fundamentally result states of computations 
>> occurring in the world of forms. What WE experience as stones are OUR 
>> computations of the interactions of our empty form with the empty forms of 
>> stones. However stones don't themselves compute their next state at least in 
>> the usual sense of the stone itself as an active intelligence.
>> 
>> As to the definition of reason and rationality I repeat that all organisms 
>> can be considered as intelligent 'programs' running in the information world 
>> of the world of forms. They are intelligent in the sense that they are able 
>> to compute actions that enable them to function more effectively than would 
>> be the case if they just followed the laws of inanimate nature as the 
>> computations that are stones do.
>> 
>> So rationality and reason in my definition doesn't mean someone is 
>> exceptionally intelligent. It just means that they do better than randomly 
>> following the laws of inanimate nature. Even worms and bacteria are this 
>> kind of intelligent system and in my sense they do reason.
>> 
>> Hmmm, maybe I should start using intelligence instead of reason or 
>> rationality? 
>> 
>> Do you think that would help people understand what I'm saying better?
>> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 25, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > I thought in your view inanimate stones compute their next state? 
>> > 
>> > And what I mean by rationality is not intelligent computation but  
>> > meandering through the associative network of concepts which seem to make 
>> > up my conscious arena.
>> > 
>> > The putting on of pants need not involve that arena at all and may consist 
>> > solely of neural level computations, which seems to be your idea of 
>> > rationality.
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > --Chris
>> > 301-270-6524
>> > On May 25, 2013 2:15 PM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Chris,
>> > 
>> > By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to 
>> > function. Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones.
>> > 
>> > Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen...
>> > 
>> > Edgar
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>> > 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning 
>> >> circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may be 
>> >> used. But not what I think Bill means by rationality.
>> >> 
>> >> To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous 
>> >> system calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one pours 
>> >> tea out, or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to push a 
>> >> lrg through the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort less 
>> >> effort, or intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen 
>> >> writers mean by rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied 
>> >> directly but simulated in the nervous system.  Trying to think, thoughts 
>> >> that try to be more than thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of 
>> >> activity. Mistaking that sort of activity for reality is what Zen 
>> >> cautions against, not the embodied practical reason of the nervous system.
>> >> 
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> --Chris
>> >> 301-270-6524
>> >> On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Chris,
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using your 
>> >> rational mind.
>> >> 
>> >> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve his 
>> >> Zen...
>> >> 
>> >> Edgar
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit 
>> >>> world view they carry with them. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of hearing 
>> >>> a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of remembering a 
>> >>> frog jumping into water. But to take a thought seriously, haha, that way 
>> >>> leads to madness.
>> >>> 
>> >>> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind part 
>> >>> of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from recent 
>> >>> popular science fails to address it. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective 
>> >>> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may j

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Bill,

NO!

You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.

But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.

I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not exist!

Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind and 
not mind.

So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not yet 
exist when the forms arise.

Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind.

Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind OR 
external world, since these are both forms that arise.

So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental reality, 
but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of experiencer and 
experienced.

Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...

At the most fundamental level forms just arise.

What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all that 
is possible for anything to arise within.

Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, because 
reality is the totality of all that exists.


Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious.

There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't confuse you 
with them right now.

Edgar



On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Siska,
> 
> No, unfortunately not.
> 
> Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with what 
> I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have stated. In 
> this case the word is 'forms'.
> 
> Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us and 
> we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures and 
> superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> 
> The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they 
> are part of reality.
> 
> We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, but 
> in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> 
> Other than that all is well...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
> >
> > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > 
> > :-)
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Edgar Owen 
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> > To: 
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > 
> > Bill,
> > 
> > Total agreement as stated.
> > 
> > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
> > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Siska,
> > > 
> > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite 
> > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with 
> > > this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > > 
> > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > 
> > > I looked for my self,
> > > But my self was gone.
> > > The boundaries of my being
> > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > It always happens like this.
> > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > Another being takes form.
> > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > - Rumi
> > > 
> > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, 
> > > come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by 
> > > slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later 
> > > composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
> > > 
> > > I looked for my self,
> > > But my self was gone.
> > > The boundaries of my being
> > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > 
> > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion 
> > > of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something 
> > > independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has 
> > > vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > > 
> > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > It always 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Siska,

See my reply to Bill where I explain..

