Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Merle Lester]

 what a mouthful...all about what is real and what is not..jesus... what till 
dementia gets ya..what's real then?..merle


  
Edgar,

I got up this morning, had a cup of tea and settled in to watch CNN 360 when a 
neighbor had an emergency which captured my attention so I am just now able to 
attend to your post.

I'm feeling very generous this morning so I will forgo the usual 'tough love' 
and concentrate instead on 'kumyaya love'...

As usual my comments are embedded below: 

> > Bill!
> > 
> > Realty is what exists in the present moment. It includes Buddha Nature and 
> > everything including all the forms and any illusions that exist in the 
> > present moment by manifesting Buddha Nature. But the fundamental reality of 
> > all these forms is Buddha Nature only.

[Bill!] Okay.  I think then I can say that our differences in the way we use 
the term 'reality' is that I call 'reality' what you call 'fundamental 
reality', and you call 'reality' what I call 'reality' plus 'illusions'.  Or 
symbolically:
[Bill]  REALITY = Fundamental Reality = Buddha Nature
[EDGAR] FUNDAMENTAL REALITY = Buddha Nature
REALITY = Fundamental Reality + Illusions.

> > Illusions are the differences between an organism's simulation of reality 
> > in its mind and reality itself as it actually exists...

[Bill!]  Agreed!

> > PS: I actually agree with you that all that exists is experience, but that 
> > experience is not just in YOUR mind. That's the major disagreement I think 
> > I have with you. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you call 'Your' mind is a 
> > complex of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not 
> > self.

[Bill!]  I do agree with you that his area is an area of disagreement if I'm 
understanding you correctly.  To put it in simple terms, I believe Reality is 
ONLY what you experience and there is no more.  An example:  Right now I hear 
the sound of a rooster crowing outside my window.  The SOUND is REALITY, and it 
is the SUM TOTAL of reality.  It is experienced by Buddha Nature - in fact the 
very EXPERIENCE itself IS Buddha Nature.  The inferences that the sound is from 
a rooster, and that the rooster is something separate from me, and that it is 
in a different location than me, etc..., are all products of my dualistic mind, 
and are what I generalize and term as 'illusion'.  And this INCLUDES 
inferences, and projections that lead me to believe there are other roosters 
living in the USA or France.  I am not experiencing them.  The 'idea' of them 
is just that, an idea, an inference - or what I generalize and term illusions.  
And I do include logical
 inferences in this category.  I maintain Illusions do not exist in Buddha 
Nature because again I believe Buddha Nature is sensory experience only, or 
what you have called above 'Fundamental Reality'.  I believe our logical 
inferences what cascade out from our experience are not 'Fundamental Reality' 
have a dualistic base so are part of our discriminating mind, not of Buddha 
Nature. 

I am also uncomfortable with your characterization of what you think I believe 
as "What you call 'Your' mind is a complex of forms IN experience as it becomes 
categorized into self and not self."  That's close, but you need to again be 
very careful about the terms.  I do believe Buddha Nature (singular) is 
Experience, is Reality.  I do believe 'our individual discriminating minds' 
(plural)when they arise then create dualism which allows for the dualistic set 
of Reality/Illusions.  If there is no dualism, only Buddha Nature there is only 
Reality - no Illusions.  Or as I say (and I know you're sick of reading it but 
it's the best I can do...) Just THIS! 

> > Experience itself is raw and unmediated. Experience itself is reality. 

[Bill!]  Yes!  Yes!  Yes!

> >It consists of forms manifesting Buddha Nature.
[Bill!] Reality/Experience is Emptiness.  Forms are generated and imposed by 
our discriminating minds.  Emptiness is Emptiness.  Forms are Forms.  They are 
not interchangeable.

> >Many if not all of those forms are illusory. But they are reality when 
> >recognized as illusory. They are illusory only when taken as reality.

[Bill!]  Some of those Forms are based on Reality/Experience and some are not, 
but even those based on inferences about Reality/Experience are not Reality, 
they are Forms.  I say all Forms are Illusory - dualistic products of our 
discriminating minds. 

> > All that exists is Xperience (I use this more general term because it 
> > applies equally well to all things, not just human minds). Even the most 
> > profound and complex intellectual theory ultimately exists only as 
> > experience, as the experience of its forms.

[Bill!]  I'm not sure about this new (to me) term 'Xperience'.  How does that 
differ from 'Experience', or is it just a short-hand way of writing 
'Experience'?  Anyway I disagree with the last phrase of your last sentence 
above: "...as the experience of its forms."  You don't Experience Forms

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Bill!

Realty is what exists in the present moment. It includes Buddha Nature and 
everything including all the forms and any illusions that exist in the present 
moment by manifesting Buddha Nature. But the fundamental reality of all these 
forms is Buddha Nature only.

Illusions are the differences between an organism's simulation of reality in 
its mind and reality itself as it actually exists...


PS: I actually agree with you that all that exists is experience, but that 
experience is not just in YOUR mind. That's the major disagreement I think I 
have with you. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you call 'Your' mind is a complex 
of forms IN experience as it becomes categorized into self and not self.

Experience itself is raw and unmediated. Experience itself is reality. It 
consists of forms manifesting Buddha Nature. Many if not all of those forms are 
illusory. But they are reality when recognized as illusory. They are illusory 
only when taken as reality.

All that exists is Xperience (I use this more general term because it applies 
equally well to all things, not just human minds). Even the most profound and 
complex intellectual theory ultimately exists only as experience, as the 
experience of its forms.

All that exists is Xperience only. Reality is not at its most fundamental level 
a physical structure. It consists of Xperience, the Xperience of everything in 
the universe of everything else. Your Experience is just part of that overall 
structure...

First is xperience, then it's categorized and analyzed and theorized, but 
ultimately it all remains xperience only, the xperience of those processes...

Including my experience of thinking and writing this right now..

Thus it is clear that experience has a logical structure. And since xperience 
is the ultimate reality, that ultimate reality must also have a logical 
structure.

Our basic disagreement as I see it is that recognizing this I embrace this 
logical structure of experience as a manifestation of the reality of Buddha 
Nature since, as we agree, experience is the ONLY reality, and it has a logical 
structure, while you throw up your hands and deny that part of experience is 
reality, and claim only the formless aspect of Buddha nature you experience 
while doing zazen is reality.

As I say over and over, ALL of experience is reality, all of experience 
manifests Buddha Nature, not just the formless aspect of it.



Edgar



On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar,
> 
> I've yet to see a set of succinct definitions of what you mean by 'reality' 
> and 'illusions'. How about taking the list I posted and tell us what your 
> definitions are?
> 
> And try to keep the definitions to a couple sentences.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > ED,
> > 
> > I've been trying to do just that in almost every one of my posts since I've 
> > been here but apparently not well enough...
> > :-(
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:41 AM, ED wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Edgar,
> > > 
> > > What you mean by 'reality' is different from what Bill! means by 
> > > 'reality'. In a recent post, Bill! has stated in some detail the meaning 
> > > he attaches to the word 'reality. You may want to define what you mean by 
> > > 'reality'. Then, we may be able to see how and why you two are in 
> > > disagreement over 'reality'.
> > > 
> > > --ED
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill!
> > > > 
> > > > Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street 
> > > > without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no 
> > > > logical structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in 
> > > > her mind as an illusion and not reality.
> > > > 
> > > > It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on 
> > > > the street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses 
> > > > are real and you can really get killed running out in front of one 
> > > > BECAUSE REALITY HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE 
> > > > and that my friend is NOT an illusion...
> > > > 
> > > > I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that 
> > > > each of us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our 
> > > > respective minds. But because our mental models of reality are 
> > > > imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what they model, the laws of nature, 
> > > > do not exist
> > > > 
> > > > Edgar
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Kristopher Grey]

On 9/5/2012 8:26 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
> I must say this whole line of discussion has been profoundly 
> disappointing to me. 



