*** Edited and Re-posted *** Mike,
You should address this question to Edgar. It's his phrase, not mine. I only borrowed it from him. I addressed my post below directly to Edgar. In it I used a phrase he had used in his post. I indicated I had copied it from him by enclosing it in single parentheses indicating a paraphrase. I interpreted that phrase (as Edgar used it) to mean 'not zen'. Maybe that's what he meant and maybe not. I mirrored the phrase back to him in my post. Edgar and I both agree it is a fun thing to do. And yes, I do think actually dancing through the daffodils could be an expression of Buddha Nature. If so, then I would accept it being called 'zen'. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Bill! > > What's not Zen about dancing thru the daffodils??! Sounds like being alive to > me. > > Mike > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2012, 14:15 > Subject: Re: [Zen] mind games > > > Â > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