Edgar


On May 26, 2013, at 6:12 AM, siska_...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they 
> > are part of reality.
> 
> If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory because 
> 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all is illusory because 
> we are still trapped in duality. 
> 
> Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our head, that is 
> what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they are what they are, the 
> reality.
> 
> I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same thing
> 
> Siska
> 
> From: "Bill!" 
> Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 -
> To: 
> ReplyTo: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> 
>  
> Siska,
> 
> No, unfortunately not.
> 
> Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with what 
> I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have stated. In 
> this case the word is 'forms'.
> 
> Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us and 
> we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures and 
> superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> 
> The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they 
> are part of reality.
> 
> We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, but 
> in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> 
> Other than that all is well...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
> >
> > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > 
> > :-)
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Edgar Owen 
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> > To: 
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > 
> > Bill,
> > 
> > Total agreement as stated.
> > 
> > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
> > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Siska,
> > > 
> > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite 
> > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with 
> > > this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > > 
> > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > 
> > > I looked for my self,
> > > But my self was gone.
> > > The boundaries of my being
> > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > It always happens like this.
> > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > Another being takes form.
> > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > - Rumi
> > > 
> > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, 
> > > come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by 
> > > slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later 
> > > composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
> > > 
> > > I looked for my self,
> > > But my self was gone.
> > > The boundaries of my being
> > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > 
> > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The illusion 
> > > of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as something 
> > > independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has 
> > > vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > > 
> > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > It always happens like this.
> > > 
> > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been 
> > > interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This alternation 
> > > between holism and dualism, between emptiness and self happens regularly, 
> > > much like the waves surging rhythmically upon the beach. 
> > > 
> > > Sea turns on itself and

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Merle,

Nature works intelligently.

And nature is NOT a she.

Nature is much too intelligent to be a SHE!

Edgar


On May 26, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Merle Lester wrote:

> 
> 
>   no it's nature and how she works!... merle
> 
>  
> Bill,
> 
> It's an intelligently computed reaction...
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 26, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
>>  
>> Edgar,
>> 
>> What would you consider the action of plants turning toward a light source? 
>> Would you consider that rationality, reason, intelligence, reaction or what?
>> 
>> ...Bill!
>> 
>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Chris,
>> > 
>> > I'm proud of your understanding of my theory, at least in your first 
>> > sentence.
>> > 
>> > Yes, it is true that stones are fundamentally result states of 
>> > computations occurring in the world of forms. What WE experience as stones 
>> > are OUR computations of the interactions of our empty form with the empty 
>> > forms of stones. However stones don't themselves compute their next state 
>> > at least in the usual sense of the stone itself as an active intelligence.
>> > 
>> > As to the definition of reason and rationality I repeat that all organisms 
>> > can be considered as intelligent 'programs' running in the information 
>> > world of the world of forms. They are intelligent in the sense that they 
>> > are able to compute actions that enable them to function more effectively 
>> > than would be the case if they just followed the laws of inanimate nature 
>> > as the computations that are stones do.
>> > 
>> > So rationality and reason in my definition doesn't mean someone is 
>> > exceptionally intelligent. It just means that they do better than randomly 
>> > following the laws of inanimate nature. Even worms and bacteria are this 
>> > kind of intelligent system and in my sense they do reason.
>> > 
>> > Hmmm, maybe I should start using intelligence instead of reason or 
>> > rationality? 
>> > 
>> > Do you think that would help people understand what I'm saying better?
>> > 
>> > Edgar
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On May 25, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > I thought in your view inanimate stones compute their next state? 
>> > > 
>> > > And what I mean by rationality is not intelligent computation but 
>> > > meandering through the associative network of concepts which seem to 
>> > > make up my conscious arena.
>> > > 
>> > > The putting on of pants need not involve that arena at all and may 
>> > > consist solely of neural level computations, which seems to be your idea 
>> > > of rationality.
>> > > 
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > --Chris
>> > > 301-270-6524
>> > > On May 25, 2013 2:15 PM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Chris,
>> > > 
>> > > By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to 
>> > > function. Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones.
>> > > 
>> > > Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen...
>> > > 
>> > > Edgar
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>> > > 
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning 
>> > >> circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may 
>> > >> be used. But not what I think Bill means by rationality.
>> > >> 
>> > >> To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous 
>> > >> system calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one 
>> > >> pours tea out, or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to 
>> > >> push a lrg through the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort 
>> > >> less effort, or intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen 
>> > >> writers mean by rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied 
>> > >> directly but simulated in the nervous system. Trying to think, thoughts 
>> > >> that try to be more than thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of 
>> > >> activity. Mistaking that sort of activity for reality is what Zen 
>> > >> cautions against, not the embodied practical reason of the nervous 
>> > >> system.
>> > >> 
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> --Chris
>> > >> 301-270-6524
>> > >> On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> Chris,
>> > >> 
>> > >> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using 
>> > >> your rational mind.
>> > >> 
>> > >> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve 
>> > >> his Zen...
>> > >> 
>> > >> Edgar
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>> > >> 
>> > >>> 
>> > >>> 
>> > >>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit 
>> > >>> world view they carry with them. 
>> > >>> 
>> > >>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of 
>> > >>> hearing a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of 
>> > >>> remembering a frog jumping into water. 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Edgar,