A bowl full of rice
A bowl full of emptiness
A bowl full of shit

KG




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

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

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

<*> To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

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

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

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Merle Lester]

we are the everyman...merle
 
Merle
www.wix.com/merlewiitpom/1



 From: Anthony Wu 
To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
 

  
JMJM,
 
Bill! (not Bill) is always somebody. You are also somebody by claiming you are 
nobody. Good argument.
 
Anthony

From: 覺妙精明 （JMJM） 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 22:46
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl


  
Hi Bill,

You are still trying to show me that you are somebody.  Sorry.

I have come to realized that only when we realized that we are truly nobody, 
then we could be everybody.  Then we see the wisdom in everything.

jm


On 9/5/2012 11:31 PM, Bill! wrote:

  
>JMJM,
>
>Thanks for your post. I also posted something recently that you probably had 
>not read before you posted this. That post mirrors some of what you say, only 
>refers to style rather than perspective.
>
>Thanks...Bill!
>
>--- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） 
>mailto:chan.jmjm@... wrote:
>>
>> Hello Bill and all,
>> 
>> Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives
>> 
>> Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as 
>> orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly 
>> qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do.
>> 
>> The
 practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, 
>> so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize 
>> the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, 
>> especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the 
>> first place.
>> 
>> All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach 
>> from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out 
>> who is who, but for each of us to reflect on.
>> 
>> This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So 
>> that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect 
>> inwardly and wake up from our dream.
>> 
>> The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the 
>> value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our 
>> awakening, we will realize that all are
 valuable, all are similar and 
>> all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness.
>> 
>> We argue, because we don't have the whole picture.
>> 
>> jm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote:
>> >
>> > JMJM,
>> >
>> > You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with 
>> > Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street 
>> > without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so.
>> >
>> > I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. 
>> > Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she 
>> > along can decide what's best for her.
>> >
>> > I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views 
>> > on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright 
>> >
 detrimental at worst.
>> >
>> > ...Bill!
>> >
>> > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com 
>> > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, 
>> > 覺妙精明 （JMJM）  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is
>> > > attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to "help" Merle
>> > > by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL
>> > >
>> > > :-)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>> > >
 >
>> > > > Kristopher,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!
>> > > >
>> > > > Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached 
>> > to it...
>> > > >
>> > > > Edgar
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to
>> > &g

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Anthony Wu]

JMJM,
 
Bill! (not Bill) is always somebody. You are also somebody by claiming you are 
nobody. Good argument.
 
Anthony



From: 覺妙精明 （JMJM） 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 22:46
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl


  
Hi Bill,

You are still trying to show me that you are somebody.  Sorry.

I have come to realized that only when we realized that we are truly nobody, 
then we could be everybody.  Then we see the wisdom in everything.

jm


On 9/5/2012 11:31 PM, Bill! wrote:

  
>JMJM,
>
>Thanks for your post. I also posted something recently that you probably had 
>not read before you posted this. That post mirrors some of what you say, only 
>refers to style rather than perspective.
>
>Thanks...Bill!
>
>--- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） 
>mailto:chan.jmjm@... wrote:
>>
>> Hello Bill and all,
>> 
>> Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives
>> 
>> Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as 
>> orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly 
>> qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do.
>> 
>> The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, 
>> so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize 
>> the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, 
>> especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the 
>> first place.
>> 
>> All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach 
>> from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out 
>> who is who, but for each of us to reflect on.
>> 
>> This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So 
>> that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect 
>> inwardly and wake up from our dream.
>> 
>> The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the 
>> value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our 
>> awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and 
>> all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness.
>> 
>> We argue, because we don't have the whole picture.
>> 
>> jm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote:
>> >
>> > JMJM,
>> >
>> > You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with 
>> > Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street 
>> > without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so.
>> >
>> > I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. 
>> > Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she 
>> > along can decide what's best for her.
>> >
>> > I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views 
>> > on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright 
>> > detrimental at worst.
>> >
>> > ...Bill!
>> >
>> > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com 
>> > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, 
>> > 覺妙精明 （JMJM）  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is
>> > > attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to "help" Merle
>> > > by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL
>> > >
>> > > :-)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Kristopher,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!
>> > > >
>> > > > Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached 
>> > to it...
>> > > >
>> > > > Edgar
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to
>> > > >> maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent
>> > > >> origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this
>> > > >> neediness t

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[覺妙精明 （JMJM）]

Hi Bill,

You are still trying to show me that you are somebody.  Sorry.

I have come to realized that only when we realized that we are truly 
nobody, then we could be everybody.  Then we see the wisdom in everything.


jm

On 9/5/2012 11:31 PM, Bill! wrote:


JMJM,

Thanks for your post. I also posted something recently that you 
probably had not read before you posted this. That post mirrors some 
of what you say, only refers to style rather than perspective.


Thanks...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
覺妙精明 （JMJM）  wrote:

>
> Hello Bill and all,
>
> Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives
>
> Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as
> orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly
> qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do.
>
> The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external 
information,

> so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize
> the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others,
> especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the
> first place.
>
> All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach
> from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out
> who is who, but for each of us to reflect on.
>
> This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So
> that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect
> inwardly and wake up from our dream.
>
> The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the
> value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our
> awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and
> all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness.
>
> We argue, because we don't have the whole picture.
>
> jm
>
>
>
>
> On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> >
> > You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with
> > Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the 
street

> > without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so.
> >
> > I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene.
> > Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so 
she

> > along can decide what's best for her.
> >
> > I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views
> > on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright
> > detrimental at worst.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
 
,

> > 覺妙精明 （JMJM）  wrote:
> > >
> > > I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is
> > > attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to 
"help" Merle

> > > by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kristopher,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!
> > > >
> > > > Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached
> > to it...
> > > >
> > > > Edgar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the 
sledgehammer!

