Bill! Whoh now Bill! It's YOU that is telling Merle TO run out on the street without looking because it is YOU than claims that reality has no logical structure and thus if Merle gets run over by a bus it's all in her mind as an illusion and not reality.
It's ME that is telling Merle, and to the point you, NOT to run out on the street without looking because it's ME that is saying that buses are real and you can really get killed running out in front of one BECAUSE REALITY HAS A LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF NATURE and that my friend is NOT an illusion... I do however agree with you, as I've often tried to point out, that each of us models the laws of nature somewhat differently in our respective minds. But because our mental models of reality are imperfect that DOES NOT MEAN that what they model, the laws of nature, do not exist.... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Bill! wrote: > JMJM, > > You sense correctly. I am trying to 'help' Merle by disagreeing with Edgar. > It's the same as if Edgar told Merle to run out into the street without > looking and I disagreed with his advice and told her so. > > I am not a teacher though and I've given up trying to intervene. Merle's a > big girl and she's ultimately responsible for herself so she along can decide > what's best for her. > > I'll still voice my disagreement with Edgar because I think his views on zen > are misleading at best and counterproductive or outright detrimental at worst. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], 覺妙精明 （JMJM） <chan.jmjm@...> > wrote: > > > > I sense Bill's continual insistence of his disagreement. Bill! is > > attached to it. Especially when Bill! is trying so hard to "help" Merle > > by disagreeing with Edgar. LOL > > > > :-) > > > > > > On 9/5/2012 8:39 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > Kristopher, > > > > > > > > > You keep making excuses for Bill!'s delusions! > > > > > > Disagreement is not "a form of suffering" unless you are attached to it... > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Comfortably stuck in cause and effect, you ignore the sledgehammer! > > >> > > >> It appears to me that Bill! is not denying food is required to > > >> maintain a body, that forms appear to maintain forms (no independent > > >> origination) - he is denying this assumption of "have to" - this > > >> neediness that goes with it. You don't need to live, and ultimately > > >> won't (impermanence). When hungry, eat if you are able. When this is > > >> perceived as need (AKA - lack), suffering will arise over your > > >> ability to do so, over thoughts of death. Your needs, your sense of > > >> lack, your suffering. > > >> > > >> Disagreement itself, a form of suffering. Misunderstanding, a form of > > >> recognition. Same. > > >> > > >> KG > > >> > > >> On 9/5/2012 10:14 AM, Edgar Owen 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! > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