Forms are dualistic.  They only arise when your intellect creates dualism.  
That is the only place where they can 'exist', but they 'exist' there as 
illusions - like a dream.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> NO!
> 
> You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
> 
> But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
> 
> I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not exist!
> 
> Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind and 
> not mind.
> 
> So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not 
> yet exist when the forms arise.
> 
> Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind.
> 
> Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind OR 
> external world, since these are both forms that arise.
> 
> So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental 
> reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of experiencer 
> and experienced.
> 
> Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...
> 
> At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
> 
> What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all 
> that is possible for anything to arise within.
> 
> Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, because 
> reality is the totality of all that exists.
> 
> 
> Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious.
> 
> There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't confuse 
> you with them right now.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > Siska,
> > 
> > No, unfortunately not.
> > 
> > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with 
> > what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have 
> > stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > 
> > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us 
> > and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures 
> > and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> > 
> > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they 
> > are part of reality.
> > 
> > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, 
> > but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > 
> > Other than that all is well...Bill! 
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > 
> > > :-)
> > > Siska
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> > > To: 
> > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > 
> > > Bill,
> > > 
> > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > 
> > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality 
> > > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > > 
> > > Edgar
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Siska,
> > > > 
> > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite 
> > > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with 
> > > > this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this 
> > > > post.
> > > > 
> > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > 
> > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > - Rumi
> > > > 
> > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form, 
> > > > come

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

No, you still don't get the obvious.

I give up!

Edgar



On May 26, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar,
> 
> Forms are dualistic. They only arise when your intellect creates dualism. 
> That is the only place where they can 'exist', but they 'exist' there as 
> illusions - like a dream.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> > 
> > NO!
> > 
> > You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
> > 
> > But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
> > 
> > I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not 
> > exist!
> > 
> > Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind 
> > and not mind.
> > 
> > So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not 
> > yet exist when the forms arise.
> > 
> > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind.
> > 
> > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind 
> > OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
> > 
> > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental 
> > reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of 
> > experiencer and experienced.
> > 
> > Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...
> > 
> > At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
> > 
> > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all 
> > that is possible for anything to arise within.
> > 
> > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, 
> > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
> > 
> > 
> > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious.
> > 
> > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't confuse 
> > you with them right now.
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > Siska,
> > > 
> > > No, unfortunately not.
> > > 
> > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with 
> > > what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have 
> > > stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > > 
> > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us 
> > > and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures 
> > > and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> > > 
> > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims 
> > > they are part of reality.
> > > 
> > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic, 
> > > but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > > 
> > > Other than that all is well...Bill! 
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > > 
> > > > :-)
> > > > Siska
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> > > > To: 
> > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > 
> > > > Bill,
> > > > 
> > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > > 
> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in 
> > > > reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole 
> > > > meaning..
> > > > 
> > > > Edgar
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Siska,
> > > > > 
> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite 
> > > > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree 
> > > > > with this statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of 
> > > > > this post.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > &

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Edgar,

Giving up is good.  That's what many zen teaching techniques are designed to 
do, and in particular koans.  They are intended to drive you to the point where 
you give up on your attempts to find an intellectual (rational) answer or 
response to the koan.  It's then when the intellect quiesces that you may 
experience Buddha Nature.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> No, you still don't get the obvious.
> 
> I give up!
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 26, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > Edgar,
> > 
> > Forms are dualistic. They only arise when your intellect creates dualism. 
> > That is the only place where they can 'exist', but they 'exist' there as 
> > illusions - like a dream.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > > 
> > > NO!
> > > 
> > > You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
> > > 
> > > But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
> > > 
> > > I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not 
> > > exist!
> > > 
> > > Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind 
> > > and not mind.
> > > 
> > > So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does 
> > > not yet exist when the forms arise.
> > > 
> > > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind.
> > > 
> > > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind 
> > > OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
> > > 
> > > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental 
> > > reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of 
> > > experiencer and experienced.
> > > 
> > > Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...
> > > 
> > > At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
> > > 
> > > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is 
> > > all that is possible for anything to arise within.
> > > 
> > > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, 
> > > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious.
> > > 
> > > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't 
> > > confuse you with them right now.
> > > 
> > > Edgar
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Siska,
> > > > 
> > > > No, unfortunately not.
> > > > 
> > > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree 
> > > > with what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I 
> > > > have stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > > > 
> > > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of 
> > > > us and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the 
> > > > structures and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our 
> > > > perceptions.
> > > > 
> > > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims 
> > > > they are part of reality.
> > > > 
> > > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are 
> > > > semantic, but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > > > 
> > > > Other than that all is well...Bill! 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > > > 
> > > > > :-)
> > > > > Siska
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> > > > > To: 
> > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > 
> > > > > Bill,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > > > 
> > 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Chris Austin-Lane]

"Your mind".

I think the illusory word there is your, moreso than mind.