> > > >>
> > > >> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to
> > > >> maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no 
independent

> > > >> origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this
> > > >> neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and 
ultimately
> > > >> won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When 
this is

> > > >> perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your
> > > >> ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your 
sense of

> > > >> lack, your suffering.
> > > >>
> > > >> Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a
> > form of
> > > >> recognition. Same.
> > > >>
> > > >> KG
> > > >>
> > > >> On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> O, for God's sakes Bill!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age
> > > >>> nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your
> > lips.
> > > >>> Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Edgar
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  Edgar (no longer and Merle),
> > > 
> > >  After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize 
food is

> > not
> > >  essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.
> > > 
> > >  Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may
> > >  choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your
> > choice.
> > >  But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dua

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

ED,

I've been trying to do just that in almost every one of my posts since I've 
been here but apparently not well enough...
:-(

Edgar



On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:41 AM, ED wrote:

> 
> 
>  
> Edgar,
> 
> What you mean by 'reality' is different from what Bill! means by 'reality'. 
> In a recent post, Bill! has stated in some detail the meaning he attaches to 
> the word 'reality. You may want to define what you mean by 'reality'. Then, 
> we may be able to see how and why you two are in disagreement over 'reality'.
> 
> --ED
> 
>  
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Bill!
> > 
> > Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street 
> > without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no logical 
> > structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in her mind as 
> > an illusion and not reality.
> > 
> > It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on the 
> > street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses are real 
> > and you can really get killed running out in front of one BECAUSE REALITY 
> > HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend 
> > is NOT an illusion...
> > 
> > I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that each of 
> > us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our respective minds. 
> > But because our mental models of reality are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN 
> > that what they model, the laws of nature, do not exist
> > 
> > Edgar
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Bill!

Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street without 
looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no logical structure and 
thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in her mind as an illusion and 
not reality.

It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on the 
street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses are real and 
you can really get killed running out in front of one BECAUSE REALITY HAS A 
LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend is NOT an 
illusion...

I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that each of us 
models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our respective minds. But 
because our mental models of reality are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what 
they model, the laws of nature, do not exist

Edgar




On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Bill! wrote:

> JMJM,
> 
> You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. 
> It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without 
> looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so.
> 
> I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a 
> big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide 
> what's best for her.
> 
> I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen 
> are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM）  
> wrote:
> >
> > I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is 
> > attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to "help" Merle 
> > by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL
> > 
> > :-)
> > 
> > 
> > On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> > >
> > > Kristopher,
> > >
> > >
> > > You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!
> > >
> > > Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached to it...
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!
> > >>
> > >> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to 
> > >> maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent 
> > >> origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this 
> > >> neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately 
> > >> won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is 
> > >> perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your 
> > >> ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of 
> > >> lack, your suffering.
> > >>
> > >> Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of 
> > >> recognition. Same.
> > >>
> > >> KG
> > >>
> > >> On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> O, for God's sakes Bill!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age 
> > >>> nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. 
> > >>> Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!
> > >>>
> > >>> Edgar
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Edgar (no longer and Merle),
> > 
> >  After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
> >  essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.
> > 
> >  Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may 
> >  choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. 
> >  But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic 
> >  thought is fundamentally illusion (not real).
> > 
> >  ...Bill!
> > 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Bill!

I'm not "patronizing" you but I do assume you mean what you say. Should I not?

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar,
> 
> Please don't patronize me.
> 
> We have been talking in metaphors and my post and statmemts are just a 
> continuation of that. When I say 'after enlightenment you do not need to eat' 
> I am extending the metaphor of the rice gruel and bowl. I'll say it a little 
> plainer for you: 'After enlightenment you don't need to study Buddhist sutras 
> or try to understand anything, because you realize then Buddha Nature is not 
> about understanding.'
> 
> Understand? Want more tea? ...or can you see your cup is overflowing already?
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > O, for God's sakes Bill!
> > 
> > You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense 
> > and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened 
> > people don't need to eat! Sheesh!
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > Edgar (no longer and Merle),
> > > 
> > > After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
> > > essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.
> > > 
> > > Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to 
> > > bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after 
> > > realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is 
> > > fundamentally illusion (not real).
> > > 
> > > ...Bill! 
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill! and Merle,
> > > > 
> > > > Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of 
> > > > washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen 
> > > > consists of using information because even after realization you are 
> > > > still living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon 
> > > > realization, the world of forms is still there exactly as it was 
> > > > before, you just now realize it for what it really is - the 
> > > > manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart 
> > > > from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe...
> > > > 
> > > > Edgar
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Merle,
> > > > > 
> > > > > A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to 
> > > > > Edgar and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling 
> > > > > your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a 
> > > > > zen koan. The koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE 
> > > > > GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it again:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, "I have just entered the 
> > > > > monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. "Joshu 
> > > > > asked, "Have you eaten your rice gruel yet?" The monk answered, "Yes, 
> > > > > I have." Joshu said, "Then wash your bowls." The monk attained some 
> > > > > realization."
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding 
> > > > > Buddha Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice 
> > > > > gruel' to represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' 
> > > > > to represent your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational 
> > > > > mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you 
> > > > > learned all about Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all 
> > > > > that because it is only with an empty mind free from the illusions of 
> > > > > duality and its products that you will be able to realize Buddha 
> > > > > Nature.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. 
> > > > > You ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all 
> > > > > I've seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the 
> > > > > severity of your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, 
> > > > > but it won't ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of 
> > > > > the story he spoons more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's 
> > > > > fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory 
> > > > > anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to attachments, an 
> > > > > end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the creation of 
> > > > > duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what Joshu 
> > > > > refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'.
> > > > > 
> > > > > There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen 
> > > > > Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is 
> > > > > obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop 
> > > > > trying to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first 
> > > > > step i

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[mike brown]

JMJM,

I can't find the post where you referred to the "jhanas", but I've never seen 
you refere to them before. What do you understand by them and do they play an 
important role in your practice?

Mike




 From: 覺妙精明 （JMJM） 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Cc: Bill!  
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 6:11
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
 

  
Hello Bill and all,

Thank you for responding.  If I may share some perspectives

Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert.  Some of us grew up as
orchid in a pot.  One can not truly experience the other.  No one
truly qualify to judge another.  Yet our ego still do.

The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external
information, so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives.  Chan
always emphasize the importance of not to judge externally the
practice of others, especially when comes to dharma, especially when
they are forms in the first place.

All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and
detach from dharma.  This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to
point out who is who, but for each of us to reflect on.

This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. 
So that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect
inwardly and wake up from our dream.

The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the
value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our
awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar
and all end up in the same place.  We label that as oneness.

We argue, because we don't have the whole picture.

jm





On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote:

  
>JMJM,
>
>You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by
  disagreeing with Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told
  Merle to run out into the street without looking and I
  disagreed with his advice and told her so.
>
>I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to
  intervene. Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately
  responsible for herself so she along can decide what's
  best for her.
>
>I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I
  think his views on zen are misleading at best and
  counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst.
>
>...Bill!
>
>--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM）  
>wrote:
>>
>> I sense Bill's continual insistence of his
  disagreement. Bill! is 
>> attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so
  hard to "help" Merle 
>> by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL
>> 
>> :-)
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>> >
>> > Kristopher,
>> >
>> >
>> > You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!
>> >
>> > Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless
  you are attached to it...
>> >
>> > Edgar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey
  wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you
  ignore the sledgehammer!
>> >>
>> >> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying
  food is required to 
>> >> maintain a body, that forms appear to
  maintain forms (no independent 
>> >> origination) - he is denying this assumption
  of "have to" - this 
>> >> neediness that goes with it. You don't need
  to live, and ultimately 
>> >> won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if
  you are able. When this is 
>> >> perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering
  will arise over your 
>> >> ability to do so, over thoughts of death.
  Your needs, your sense of 
>> >> lack, your suffering.
>> >>
>> >> Disagreement itself, a form of suffering.
  Misunderstanding, a form of 
>> >> recognition. Same.
>> >>
>> >> KG
>> >>
>> >> On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> O, for God's sakes Bill!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> You are certifiable! I've never heard
  such metaphysical New Age 
>> >>> nonsense and certainly never expected it
  to come from your lips. 
>> >>> Enlightened people don't need to eat!
  Sheesh!
>> >>>
>> >>> Edgar
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Edgar (no longer and Merle),
>> >>>>
>> >>>> After enlightenment you do not have
  to eat. You realize food is not 
>> >>>> essential. You may choose to eat,
  but you don't have to.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Illusions do vanish upon realization
  of Buddha Nature. You may 
>> >>>> choose to bring them back or they
  may reappear without your choice. 
>> >>>> But after realizing Buddha Nature
  you know that all dualistic 
>> >>>> thought is fundamentally illusion
  (not real).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ...Bill!
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Merle Lester]

 bill i understand where you and edgar are coming from... edgar has a point and 
so do you... merle


  
JMJM,

You sense correctly.  I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar.  
It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without looking 
and I disagreed with his advice and told her so.

