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 [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> 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 [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> 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 [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> 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 [email protected], 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 [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 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