Thanks,
--Chris
301-270-6524
 On May 26, 2013 5:10 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:

>
>
> Bill,
>
> NO!
>
> You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
>
> But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
>
> I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not
> exist!
>
> Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind
> and not mind.
>
> So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not
> yet exist when the forms arise.
>
> Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind.
>
> Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind
> OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
>
> So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental
> reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of
> experiencer and experienced.
>
> < div>Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...
>
> At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
>
> What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all
> that is possible for anything to arise within.
>
> Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality,
> because reality is the totality of all that exists.
>
>
> Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious.
>
> There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't
> confuse you with them right now.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
>
>
>
> Siska,
>
> No, unfortunately not.
>
> Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with
> what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have
> stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
>
> Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us
> and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures
> and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
>
> The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they
> are part of reality.
>
> We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic,
> but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
>
> Other than that all is well...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@... wrote:
> >
> > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> >
> > :-)
> > Siska
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Edgar Owen 
> > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25
> > To: 
> > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > Total agreement as stated.
> >
> > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality
> instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Siska,
> > >
> > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite
> opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this
> statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > >
> > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > >
> > > I looked for my self,
> > > But my self was gone.
> > > The boundaries of my being
> > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > It always happens like this.
> > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > Another being takes form.
> > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > - Rumi
> > >
> > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves form,
> come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by
> slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
> composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
> > >
> > > I looked for my self,
> > > But my self was gone.
> > > The boundaries of my being
> > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > >
> > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The
> illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self&#x

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Bill,

That's the Zen for Dummies approach. 

The superior approach is to actually SOLVE the koan. When you truly understand 
it realization appears!

Edgar



On May 26, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar,
> 
> Giving up is good. That's what many zen teaching techniques are designed to 
> do, and in particular koans. They are intended to drive you to the point 
> where you give up on your attempts to find an intellectual (rational) answer 
> or response to the koan. It's then when the intellect quiesces that you may 
> experience Buddha Nature.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > No, you still don't get the obvious.
> > 
> > I give up!
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 26, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > Edgar,
> > > 
> > > Forms are dualistic. They only arise when your intellect creates dualism. 
> > > That is the only place where they can 'exist', but they 'exist' there as 
> > > illusions - like a dream.
> > > 
> > > ...Bill!
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > > 
> > > > NO!
> > > > 
> > > > You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
> > > > 
> > > > But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
> > > > 
> > > > I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not 
> > > > exist!
> > > > 
> > > > Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of 
> > > > mind and not mind.
> > > > 
> > > > So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does 
> > > > not yet exist when the forms arise.
> > > > 
> > > > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any 
> > > > mind.
> > > > 
> > > > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in 
> > > > mind OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
> > > > 
> > > > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental 
> > > > reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of 
> > > > experiencer and experienced.
> > > > 
> > > > Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...
> > > > 
> > > > At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
> > > > 
> > > > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is 
> > > > all that is possible for anything to arise within.
> > > > 
> > > > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, 
> > > > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and 
> > > > obvious.
> > > > 
> > > > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't 
> > > > confuse you with them right now.
> > > > 
> > > > Edgar
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Siska,
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, unfortunately not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree 
> > > > > with what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I 
> > > > > have stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of 
> > > > > us and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the 
> > > > > structures and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our 
> > > > > perceptions.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims 
> > > > > they are part of reality.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are 
> > > > > semantic, but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Other than that all is well...Bill! 
> > > > > 
> > &

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Joe]

Bill!,

Too facile.

In this case I agree with Edgar (Ta-da!).

I think he's right that he is not a person!

;-]

--Joe

> "Bill!"  wrote:
>
> Edgar,
> 
> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're real or 
> not?
> 
> I say they're not.






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] Nice Quote

[Joe]

Chris,

One can certainly, with the right motivation, get the pants OFF in a hurry, 
sometimes, AND the under-things, with NO thought at all.  

Sometimes with too little thought; alas.

--Joe / singing "the jilted-lover"

> Chris Austin-Lane  wrote:
> 
> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective 
> reasonable model of computation externalized.  One may just put the pants on.






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] Nice Quote

[Joe]

Group; Edgar, Merle, Bill!,

Even if Edgar is relatively wrong, Merle is ABSOLUTELY right, here.

Again: Merle wields the Wisdom-Sword of Manjushri!

Edgar takes a good haircut.

All Hail!

--Joe / the "Ref"

> Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> no it's nature and how she works!... merle
>   

> Bill,
> 
> It's an intelligently computed reaction...
> 
> Edgar






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] Nice Quote

[Joe]

Edgar,

I think what you really mean is that Nature is not a Western female (as you 
wrote a few hundred posts back).

What a slap in the face!

I mean, I hope it results in that.  ;-)

Cruisin' for a bruisin'!

(You obviously do not know any Arizona women.  It's not west coast, but, 
instead, authentically "Western", here).  I think you'd survive about 18 
minutes here, enough to fill Nixon's "gap".

Pardner.  ;-)

--Joe

> Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Merle,
> 
> Nature works intelligently.
> 
> And nature is NOT a she.
> 
> Nature is much too intelligent to be a SHE!