I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene.  Merle's a big 
girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide 
what's best for her.

I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen 
are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM）  wrote:
>
> I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement.  Bill! is 
> attached to it.  Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to "help" Merle 
> by disagreeing with Edgar.  LOL
> 
> :-)
> 
> 
> On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> >
> > Kristopher,
> >
> >
> > You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!
> >
> > Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached to it...
> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!
> >>
> >> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to 
> >> maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent 
> >> origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this 
> >> neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately 
> >> won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is 
> >> perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your 
> >> ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of 
> >> lack, your suffering.
> >>
> >> Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of 
> >> recognition. Same.
> >>
> >> KG
> >>
> >> On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> O, for God's sakes Bill!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age 
> >>> nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. 
> >>> Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!
> >>>
> >>> Edgar
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >>>
>  Edgar (no longer and Merle),
> 
>  After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
>  essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.
> 
>  Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may 
>  choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. 
>  But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic 
>  thought is fundamentally illusion (not real).
> 
>  ...Bill!
> 
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>


 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[覺妙精明 （JMJM）]

Hello Bill and all,

Thank you for responding.  If I may share some perspectives

Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert.  Some of us grew up as 
orchid in a pot.  One can not truly experience the other.  No one truly 
qualify to judge another.  Yet our ego still do.


The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, 
so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives.  Chan always emphasize 
the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, 
especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the 
first place.


All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach 
from dharma.  This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out 
who is who, but for each of us to reflect on.


This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So 
that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect 
inwardly and wake up from our dream.


The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the 
value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our 
awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and 
all end up in the same place.  We label that as oneness.


We argue, because we don't have the whole picture.

jm




On 9/5/2012 8:24 PM, Bill! wrote:


JMJM,

You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with 
Edgar. It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street 
without looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so.


I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. 
Merle's a big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she 
along can decide what's best for her.


I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views 
on zen are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright 
detrimental at worst.


...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
覺妙精明 （JMJM）  wrote:

>
> I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is
> attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to "help" Merle
> by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL
>
> :-)
>
>
> On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> >
> > Kristopher,
> >
> >
> > You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!
> >
> > Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached 
to it...

> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!
> >>
> >> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to
> >> maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent
> >> origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this
> >> neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately
> >> won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is
> >> perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your
> >> ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of
> >> lack, your suffering.
> >>
> >> Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a 
form of

> >> recognition. Same.
> >>
> >> KG
> >>
> >> On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> O, for God's sakes Bill!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age
> >>> nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your 
lips.

> >>> Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!
> >>>
> >>> Edgar
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >>>
>  Edgar (no longer and Merle),
> 
>  After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is 
not

>  essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.
> 
>  Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may
>  choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your 
choice.

>  But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic
>  thought is fundamentally illusion (not real).
> 
>  ...Bill!
> 
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Merle Lester]

 yes so true edgar..merle

Read Lao Tse. The bowl's usefulness is in its emptiness...

Edgar

On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Bill! wrote:

> --BfD3b3XoZLrm8ULEs65dKkxGL0L4HCs5O3qrWRW
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Edgar,
> 
> Following the analogy, when you empty your bowl you find you no longer need=
> a bowl.  It is THEN that you can experience Buddha Nature.  You do not exp=
> erience Buddha Nature in the bowl.
> 
> ...Bill!=20=20
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> 
>> Bill! and Merle,
>> =20
>> It is impossible to empty your bowl. Empty it and reality immediately ref=
> ills it with Buddha Nature...
>> =20
>> The bowl is ALWAYS full!
>> =20
>> Edgar
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> =20
>>> Merle,
>>> =20
>>> I forgot to respond to your second question.
>>> =20
>>> You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of =
> the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the con=
> tents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you =
> want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least=
> temporarily.
>>> =20
>>> ...Bill!
>>> =20
>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
 
 =20
 =20
 =C2=20
 =C2 please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the b=
> owl shared with others?...merle
 =C2=20=20
 KG,
 =20
 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl.=
> Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and puttin=
> g more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way =
> or the other.
 =20
 If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Natu=
> re) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choic=
> e to be made.
 =20
 ...Bill!
 =20
 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey  wrote:
> 
> Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying =
> your=20
> bowl.
> =20
> KG
> =20
> =20
> On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
>> 
>> Merle,
>> 
>> You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do hav=
> e a=20
>> choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become=20
>> attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not =
> to do=20
>> and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill=
> !
>> 
>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com  com>,=20
>> Merle Lester  wrote:
>>> 
>>> =C3=82 take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choic=
> e ..merle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =C3=82
>>> Merle,
>>> 
 that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the d=
> ay
>>> 
>>> Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; )
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Merle Lester 
>>> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com  com>"=20
>> mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>
>>> Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31
>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =C3=82
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =C3=82 that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through=
> the=20
>> day...merle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the=
> =20
>> story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things ar=
> e=20
>> going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming cras=
> hing=20
>> down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or you=
> r=20
>> girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as =
> being=20
>> mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the worl=
> d in=20
>> such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here =
> quite=20
>> easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on =
> 'real=20
>> world' here]..
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Kristopher Grey 
>>> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com  om>
>>> Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34
>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =C3=82
>>> This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffe=
> r is=20
>> all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. W=
> hat=20
>> is this notion of "liberation from" but self relating to self? Wh=
> at=20
>> appears, appears. What of it?
>>> 
>>> Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No suc=
> h
>>> conceptual contortions required.
>>> 
>>> Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[mike brown]

Bill!,

Never doubted you!

