Bill! How can an illusory self "choose" to do anything? Illusions have no substance or reality. An illusion is just a misunderstanding of reality.
Something is wrong with your logic here.... Edgar On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Bill! wrote: > 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected] <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: "[email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>" > > > <[email protected] <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: [email protected] <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: [email protected] <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: [email protected] <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: [email protected] <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: [email protected] <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 [email protected] > > > <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 > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