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] Nice Quote

[Joe]

Bill!,

A beautiful gem (of a statement of understanding, and the progress of Practice).

Put it in a Tiffany mount, and show it around!

Oh, it already is.

Here 'tis again.

w/ tnx,

--Joe

> "Bill!"  wrote:
>
> Edgar,
> 
> Giving up is good.  That's what many zen teaching techniques are designed to 
> do, and in particular koans.  They are intended to drive you to the point 
> where you give up on your attempts to find an intellectual (rational) answer 
> or response to the koan.  It's then when the intellect quiesces that you may 
> experience Buddha Nature.






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] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Chris,

I know this was a reply to Edgar's post below, but I wasn't sure if it was in 
support or qualifying his post.

I agree with you that the 'your' part of 'your mind' is the critical qualifier 
that signals illusion.  This is because it signals dualism.

So yes, I do claim forms arise in the duality created by 'your mind'.  If 'your 
mind' does not exist then duality does not exist; then there is only the One 
Mind, the Original Mind - Buddha Nature.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane  wrote:
>
> "Your mind".
> 
> I think the illusory word there is your, moreso than mind.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Chris
> 301-270-6524
>  On May 26, 2013 5:10 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > NO!
> >
> > You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
> >
> > But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
> >
> > I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not
> > exist!
> >
> > Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind
> > and not mind.
> >
> > So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not
> > yet exist when the forms arise.
> >
> > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind.
> >
> > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind
> > OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
> >
> > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental
> > reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of
> > experiencer and experienced.
> >
> > < div>Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...
> >
> > At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
> >
> > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all
> > that is possible for anything to arise within.
> >
> > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality,
> > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
> >
> >
> > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious.
> >
> > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't
> > confuse you with them right now.
> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Siska,
> >
> > No, unfortunately not.
> >
> > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with
> > what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have
> > stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> >
> > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us
> > and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures
> > and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> >
> > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they
> > are part of reality.
> >
> > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic,
> > but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> >
> > Other than that all is well...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > >
> > > :-)
> > > Siska
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25
> > > To: 
> > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > Total agreement as stated.
> > >
> > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in reality
> > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Siska,
> > > >
> > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite
> > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with this
> > statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > > >
> > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > >
> > > > I looked for my self,
> > >

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Joe]

Bill!, Chris,

A bodhisattva might still take on the conventionalization of a "your", or a 
"my", just so as not to weird you out, and to be of help or service.  This too 
is called Compassion.

It's not impossible to do this, even in the awakened state.  Mind you, it may 
not be easy, but it's not impossible.  Not once you see, after a while, what's 
at stake, and feel one's true responsibility to be not only "honest", but 
effective.  This is the depth and sincerity of the life and career of a 
bodhisattva.  You've got to walk all sides of the street, not just two sides, 
...or One!  Especially NOT one!

Dualism bites.  But not if you're un-bitten.  Then you can use it for the sake 
of all beings.  And you had better: it's "one" of the best tools in our medical 
bag.

But don't try this at Home, unless you've been to the trenches, please.  Go to 
the trenches, NOW.

--Joe

> "Bill!"  wrote:
>
> Chris,
> 
> I know this was a reply to Edgar's post below, but I wasn't sure if it was in 
> support or qualifying his post.
> 
> I agree with you that the 'your' part of 'your mind' is the critical 
> qualifier that signals illusion.  This is because it signals dualism.
> 
> So yes, I do claim forms arise in the duality created by 'your mind'.  If 
> 'your mind' does not exist then duality does not exist; then there is only 
> the One Mind, the Original Mind - Buddha Nature.






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] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

Edgar,

You don't 'solve' koans, if by 'solving' you mean 'put them into a nice, clean, 
rational perspective'.  Like Merle said several posts ago, 'Zen is not about 
grasping'.

You don't 'grasp' or 'solve' or 'understand' koans or Buddha Nature or zen.  
You experience them.  You live them.

...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> That's the Zen for Dummies approach. 
> 
> The superior approach is to actually SOLVE the koan. When you truly 
> understand it realization appears!
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On May 26, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Bill! wrote:
> 
> > Edgar,
> > 
> > Giving up is good. That's what many zen teaching techniques are designed to 
> > do, and in particular koans. They are intended to drive you to the point 
> > where you give up on your attempts to find an intellectual (rational) 
> > answer or response to the koan. It's then when the intellect quiesces that 
> > you may experience Buddha Nature.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > No, you still don't get the obvious.
> > > 
> > > I give up!
> > > 
> > > Edgar
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On May 26, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Edgar,
> > > > 
> > > > Forms are dualistic. They only arise when your intellect creates 
> > > > dualism. That is the only place where they can 'exist', but they 
> > > > 'exist' there as illusions - like a dream.
> > > > 
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > > 
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill,
> > > > > 
> > > > > NO!
> > > > > 
> > > > > You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does 
> > > > > not exist!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of 
> > > > > mind and not mind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind 
> > > > > does not yet exist when the forms arise.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any 
> > > > > mind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in 
> > > > > mind OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the 
> > > > > fundamental reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the 
> > > > > dualism of experiencer and experienced.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...
> > > > > 
> > > > > At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that 
> > > > > is all that is possible for anything to arise within.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality, 
> > > > > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and 
> > > > > obvious.
> > > > > 
> > > > > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't 
> > > > > confuse you with them right now.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Edgar
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Siska,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No, unfortunately not.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree 
> > > > > > with what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what 
> >