Mike




 From: Bill! 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 15:01
Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
 

  
Mike,

You're absolutely right.  I plead guilty...but I did as you noticed state all 
that with a caveat...for whatever that's worth.  I knew I was skating on thin 
ice when I wrote that but it was the best I could do to try to reach Merle.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown  wrote:
>
> Bill!,
> 
> I appreciate that you began your post with a caveat that the meaning of 
> Joshu's 'wash your bowls' was just your opinion. However, isn't what you 
> wrote (rice-gruel = Buddhism) just a secondary meaning to the koan, and 
> worse, an intellectual overlay giving it a meaning in order to be understood. 
> Joshu's instruction to the monk to wash his bowl was exactly that - to go and 
> wash his bowl. Nothing added necessary because washing your bowl, with 
> nothing added, manifests Buddha Nature. Reminds me of the Watts quote where 
> he states that spirituality in Christianity is washing the dishes while 
> thinking about God. Spirituality in Zen isjust washing the dishes.
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Bill! 
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 10:02
> Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
> 
> 
>   
> Merle,
> 
> A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and 
> after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all 
> sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan.  The koan is 
> entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection.  
> I'll repeat it again:
> 
> "A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, "I have just entered the monastery.  
> I beg you, Master, please give me instructions.  "Joshu asked, "Have you 
> eaten your rice gruel yet?"  The monk answered, "Yes, I have."  Joshu said, 
> "Then wash your bowls."  The monk attained some realization."
> 
> In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha 
> Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel'  to represent 
> learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your 
> discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind.  IN MY OPINION what 
> Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism?  If 
> so then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty 
> mind free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be 
> able to realize Buddha Nature.
> 
> So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you.  You ask 
> about how to deal with attachments and he tells you.  From all I've seen it's 
> good advice.  His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments 
> or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end 
> them.  Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel 
> into your bowl.  That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of 
> which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to 
> attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the 
> creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings.  That is what 
> Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'.
> 
> There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism 
> is zazen (zen meditation).
> 
> I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed 
> with those.  I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 
> 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no 
> > bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with 
> > the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle
> >   
> > Merle,
> > 
> > I forgot to respond to your second question.
> > 
> > You may share your bowl with others.  Edgar is trying to share a lot of the 
> > contents of his bowl with you.  The problem is when he does that the 
> > contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if 
> > you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at 
> > least temporarily.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > >  please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the 
> > > bowl shared with others?...merle
> > >   
> > > KG,
> > > 
> > > 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl.  
> > > Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and 
> > > putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl.  Your illusory self can choose 
> > > one way or the other.
> > > 
> > > If you

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Kristopher Grey]

Such is your position.

KG

On 9/5/2012 12:41 PM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Kristopher,


Total nonsense in your second sentence...

Edgar


On Sep 5, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote:



Of the two of us, only you claim to know know Bill!'s delusions. 
What's your excuse?


If there is no attachment to a position, there is no disagreement, 
there are only apparent differences in expression.


KG



On 9/5/2012 11:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Kristopher,


You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!

Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached to 
it...


Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:



Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!

It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to 
maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no 
independent origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have 
to" - this neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and 
ultimately won't  (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. 
When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise 
over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, 
your sense of lack, your suffering.


Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form 
of recognition. Same.


KG

On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


O, for God's sakes Bill!


You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age 
nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your 
lips. Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!


Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:


Edgar (no longer and Merle),

After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is 
not essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.


Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may 
choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your 
choice. But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all 
dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion (not real).


...Bill!

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Kristopher,

Total nonsense in your second sentence...

Edgar


On Sep 5, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote:

> 
> Of the two of us, only you claim to know know Bill!'s delusions. What's your 
> excuse?
> 
> If there is no attachment to a position, there is no disagreement, there are 
> only apparent differences in expression.
> 
> KG
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/5/2012 11:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>>  
>> Kristopher,
>> 
>> 
>> You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!
>> 
>> Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached to it...
>> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!
>>> 
>>> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a 
>>> body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he 
>>> is denying this assumption of "have to" - this neediness that goes with it. 
>>> You don't need to live, and ultimately won't  (impermanence). When hungry, 
>>> eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering 
>>> will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, 
>>> your sense of lack, your suffering.
>>> 
>>> Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of 
>>> recognition. Same.
>>> 
>>> KG
>>> 
>>> On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
  
 O, for God's sakes Bill!
 
 
 You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense 
 and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened 
 people don't need to eat! Sheesh!
 
 Edgar
 
 
 
 On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
 
>  
> Edgar (no longer and Merle),
> 
> After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
> essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.
> 
> Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to 
> bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after 
> realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is 
> fundamentally illusion (not real).
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Kristopher Grey]

Of the two of us, only you claim to know know Bill!'s delusions. What's 
your excuse?


If there is no attachment to a position, there is no disagreement, there 
are only apparent differences in expression.


KG



On 9/5/2012 11:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Kristopher,


You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!

Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached to it...

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:



Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!

It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to 
maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent 
origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this 
neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately 
won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is 
perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your 
ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of 
lack, your suffering.


Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of 
recognition. Same.


KG

On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


O, for God's sakes Bill!


You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age 
nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. 
Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!


Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:


Edgar (no longer and Merle),

After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.


Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may 
choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. 
But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic 
thought is fundamentally illusion (not real).


...Bill!

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[覺妙精明 （JMJM）]

I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement.  Bill! is 
attached to it.  Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to "help" Merle 
by disagreeing with Edgar.  LOL


:-)


On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Kristopher,


You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!

Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached to it...

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:



Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!

It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to 
maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent 
origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this 
neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately 
won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is 
perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your 
ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of 
lack, your suffering.


Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of 
recognition. Same.


KG

On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


O, for God's sakes Bill!


You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age 
nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. 
Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!


Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:


Edgar (no longer and Merle),

After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.


Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may 
choose to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. 
But after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic 
thought is fundamentally illusion (not real).


...Bill!

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Kristopher,

You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions!

Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached to it...

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:

> 
> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!
> 
> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain a 
> body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) - he 
> is denying this assumption of "have to" - this neediness that goes with it. 
> You don't need to live, and ultimately won't  (impermanence). When hungry, 
> eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering 
> will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, 
> your sense of lack, your suffering.
> 
> Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of 
> recognition. Same.
> 
> KG
> 
> On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
>>  
>> O, for God's sakes Bill!
>> 
>> 
>> You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and 
>> certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people 
>> don't need to eat! Sheesh!
>> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> Edgar (no longer and Merle),
>>> 
>>> After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
>>> essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.
>>> 
>>> Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to 
>>> bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after 
>>> realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is 
>>> fundamentally illusion (not real).
>>> 
>>> ...Bill! 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Kristopher Grey]

Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer!

It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to maintain 
a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent origination) 
- he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this neediness that goes 
with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately won't  (impermanence). 
When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is perceived as need (AKA - 
lack), suffering will arise over your ability to do so, over thoughts of 
death. Your needs, your sense of lack, your suffering.


Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of 
recognition. Same.


KG

On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


O, for God's sakes Bill!


You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age 
nonsense and certainly never expected it to come from your lips. 
Enlightened people don't need to eat! Sheesh!


Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:


Edgar (no longer and Merle),

After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.


Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose 
to bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But 
after realizing Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is 
fundamentally illusion (not real).


...Bill!

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

O, for God's sakes Bill!

You are certifiable! I've never heard such metaphysical New Age nonsense and 
certainly never expected it to come from your lips. Enlightened people 
don't need to eat! Sheesh!

