Bill! What's not Zen about dancing thru the daffodils??! Sounds like being alive to me.
Mike ________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2012, 14:15 Subject: Re: [Zen] mind games Edgar, Directly experiencing is zen. Understanding has nothing to do with zen. >From my perspective all attempts to understand and define reality is like >'dancing through the daffodils'. It's fun and I like to do it too sometimes, >but it's not zen. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Merle and Bill, > > Zen Realization is knowing and understanding reality. To attain realization > one must study reality and specifically how that study reveals the nature of > the illusions that interfere with the realization of reality. > > Just dancing through the daffodils can be lots of fun. I have no problem with > that at all and do it myself. But that in itself is NOT Zen. > > Neither is Bill's refusal to study reality and how its illusions fool our > Zen... > > You guys seem to think that Zen is just mindlessly having fun, fun, fun until > Buddha takes the T-bird away..... > > There is a lot more to it than that and you actually have to use your reason > to get to the point where you don't have to use it and can directly > experience. > > It's a colossal mistake to think that Zen is achieving a particular > meditative state of mind through sitting or dancing mindlessly through the > daffodils like Tiny Tim. That can be a useful and wonderful experience but > basically it's a serious illusion to think that in itself is Zen... > > Zen is understanding and experiencing the true nature of reality directly. To > do that you must first exhaustively study its FALSE nature. Realization can't > be attained by avoiding that effort... > > Edgar > > > > > On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > > > > far too many words words..ramblings. > > .get to the point. > > ..the point is zen.. > > .zen is direct and hits the nail on the head first go...so to > > speak..reaches the very heart and core of the matter > > raving and rambling is just mind games that serve no purpose..and creates > > one up manship as to who is "right " and who is "wrong" > > zen is > > keep it simple > > keep it sweet > > and keep it to the "bloody " point > > for jesus christ's sake > > merle (howling and dancing with the yellow daffodils in the spring > > sunshine, carrying a basket of fresh fruit on her head) > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > Thanks for the long exegesis, but you're only proving my point. Discussing > > Mu is not relevant. > > > > My point all along is Mu is not something you discuss or can understand. Mu > > can only be experienced and demonstrated. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > We've discussed this before. Mu is the nothingness of all things. What > > > that means is that the materiality and apparent self substances and > > > qualities of all things are illusions generated by mind. All the things > > > of the world are just information forms. They have none of their apparent > > > material substances. All they are is a logical computational structure > > > and much but not all of that is also an illusion of particular observer > > > minds as well. > > > > > > Reality consists of pure existence, Tao, Buddha Nature - what I call > > > ontological energy, in which purely logical forms arise and continually > > > self compute their state of existence of the universe. These are > > > interpreted by mind as material things which are actually just more > > > information forms of/encoding the interactions of mind and external > > > reality (there is actually no division between 'mind' and 'external' > > > reality but just to make the point. How and why that is true requires > > > another understanding). > > > > > > Since all forms are pure computational information in ontological energy > > > they have no self substances and thus are called empty = Mu. So mu is > > > exactly the same as Tao, Buddha nature etc. just a term that emphasizes > > > that the apparent substance of reality is actually just pure information > > > forms rather than material substances. > > > > > > > > > If one wants a God the only consistent definition of God would be the > > > universe (reality) itself. That is the best definition because then there > > > can be no doubt but that God does exist since the universe exists. And > > > the age old arguments over the nature and characteristics of God becomes > > > solvable because it is just what science and reason tells us about the > > > nature of reality. (Merle will howl here but this definition does not > > > deny a spiritual awe and appreciation towards God and nature in the > > > slightest, in fact by revealing God and reality's true nature it better > > > reveal its wonders and makes it easier to appreciate spiritually!) > > > > > > In this definition of God the forms, the computational information > > > structure of reality, becomes analogous to thoughts in the mind of God by > > > which the universe continually creates itself by self computing its > > > current form state of being..... These thoughts manifest as the physical > > > reality of the universe in the minds of observers or organisms of all > > > species. Sticking with the God analogy one could say that the thoughts of > > > God continually create the universe... > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill's error is that he denies the computational information structure of > > > reality. Bill misunderstands illusion to mean that the forms do not > > > exist. The correct understanding is that the forms DO exist but they are > > > empty of material self substances. > > > > > > No master I'm aware of ever claimed the forms do not exist. They all say > > > the forms are empty, which implies they do exist, but are pure form > > > without their apparent substances. It is the apparent substances of > > > forms, not the forms themselves, which do not exist. > > > > > > > > > But then when that is understood the next level of understanding is that > > > the illusion of materiality DOES exist, but it exists as illusion, not > > > reality. Illusion understood as illusion IS reality. It is only illusion > > > understood as reality that is illusion. > > > > > > Reality includes everything without exception but only as it is in its > > > true nature. Illusion does exist, but only as illusion. Thus illusion is > > > part and parcel of reality. > > > > > > Thus realization excludes nothing because everything is part of reality. > > > Everything remains exactly the same as it was before. It is just > > > experienced as it actually is, not as illusion masquerading as reality, > > > but as the illusory nature of reality. That reality consists of > > > illusion... > > > > > > Reality consists of illusion. Realization is the direct experience of > > > this... > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > Kris, > > > > > > > > Absolutely! I don't understand Mu! either...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 8/28/2012 4:19 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > I have heard it said that 'all sentient beings have Buddha Nature'. > > > > > > That doesn't exclude non-sentient beings/items from also having > > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > Nature, but I cannot understand how they could. > > > > > > > > > > It's this business of having, of this having that, that creates such > > > > > misunderstanding. > > > > > > > > > > MU! > > > > > > > > > > KG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