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Chris Austin-Lane]

I find it amusing when email purporting to be from the view point of the
absolute includes such watch phrases as Me or Mine or You or Yours. Mind is
just mind, water is just water. But whose water?

Thanks,
--Chris
301-270-6524
 On May 26, 2013 5:58 PM, "Bill!"  wrote:

> Chris,
>
> I know this was a reply to Edgar's post below, but I wasn't sure if it was
> in support or qualifying his post.
>
> I agree with you that the 'your' part of 'your mind' is the critical
> qualifier that signals illusion.  This is because it signals dualism.
>
> So yes, I do claim forms arise in the duality created by 'your mind'.  If
> 'your mind' does not exist then duality does not exist; then there is only
> the One Mind, the Original Mind - Buddha Nature.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane  wrote:
> >
> > "Your mind".
> >
> > I think the illusory word there is your, moreso than mind.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Chris
> > 301-270-6524
> >  On May 26, 2013 5:10 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > NO!
> > >
> > > You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
> > >
> > > But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
> > >
> > > I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not
> > > exist!
> > >
> > > Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of
> mind
> > > and not mind.
> > >
> > > So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does
> not
> > > yet exist when the forms arise.
> > >
> > > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any
> mind.
> > >
> > > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in
> mind
> > > OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
> > >
> > > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental
> > > reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of
> > > experiencer and experienced.
> > >
> > > < div>Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead
> wrong...
> > >
> > > At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
> > >
> > > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is
> all
> > > that is possible for anything to arise within.
> > >
> > > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality,
> > > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and
> obvious.
> > >
> > > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't
> > > confuse you with them right now.
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Siska,
> > >
> > > No, unfortunately not.
> > >
> > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree
> with
> > > what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have
> > > stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > >
> > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of
> us
> > > and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the
> structures
> > > and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> > >
> > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims
> they
> > > are part of reality.
> > >
> > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are
> semantic,
> > > but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > >
> > > Other than that all is well...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > > > Siska
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25
> > > > To: 
> > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > >
> &

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

> > No, unfortunately not.
> > > >
> > > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree
> > with
> > > > what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have
> > > > stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > > >
> > > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of
> > us
> > > > and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the
> > structures
> > > > and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> > > >
> > > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims
> > they
> > > > are part of reality.
> > > >
> > > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are
> > semantic,
> > > > but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > > >
> > > > Other than that all is well...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)
> > > > > Siska
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25
> > > > > To: 
> > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill,
> > > > >
> > > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
> > reality
> > > > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > > > >
> > > > > Edgar
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Siska,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar opposite
> > > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree with
> > this
> > > > statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > > > - Rumi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the waves
> > form,
> > > > come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then spend themselves by
> > > > slipping back into the sea - losing himself in Buddha Nature and later
> > > > composing this poem. My interpretation of it is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. The
> > > > illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' as
> > something
> > > > independent and apart from everything else has vanished with it. It has
> > > > vanished into sea which is a metaphor for emptiness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has been
> > > > interrupted a

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Chris Austin-Lane]

> > > > > that is possible for anything to arise within.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are
> reality,
> > > > > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and
> > > obvious.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't
> > > > > confuse you with them right now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Edgar
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Siska,
> > > > >
> > > > > No, unfortunately not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree
> > > with
> > > > > what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I
> have
> > > > > stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently
> of
> > > us
> > > > > and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the
> > > structures
> > > > > and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar
> claims
> > > they
> > > > > are part of reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are
> > > semantic,
> > > > > but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > > > >
> > > > > Other than that all is well...Bill!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > Siska
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25
> > > > > > To: 
> > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
> > > reality
> > > > > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edgar
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Siska,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar
> opposite
> > > > > opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll probably disagree
> with
> > > this
> > > > > statement ;>) and will certainly jump all over the rest of this
> post.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > > > > - Rumi
> > > > > > >
>

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Merle Lester]

good point chris...can you elaborate..merle


  
I find it amusing when email purporting to be from the view point of the 
absolute includes such watch phrases as Me or Mine or You or Yours. Mind is 
just mind, water is just water. But whose water?  
Thanks,
--Chris
301-270-6524

On May 26, 2013 5:58 PM, "Bill!"  wrote:

Chris,
>
>I know this was a reply to Edgar's post below, but I wasn't sure if it was in 
>support or qualifying his post.
>
>I agree with you that the 'your' part of 'your mind' is the critical qualifier 
>that signals illusion.  This is because it signals dualism.
>
>So yes, I do claim forms arise in the duality created by 'your mind'.  If 
>'your mind' does not exist then duality does not exist; then there is only the 
>One Mind, the Original Mind - Buddha Nature.
>
>...Bill!
>
>--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane  wrote:
>>
>> "Your mind".
>>
>> I think the illusory word there is your, moreso than mind.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Chris
>> 301-270-6524
>>  On May 26, 2013 5:10 AM, "Edgar Owen"  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Bill,
>> >
>> > NO!
>> >
>> > You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind.
>> >
>> > But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises.
>> >
>> > I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does not
>> > exist!
>> >
>> > Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality of mind
>> > and not mind.
>> >
>> > So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind does not
>> > yet exist when the forms arise.
>> >
>> > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any mind.
>> >
>> > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise in mind
>> > OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
>> >
>> > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the fundamental
>> > reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of
>> > experiencer and experienced.
>> >
>> > < div>Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead wrong...
>> >
>> > At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
>> >
>> > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for that is all
>> > that is possible for anything to arise within.
>> >
>> > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are reality,
>> > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
>> >
>> >
>> > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and obvious.
>> >
>> > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't
>> > confuse you with them right now.
>> >
>> > Edgar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Siska,
>> >
>> > No, unfortunately not.
>> >
>> > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree with
>> > what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I have
>> > stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
>> >
>> > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently of us
>> > and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the structures
>> > and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
>> >
>> > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar claims they
>> > are part of reality.
>> >
>> > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are semantic,
>> > but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
>> >
>> > Other than that all is well...Bill!
>> >
>> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
>> > >
>> > > :-)
>> > > Siska
>> > > -Original Message-
>> > > From: Edgar Owen 
>> > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25
>> > > To: 
>> > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
>> > >
>> > > Bill,
>> > >
>> > > Total agreement as stated.
>> > >
>> &g

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Bill!]

forms arise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any
> > > > mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise
> > in
> > > > mind
> > > > > > OR external world, since these are both forms that arise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the
> > fundamental
> > > > > > reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of
> > > > > > experiencer and experienced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > < div>Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead
> > > > wrong...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At the most fundamental level forms just arise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for
> > that is
> > > > all
> > > > > > that is possible for anything to arise within.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are
> > reality,
> > > > > > because reality is the totality of all that exists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and
> > > > obvious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't
> > > > > > confuse you with them right now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edgar
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Siska,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, unfortunately not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree
> > > > with
> > > > > > what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what I
> > have
> > > > > > stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently
> > of
> > > > us
> > > > > > and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create the
> > > > structures
> > > > > > and superimpose it upon our experiences to create our perceptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar
> > claims
> > > > they
> > > > > > are part of reality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are
> > > > semantic,
> > > > > > but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Other than that all is well...Bill!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > Siska
> > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25
> > > > > > > To: 
> > > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in
> > > > reality
> > > > > > instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole meaning..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Edgar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

Bill,

I agree the effectiveness of a Bodhisattva is also important. And I certainly 
wish I were more effective in the way I present the truth of Zen.

However when minds are closed to the truth there are limits to what a 
Bodhisattva can teach. So from that perspective it's always better just to cut 
through to the bare truth whether it falls on an open mind or not.

The problem with coddling emotionally needy feelings and delusions is that it 
tends to reinforce them.

On the other hand just telling the bare truth like I do tends to elicit all 
sorts of defensive ego mechanisms.

So what's a Bodhisattva to do? 

In my case just give up and go back to writing my book I guess.
:-)

Edgar



On May 26, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Joe wrote:

> Bill!, Chris,
> 
> A bodhisattva might still take on the conventionalization of a "your", or a 
> "my", just so as not to weird you out, and to be of help or service. This too 
> is called Compassion.
> 
> It's not impossible to do this, even in the awakened state. Mind you, it may 
> not be easy, but it's not impossible. Not once you see, after a while, what's 
> at stake, and feel one's true responsibility to be not only "honest", but 
> effective. This is the depth and sincerity of the life and career of a 
> bodhisattva. You've got to walk all sides of the street, not just two sides, 
> ...or One! Especially NOT one!
> 
> Dualism bites. But not if you're un-bitten. Then you can use it for the sake 
> of all beings. And you had better: it's "one" of the best tools in our 
> medical bag.
> 
> But don't try this at Home, unless you've been to the trenches, please. Go to 
> the trenches, NOW.
> 
> --Joe
> 
> > "Bill!"  wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> > 
> > I know this was a reply to Edgar's post below, but I wasn't sure if it was 
> > in support or qualifying his post.
> > 
> > I agree with you that the 'your' part of 'your mind' is the critical 
> > qualifier that signals illusion. This is because it signals dualism.
> > 
> > So yes, I do claim forms arise in the duality created by 'your mind'. If 
> > 'your mind' does not exist then duality does not exist; then there is only 
> > the One Mind, the Original Mind - Buddha Nature.
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Edgar Owen]