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar (no longer and Merle),
> 
> After enlightenment you do not have to eat. You realize food is not 
> essential. You may choose to eat, but you don't have to.
> 
> Illusions do vanish upon realization of Buddha Nature. You may choose to 
> bring them back or they may reappear without your choice. But after realizing 
> Buddha Nature you know that all dualistic thought is fundamentally illusion 
> (not real).
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> >
> > Bill! and Merle,
> > 
> > Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of 
> > washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen 
> > consists of using information because even after realization you are still 
> > living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the 
> > world of forms is still there exactly as it was before, you just now 
> > realize it for what it really is - the manifestation of Buddha Nature, 
> > rather than something standing apart from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to 
> > believe...
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > Merle,
> > > 
> > > A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar 
> > > and after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head 
> > > with all sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The 
> > > koan is entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE 
> > > collection. I'll repeat it again:
> > > 
> > > "A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, "I have just entered the 
> > > monastery. I beg you, Master, please give me instructions. "Joshu asked, 
> > > "Have you eaten your rice gruel yet?" The monk answered, "Yes, I have." 
> > > Joshu said, "Then wash your bowls." The monk attained some realization."
> > > 
> > > In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha 
> > > Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to 
> > > represent learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent 
> > > your discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION 
> > > what Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about 
> > > Buddhism? If so then you now have to discard all that because it is only 
> > > with an empty mind free from the illusions of duality and its products 
> > > that you will be able to realize Buddha Nature.
> > > 
> > > So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You 
> > > ask about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've 
> > > seen it's good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of 
> > > your attachments or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't 
> > > ever enable you to end them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons 
> > > more and more rice gruel into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a 
> > > lot of knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), but if what you're 
> > > really after is an end to attachments, an end to suffering, then you 
> > > should be looking to halt the creation of duality, illusion and the 
> > > attachments that brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your 
> > > bowls'.
> > > 
> > > There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen 
> > > Buddhism is zazen (zen meditation).
> > > 
> > > I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is 
> > > obsessed with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 
> > > 'understand' zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen.
> > > 
> > > ...Bill! 
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no 
> > > > bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's 
> > > > with the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle
> > > > Â 
> > > > Merle,
> > > > 
> > > > I forgot to respond to your second question.
> > > > 
> > > > You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of 
> > > > the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the 
> > > > contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later 
> > > > if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them 
> > > > - at least temporarily.
> > > > 
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > > 
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the 
> > > > > bowl shared with others?...merle
> > > > >  
> > > > > KG,
> > > > > 
> > > > > 'You' do have a choic

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Bill!,

Read Lao Tse. The bowl's usefulness is in its emptiness...

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Bill! wrote:

> --BfD3b3XoZLrm8ULEs65dKkxGL0L4HCs5O3qrWRW
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Edgar,
> 
> Following the analogy, when you empty your bowl you find you no longer need=
> a bowl.  It is THEN that you can experience Buddha Nature.  You do not exp=
> erience Buddha Nature in the bowl.
> 
> ...Bill!=20=20
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
>> 
>> Bill! and Merle,
>> =20
>> It is impossible to empty your bowl. Empty it and reality immediately ref=
> ills it with Buddha Nature...
>> =20
>> The bowl is ALWAYS full!
>> =20
>> Edgar
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Bill! wrote:
>> =20
>>> Merle,
>>> =20
>>> I forgot to respond to your second question.
>>> =20
>>> You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of =
> the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the con=
> tents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you =
> want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least=
> temporarily.
>>> =20
>>> ...Bill!
>>> =20
>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
 
 =20
 =20
 =C2=20
 =C2 please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the b=
> owl shared with others?...merle
 =C2=20=20
 KG,
 =20
 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl.=
> Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and puttin=
> g more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way =
> or the other.
 =20
 If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Natu=
> re) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choic=
> e to be made.
 =20
 ...Bill!
 =20
 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey  wrote:
> 
> Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying =
> your=20
> bowl.
> =20
> KG
> =20
> =20
> On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
>> 
>> Merle,
>> 
>> You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do hav=
> e a=20
>> choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become=20
>> attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not =
> to do=20
>> and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill=
> !
>> 
>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com  com>,=20
>> Merle Lester  wrote:
>>> 
>>> =C3=82 take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choic=
> e ..merle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =C3=82
>>> Merle,
>>> 
 that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the d=
> ay
>>> 
>>> Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; )
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Merle Lester 
>>> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com  com>"=20
>> mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>
>>> Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31
>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =C3=82
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =C3=82 that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through=
> the=20
>> day...merle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the=
> =20
>> story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things ar=
> e=20
>> going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming cras=
> hing=20
>> down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or you=
> r=20
>> girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as =
> being=20
>> mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the worl=
> d in=20
>> such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here =
> quite=20
>> easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on =
> 'real=20
>> world' here]..
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Kristopher Grey 
>>> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com  om>
>>> Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34
>>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =C3=82
>>> This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffe=
> r is=20
>> all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. W=
> hat=20
>> is this notion of "liberation from" but self relating to self? Wh=
> at=20
>> appears, appears. What of it?
>>> 
>>> Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No suc=
> h
>>> conceptual contortions required.
>>> 
>>> Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes =
> no
>>> effo

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Kristopher Grey]

So simple, right up to that seemly part at the end anyway. ;)

On 9/5/2012 7:48 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Bill! and Merle,


Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of 
washing your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen 
consists of using information because even after realization you are 
still living in the world of forms. Illusions don't vanish upon 
realization, the world of forms is still there exactly as it was 
before, you just now realize it for what it really is - the 
manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart 
from Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe...


Edgar

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Kristopher Grey]

It's not the bowl, or it's fullness, it's those skinny hungry ghost 
necks! *L*


KG

On 9/5/2012 7:35 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:


Bill! and Merle,


It is impossible to empty your bowl. Empty it and reality immediately 
refills it with Buddha Nature...


The bowl is ALWAYS full!

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Bill! wrote:


Merle,

I forgot to respond to your second question.

You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot 
of the contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does 
that the contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and 
sooner of later if you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to 
have to empty them - at least temporarily.


...Bill!

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

>
>
>
> Â
> Â please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the 
bowl shared with others?...merle

> Â
> KG,
>
> 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your 
bowl. Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice 
and putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can 
choose one way or the other.

>
> If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha 
Nature) then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there 
is no choice to be made.

>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
, Kristopher Grey  wrote:

> >
> > Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for 
dirtying your

> > bowl.
> >
> > KG
> >
> >
> > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > Merle,
> > >
> > > You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do 
have a

> > > choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become
> > > attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing 
not to do

> > > and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
 
,

> > > Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Â take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice 
..merle

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Merle,
> > > >
> > > > >that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day
> > > >
> > > > Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; )
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Merle Lester 
> > > > To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
 
"
> > > mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> 
>

> > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the
> > > day...merle
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the
> > > story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are
> > > going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming 
crashing

> > > down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your
> > > girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple 
as being
> > > mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the 
world in
> > > such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it 
here quite
> > > easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis 
on 'real

> > > world' here]..
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Kristopher Grey 
> > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
 

> > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to 
suffer is
> > > all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. 
What
> > > is this notion of "liberation from" but self relating to self? 
What

> > > appears, appears. What of it?
> > > >
> > > > Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such
> > > > conceptual contortions required.
> > > >
> > > > Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no
> > > > effort.
> > > >
> > > > KG
> > > >
> > > > On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > >Kris,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation 
that
> > > there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there 
liberation

> > > from it. "Clarity" here reads as insight.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Kristopher Grey 
> > > > >To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
 

> > > > >Sent: Sunday, 2 Septembe

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Bill! and Merle,

Even after enlightenment you still have to eat. Zen doesn't consist of washing 
your bowl and keeping your bowl empty (of information). Zen consists of using 
information because even after realization you are still living in the world of 
forms. Illusions don't vanish upon realization, the world of forms is still 
there exactly as it was before, you just now realize it for what it really is - 
the manifestation of Buddha Nature, rather than something standing apart from 
Buddha Nature as Bill! seems to believe...

