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 <merlewiitpom@...> 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 <kris@> 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 <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > >  take it as it comes..no frills...you do not have a choice ..merle > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > 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 <merlewiitpom@> > > > > To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>" > > > <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>> > > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 22:31 > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >  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 <kris@> > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012, 1:34 > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > 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: > > > > > > > >  > > > > >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 <kris@> > > > > >To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > >Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 20:23 > > > > >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > So who is leading who? Who suffers? In seeking > > > > perfection, it forever eludes. > > > > > > > > > >The clear minded are equally empty headed. > > > > Don't throw the Buddha out with the bathwater. > > > > > > > > > >KG > > > > > > > > > >PS - Expresses simpler/more obviously > > > > wordlessly - see: 'Wabi Sabi' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 9/2/2012 12:32 PM, mike brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Kris, > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>I might point out that apparent obscuration is no less reality > > > than apparent clarity > > > > >> > > > > >>Reality is certainly there regardless, but > > > > reality seen with obscuration leads to > > > > suffering, whereas reality seen with > > > > clarity will lead to the cessation of > > > > suffering. That's all I need to know and > > > > that is my witness. > > > > >> > > > > >>Mike > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>________________________________ > > > > >> From: Kristopher Grey <kris@> > > > > >>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > >>Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 16:11 > > > > >>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>I might point out that apparent obscuration is no less reality > > > than apparent clarity. In doing so, this point only dances around > > > itself - offers nothing you can't realize directly. > > > > >> > > > > >>What can anyone say in > > > > response that you will not > > > > directly experience (realize) > > > > as some aspect of this > > > > reality/realization- whether > > > > you realize it or not - just > > > > as when experiencing > > > > meditation/not meditation? > > > > >> > > > > >>This more or less business is > > > > you triangulating your > > > > position. Nothing more, > > > > nothing less. > > > > >> > > > > >>KG > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>On 9/2/2012 5:57 AM, mike > > > > brown wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>Edgar, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Wouldn't you say tho, that reality is less obscured during, or > > > just after, a long retreat of meditation? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Mike > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>________________________________ > > > > >>> From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> > > > > >>>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > >>>Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 1:13 > > > > >>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Mike, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Well, it's reality either way, but that reality is always > > > changing as happening continually flows through the present moment. > > > But however it changes it is still reality.... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Edgar > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>On Sep 1, 2012, at 6:09 PM, mike brown wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Edgar, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Would you say that the world (inner/outer) you look at now is > > > the same as when you're at the end of a sesshin? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Mike > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>________________________________ > > > > >>>> From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> > > > > >>>>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > >>>>Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 18:44 > > > > >>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>ED, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Stop practicing and just BE your Buddha Nature! > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Edgar > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>On Sep 1, 2012, at 12:22 PM, ED wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>Edgar, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>Therefore, > > > > although each > > > > of us is > > > > complete, we > > > > need to > > > > practice > > > > >>>>>diligently at > > > > all times with > > > > no objective > > > > in mind? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>--ED > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Joe and > > > > Merle, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> There is > > > > no 'goal' of > > > > enlightenment > > > > to be achieved > > > > without which > > > > you > > > > >>>>>imagine you > > > > are > > > > incomplete.... > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> There is > > > > no > > > > incompleteness. > > > > This > > > > understanding > > > > is an > > > > essential > > > > aspect > > > > >>>>>of > > > > realization... > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Wham! > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Edgar > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