gt; > > > > > Edgar
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Siska,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No, unfortunately not.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to 
> > > > > > > agree with what I've stated but then slips in one word that 
> > > > > > > corrupts what I have stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists 
> > > > > > > independently of us and we perceive it with our intellect. I 
> > > > > > > believe we create the structures and superimpose it upon our 
> > > > > > > experiences to create our perceptions.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar 
> > > > > > > claims they are part of reality.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are 
> > > > > > > semantic, but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Other than that all is well...Bill! 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > Siska
> > > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> > > > > > > > To: 
> > > > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Bill,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist 
> > > > > > > > in reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the 
> > > > > > > > whole meaning..
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Edgar
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Siska,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar 
> > > > > > > > > opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll 
> > > > > > > > > probably disagree with this statement ;>) and will certainly 
> > > > > > > > > jump all over the rest of this post.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > > > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > > > > > > - Rumi
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the 
> > > > > > > > > waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and 
> > > > > > > > > then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing 
> > > > > > > > > himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My 
> > > > > > > > > interpretation of it is:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. 
> > > > > > > > > The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 
> > > > > > > > > 'self' as something independent and apart from everything 
> > > > > > > > > else has vanished with it. It has vanished into sea which is 
> > > > > > > > > a metaphor for emptiness.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has 
> > > > > > > > > been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This 
> > > > > > > > > alternation between holism and dualism, between emptiness and 
> > > > > > > > > self happens regularly, much like the waves surging 
> > > > > > > > > rhythmically upon the beach. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, 
> > > > > > > > > perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things 
> > > > > > > > > appear.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these 
> > > > > > > > > illusions melt back into emptiness.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to 
> > > > > > > > > see what Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost 
> > > > > > > > > write it for him...
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ...Bill!
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill,
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Siska
> > > > > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > > > > > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > > > > > > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > ..Bill!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Nice Quote

[Joe]

Edgar,

quoting:
"However when minds are closed to the truth...".

Talk about a dueling-dualist, out for a duel! (note: this is not Zen, but not 
everything has to be).

Try "coddling".  It's a good Yoga.

The world will turn around, and you will see it aright.

Just a suggestion of a Method.

In Vipassana, it is called the Practice of Metta.

In Zen practice, there is no explicit Metta practice that is traditional; 
instead the whole program of Zen work is devoted to the aim of opening and 
freeing the heart of (true) Compassion.

There is no other purpose of (traditional; authentic; orthodox; Tathagatha- ; 
or Patriarchal-Zen) practice.

Shakyamuni started this ball rolling or wheel turning when he got up from his 
seat after seeing Venus that morning, and this same heart has been transmitted 
down 87 generations.  I am the 87th generation (you may be older, say the 86th 
gen.).

One American Zen master in S. Suzuki's line (S. Francisco) is working on 
including Metta practice in Zen training explicitly, intentionally.  We'll see 
how it goes.  He's written and published some things about it: he is Norm 
Zoketsu Fischer, Roshi; in the Bay Area (USA).  Granted, it's not traditional, 
but innovations may yet be possible that have escaped inclusion during the past 
1500 years.  As we know, everything depends on and lives according to "causes 
and conditions".

It's not for us to present the truth of Zen: it is for us -- real Bodhisattvas 
-- to function in accord with Wisdom and Compassion.  If that is the truth, 
then so be it.  The best and only true presentation is Compassion.  Just as it 
arises.  You may quote me in your book.  Email me and I'll send correct 
spelling of my full name.  Thanks, and best,

--Joe

> Edgar Owen  wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> I agree the effectiveness of a Bodhisattva is also important. And I certainly 
> wish I were more effective in the way I present the truth of Zen.
> 
> However when minds are closed to the truth there are limits to what a 
> Bodhisattva can teach. So from that perspective it's always better just to 
> cut through to the bare truth whether it falls on an open mind or not.
> 
> The problem with coddling emotionally needy feelings and delusions is that it 
> tends to reinforce them.
> 
> On the other hand just telling the bare truth like I do tends to elicit all 
> sorts of defensive ego mechanisms.
> 
> So what's a Bodhisattva to do? 
> 
> In my case just give up and go back to writing my book I guess.
> :-)






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] Nice Quote/Poem

[Merle Lester]

 beautiful..and so to the point!..merle


  
"My life may appear melancholy,
But travelling through this world
I have entrusted myself to Heaven.
In my sack, three sho of rice;
By the hearth, a bundle of firewood.
If someone asks what is the mark of enlightenment or illusion,
I cannot say...wealth and honor are nothing but dust,
As the evening rain falls I sit in my hermitage
And stretch out both feet in answer." - Daigu Ryokan (1758-1831)

[source: thegreenleaf.co.uk]