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Merle,
> 
> A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and 
> after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all 
> sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan. The koan is 
> entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection. I'll 
> repeat it again:
> 
> "A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, "I have just entered the monastery. I 
> beg you, Master, please give me instructions. "Joshu asked, "Have you eaten 
> your rice gruel yet?" The monk answered, "Yes, I have." Joshu said, "Then 
> wash your bowls." The monk attained some realization."
> 
> In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha 
> Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' to represent 
> learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your 
> discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind. IN MY OPINION what 
> Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism? If so 
> then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind 
> free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to 
> realize Buddha Nature.
> 
> So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you. You ask 
> about how to deal with attachments and he tells you. From all I've seen it's 
> good advice. His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments 
> or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end 
> them. Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel 
> into your bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of 
> which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to 
> attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the 
> creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings. That is what 
> Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'.
> 
> There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism 
> is zazen (zen meditation).
> 
> I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed 
> with those. I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' 
> zen and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no 
> > bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with 
> > the bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle
> > Â  
> > Merle,
> > 
> > I forgot to respond to your second question.
> > 
> > You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the 
> > contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the 
> > contents of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if 
> > you want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at 
> > least temporarily.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > >  please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl 
> > > shared with others?...merle
> > >   
> > > KG,
> > > 
> > > 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. 
> > > Your illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and 
> > > putting more rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose 
> > > one way or the other.
> > > 
> > > If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) 
> > > then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice 
> > > to be made.
> > > 
> > > ...Bill!
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your 
> > > > bowl.
> > > > 
> > > > KG
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Merle,
> > > > >
> > > > > You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a 
> > > > > choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become 
> > > > > attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to 
> > > > > do 
> > > > > and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > > 

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Bill! and Merle,

It is impossible to empty your bowl. Empty it and reality immediately refills 
it with Buddha Nature...

The bowl is ALWAYS full!

Edgar



On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Merle,
> 
> I forgot to respond to your second question.
> 
> You may share your bowl with others. Edgar is trying to share a lot of the 
> contents of his bowl with you. The problem is when he does that the contents 
> of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to 
> realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least 
> temporarily.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Â 
> > Â please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl 
> > shared with others?...merle
> > Â  
> > KG,
> > 
> > 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your 
> > illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more 
> > rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the 
> > other.
> > 
> > If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) 
> > then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to 
> > be made.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey  wrote:
> > >
> > > Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your 
> > > bowl.
> > > 
> > > KG
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Merle,
> > > >
> > > > You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a 
> > > > choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become 
> > > > attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do 
> > > > and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
> > > > Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Â take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Merle,
> > > > >
> > > > > >that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day
> > > > >
> > > > > Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; )
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Merle Lester 
> > > > > To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com " 
> > > > mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the 
> > > > day...merle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the 
> > > > story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are 
> > > > going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing 
> > > > down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your 
> > > > girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being 
> > > > mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in 
> > > > such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite 
> > > > easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real 
> > > > world' here]..
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Kristopher Grey 
> > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is 
> > > > all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What 
> > > > is this notion of "liberation from" but self relating to self? What 
> > > > appears, appears. What of it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such
> > > > > conceptual contortions required.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no
> > > > > effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > KG
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > >Kris,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that 
> > > > there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation 
> > > > from it. "Clarity" here reads as insight.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Kristopher Grey 
> > > > > >To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > > >Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Â
>

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Edgar Owen]

Bill! and Merle,

It's not the size of the tool but how you use it! But it helps to have a big 
one too!
:-)

Edgar


On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:47 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Merle,
> 
> That's an interesting question.
> 
> I'm going way out on a limb here but I actually believe the size of your bowl 
> does matter. The larger the bowl you have (like Edgar) the more rice gruel it 
> takes to fill it up. And if many cases people with very large bowls never get 
> full. They always want more. People with smaller bowls to start with have 
> less to empty, less attachments. It's probably easier for them to empty their 
> bowl and experience Buddha Nature.
> 
> The closest I could come to citing a source that says pretty much the same 
> thing would be:
> 
> Mark 10:14-15 "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them 
> not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever 
> shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter 
> therein."
> 
> ...and:
> 
> Matthew 18:2-4 Jesus called a little child to come to him. Jesus stood the 
> child before the followers. Then Jesus said, "I tell you the truth. You must 
> change and become like little children. If you don't do this, you will never 
> enter the kingdom of heaven."
> 
> I interpret Jesus' term 'kingdom of heaven' as the same as Buddha Nature.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Â 
> > Â please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl 
> > shared with others?...merle
> > Â  
> > KG,
> > 
> > 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your 
> > illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more 
> > rice in or cleaning the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one way or the 
> > other.
> > 
> > If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) 
> > then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to 
> > be made.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey  wrote:
> > >
> > > Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your 
> > > bowl.
> > > 
> > > KG
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Merle,
> > > >
> > > > You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a 
> > > > choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become 
> > > > attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do 
> > > > and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
> > > > Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Â take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Merle,
> > > > >
> > > > > >that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day
> > > > >
> > > > > Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; )
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Merle Lester 
> > > > > To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com " 
> > > > mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the 
> > > > day...merle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the 
> > > > story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are 
> > > > going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing 
> > > > down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your 
> > > > girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being 
> > > > mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in 
> > > > such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite 
> > > > easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real 
> > > > world' here]..
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Kristopher Grey 
> > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is 
> > > > all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What 
> > > > is this notion of "liberation from" but self relating to self? What 
> > > > appears, appears. What of it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such
> > > > > conceptual contortions required.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[mike brown]

Bill!,

I appreciate that you began your post with a caveat that the meaning of Joshu's 
'wash your bowls' was just your opinion. However, isn't what you wrote 
(rice-gruel = Buddhism) just a secondary meaning to the koan, and worse, an 
intellectual overlay giving it a meaning in order to be understood. Joshu's 
instruction to the monk to wash his bowl was exactly that - to go and wash his 
bowl. Nothing added necessary because washing your bowl, with nothing added, 
manifests Buddha Nature. Reminds me of the Watts quote where he states that 
spirituality in Christianity is washing the dishes while thinking about God. 
Spirituality in Zen isjust washing the dishes.


Mike



 From: Bill! 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 10:02
Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl
 

  
Merle,

A long, long time ago in a reply to one of your pleas for help to Edgar and 
after reading you two go back and forth and Edgar filling your head with all 
sorts of advice I quoted a story associated with a zen koan.  The koan is 
entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE GATELESS GATE collection.  I'll 
repeat it again:

"A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, "I have just entered the monastery.  I 
beg you, Master, please give me instructions.  "Joshu asked, "Have you eaten 
your rice gruel yet?"  The monk answered, "Yes, I have."  Joshu said, "Then 
wash your bowls."  The monk attained some realization."

In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between zen adepts regarding Buddha 
Nature) it is MY OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel'  to represent 
learning - understanding things; and used 'bowls' to represent your 
discriminating mind - your intellect or rational mind.  IN MY OPINION what 
Joshu was saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all about Buddhism?  If so 
then you now have to discard all that because it is only with an empty mind 
free from the illusions of duality and its products that you will be able to 
realize Buddha Nature.

So...when you ask for information and advice Edgar gives it to you.  You ask 
about how to deal with attachments and he tells you.  From all I've seen it's 
good advice.  His advice might indeed reduce the severity of your attachments 
or enable you to better cope with them, but it won't ever enable you to end 
them.  Following the analogy of the story he spoons more and more rice gruel 
into your bowl.  That's fine if all you want is a lot of knowledge (all of 
which is illusory anyway), but if what you're really after is an end to 
attachments, an end to suffering, then you should be looking to halt the 
creation of duality, illusion and the attachments that brings.  That is what 
Joshu refers to IMO as 'wash your bowls'.

There are many ways to do that but the most common way used in Zen Buddhism is 
zazen (zen meditation).

I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, it is Edgar who is obsessed with 
those.  I'm 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying to 'understand' zen 
and start practicing it - and the first step is zazen.

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no 
> bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the 
> bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle
>   
> Merle,
> 
> I forgot to respond to your second question.
> 
> You may share your bowl with others.  Edgar is trying to share a lot of the 
> contents of his bowl with you.  The problem is when he does that the contents 
> of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to 
> realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least 
> temporarily.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >  please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl 
> > shared with others?...merle
> >   
> > KG,
> > 
> > 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl.  Your 
> > illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more 
> > rice in or cleaning the bowl.  Your illusory self can choose one way or the 
> > other.
> > 
> > If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) 
> > then yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to 
> > be made.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey  wrote:
> > >
> > > Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your 
> > > bowl.
> > > 
> > > KG
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Merle,
> > > >
> > > > You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a 
> > > > choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become 
> > > > attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do 
> > > > and dropping all attachments is called 'washing

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Merle Lester]

bill..i know that bible quote well,,, edgar paints it well for me..i do not 
understand what you mean  by the bowls or the bible quote..how is it  
zen?...merle

  
Merle,

That's an interesting question.

I'm going way out on a limb here but I actually believe the size of your bowl 
does matter.  The larger the bowl you have (like Edgar) the more rice gruel it 
takes to fill it up.   And if many cases people with very large bowls never get 
full.  They always want more.  People with smaller bowls to start with have 
less to empty, less attachments.  It's probably easier for them to empty their 
bowl and experience Buddha Nature.

The closest I could come to citing a source that says pretty much the same 
thing would be:

Mark 10:14-15 "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, 
for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not 
receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."

...and:

Matthew 18:2-4  Jesus called a little child to come to him. Jesus stood the 
child before the followers. Then Jesus said, "I tell you the truth. You must 
change and become like little children. If you don't do this, you will never 
enter the kingdom of heaven."

I interpret Jesus' term 'kingdom of heaven' as the same as Buddha Nature.

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  
>  please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared 
> with others?...merle
>   
> KG,
> 
> 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl.  Your 
> illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more 
> rice in or cleaning the bowl.  Your illusory self can choose one way or the 
> other.
> 
> If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then 
> yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be 
> made.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey  wrote:
> >
> > Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your 
> > bowl.
> > 
> > KG
> > 
> > 
> > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > Merle,
> > >
> > > You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a 
> > > choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become 
> > > attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do 
> > > and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
> > > Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Â take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Merle,
> > > >
> > > > >that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day
> > > >
> > > > Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; )
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Merle Lester 
> > > > To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com " 
> > > mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the 
> > > day...merle
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the 
> > > story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are 
> > > going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing 
> > > down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your 
> > > girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being 
> > > mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in 
> > > such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite 
> > > easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real 
> > > world' here]..
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Kristopher Grey 
> > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is 
> > > all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What 
> > > is this notion of "liberation from" but self relating to self? What 
> > > appears, appears. What of it?
> > > >
> > > > Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such
> > > > conceptual contortions required.
> > > >
> > > > Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no
> > > > effort.
> > > >
> > > > KG
> > > >
> > > > On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > >Kris,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that 
> > > the

Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl

[Merle Lester]

bill..that is your take on this..as i see it edgar... says there are no 
bowls..there just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is zen..what's with the 
bowls anyway..you seem to be obsessed with them..merle
  
Merle,

I forgot to respond to your second question.

You may share your bowl with others.  Edgar is trying to share a lot of the 
contents of his bowl with you.  The problem is when he does that the contents 
of both of your bowls just get more full, and sooner of later if you want to 
realize Buddha Nature you're going to have to empty them - at least temporarily.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  
>  please clarify bill..does it matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared 
> with others?...merle
>   
> KG,
> 
> 'You' do have a choice and it is the rice that is dirtying your bowl.  Your 
> illusory self is the one responsible for making the choice and putting more 
> rice in or cleaning the bowl.  Your illusory self can choose one way or the 
> other.
> 
> If you are not creating an illusory self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then 
> yes, as you've said before, there is no bowl and there is no choice to be 
> made.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey  wrote:
> >
> > Believing you make such a choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your 
> > bowl.
> > 
> > KG
> > 
> > 
> > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > Merle,
> > >
> > > You are correct that reality comes with no frills, but you do have a 
> > > choice. You can choose to invent frills (illusions) and become 
> > > attached to them. Or you can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do 
> > > and dropping all attachments is called 'washing your bowl'...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
> > > Merle Lester  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Â take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Merle,
> > > >
> > > > >that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the day
> > > >
> > > > Should I take it straight or on the rocks? ; )
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Merle Lester 
> > > > To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com " 
> > > mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â that's when zen is most needed mike...to get you through the 
> > > day...merle
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, yes - in day to day living, no. At least not in the 
> > > story of my life. It's so easy to claim Buddhahood when things are 
> > > going well, but just watch that little house of cards coming crashing 
> > > down when you get a nasty hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your 
> > > girlfriend cheats on you. That's why even something as simple as being 
> > > mindful of the breath can be the most difficult thing in the world in 
> > > such circumstances. You can philosophise your way out of it here quite 
> > > easily, but meanwhile back in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real 
> > > world' here]..
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Kristopher Grey 
> > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > This matter of whether there is or isn't isn't someone to suffer is 
> > > all smoke and mirrors. Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What 
> > > is this notion of "liberation from" but self relating to self? What 
> > > appears, appears. What of it?
> > > >
> > > > Clarity, selfless. No self that need to see into itself. No such
> > > > conceptual contortions required.
> > > >
> > > > Don't settle for nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes no
> > > > effort.
> > > >
> > > > KG
> > > >
> > > > On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, mike brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > >Kris,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >There is no one who suffers, but only after the realisation that 
> > > there isn't even a mind for suffering to happen to is there liberation 
> > > from it. "Clarity" here reads as insight.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Kristopher Grey 
> > > > >To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > >Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Â
> > > > >Then you still know too much. ;)
> > > > >
> > > > >If it so clear as that, there is nothing to
> > > > see. The 'obscuration' all that may show the
> > > > way. What you are seeing as separate only
> > > > appears to be. All a matter of how you see it.
> >