Bill! Both right and wrong in several different ways..
Life can have a purpose or not depending on what purpose you yourself give it. Purpose is not non-existent, it's relative. If you give your life a purpose that purpose is real, but only so long as you realize it's a purpose you gave it... Nothing wrong with that... It can be admirable and fulfilling... The statement "Life has no purpose." is a negative dualistic statement. It's an intellectual judgement. The correct understanding is that lives have purposes or not relative to who is making the call or not, and how they are defining 'purpose'. The logical structure of reality is relative continually seen through the eyes of every observer.... This is the first understanding.... However the deep understanding is that the 'purpose' of life is realization. The 'purpose' of life is to realize yourself as a manifestation of Buddha Nature, as part of a universe of Buddha Nature. Thus the purpose of your individual existence becomes a fulfillment of the purpose of the universe, of the purpose of reality.... The essence of Buddha Nature continually manifests itself through the world of forms and their laws of nature. The 'purpose' of life is to realize your existence as a direct manifestation of Buddha Nature in the world of forms in which we all exist .... Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Bill! wrote: > Merle, > > Life has no purpose. If you see a purpose it is you that is projecting that > there. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > > > > > >  bill..look under a microscope... my art is chaos..but then so is a > > cell...and it is not...it functions for a purpose..merle > > > > > > Nonsense! If reality had no structure and was completely random and chaotic > > we'd all be dead! > > > > That's so obviously true that to deny it is grounds for the luny bin! > > > > Sheeesh! > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > >  > > >Edgar and Merle, > > > > > >First of all Edgar is referencing a typo, one of several I noticed after I > > >posted. That should read "It's been closed in by structure", not 'my > > >structure'. Mea culpa. > > > > > >Edgar's structure is closed because it has structure. Structure defines > > >and limits. The only truly open system is an unstructured system - like > > >reality, like chaos. > > > > > >Reality does not include illusions. Reality does not support illusions. > > >Illusions are just what they are defined as: illusion, not real. > > >Merriam-Webster Online has an interesting definition: deception. > > > > > >Definition of ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online) > > > > > >1 > > >a obsolete : the action of deceiving > > >b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : > > >misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception > > >2 > > >a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that > > >deceives or misleads intellectually > > >b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to > > >cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a > > >pattern capable of reversible perspective > > > > > >Reality has no boundaries. Illusions deceive you into believing there are > > >boundaries - like structure and logic. > > > > > >...Bill! > > > > > >--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > >> > > >> Bill! and Merle, > > >> > > >> I don't understand what Bill! means when he says "MY mind is closed in > > >> HIS structure." > > >> > > >> And my theory of reality is not "a closed structure" because it includes > > >> everything that exists including illusion. It's Bill!'s theory that is > > >> closed and dualistic because it excludes illusion as part of reality... > > >> Thus it imposes boundaries that do not actually exist... > > >> > > >> Edgar > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Merle Lester wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > i understand what edgar is saying..are you suggesting he is in > > >> > error?... merle > > >> > > > >> > Merle, > > >> > > > >> > It's Edgar that has the 'closed mind'. It's been closed in my > > >> > structure. It might be a very big and seemingly comprehensive > > >> > structure, but it's a closed boundary nonetheless. > > >> > > > >> > Edgar, > > >> > > > >> > You stated something very wrong in your reply to KG: > > >> > > > >> > "...Everyone certainly models reality differently each in their own > > >> > internal simulations of it. But in a deeper sense there is no reality > > >> > except as it is experienced by some observer or other.... This is a > > >> > complex subject that requires a deep understanding and more time than > > >> > I have right now... > > >> > > > >> > Your errors (IMO) are two: > > >> > > > >> > One is ..."that there is no reality except as it is experienced by > > >> > some observer or other..." What you are talking about here is not > > >> > reality, it is a PERCEPTION of reality. Pure experience of reality > > >> > (Buddha Nature) is not dualistic. There is no subject/object pair > > >> > created. > > >> > > > >> > The second is "...This is a complex subject that requires a deep > > >> > understanding and more time than I have right now..." Direct > > >> > experience of reality is NOT complex. It is the most simple thing you > > >> > can do. You just have to quit THINKING about it. It's the THINKING > > >> > that's complex, not the experience. 'Understanding' is not the key. > > >> > EXPERIENCING is the key and it doesn't require a lot of time to do. > > >> > EXPERIENCE is immediate and very, very simple. > > >> > > > >> > ...Bill! > > >> > > > >> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Â some folk have closed minds edgar...you need a sledge hammer to > > >> > > break through..a stick would not do...merle > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Â > > >> > > Kristopher, > > >> > > > > >> > > Well yes and no... Maybe... Everyone certainly models reality > > >> > > differently each in their own internal simulations of it. But in a > > >> > > deeper sense there is no reality except as it is experienced by some > > >> > > observer or other.... This is a complex subject that requires a deep > > >> > > understanding and more time than I have right now... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Kristopher is obviously someone who has endured much pain and > > >> > > suffering in his life and made considerable strides in transcending > > >> > > that by approaching Zen.... > > >> > > > > >> > > However, if I may respectfully say so, I detect a hint of a > > >> > > particular attitude towards Zen characterized by a sort of Nihilism, > > >> > > hopelessness and a feeling of meaninglessness in everything which > > >> > > really isn't Zen. > > >> > > > > >> > > Please don't take this as a criticism, God knows none of us is > > >> > > perfect, but my feeling is that since we are all on the path we do > > >> > > each other a favor by pointing out how we might each do better and > > >> > > that we should all be free and open in exchanging and receiving such > > >> > > insights. > > >> > > > > >> > > Merle especially seems open to this. She's a great example for us > > >> > > all in that respect and we should all take her lead on this.. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Zen is not meaningless, hopeless, or Nihilistic. On the contrary by > > >> > > directly realizing and experiencing the ultimate absolute reality of > > >> > > all things really really here right now in the present moment it can > > >> > > be said to reveal the ultimate MEANINGFULNESS of things, and thus of > > >> > > the seeker... > > >> > > > > >> > > Edgar > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > Â > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >OK. Then there is no Bill! standing apart from Buddha nature. Not > > >> > > >the Bill! who posts here, and not the Bill! who lives as a logical > > >> > > >construct in your head. If you think these Bill!s are the same, you > > >> > > >will logically think Bill! to be illogical. You will see what you > > >> > > >think is Bill!'s error. If you think them apart, you make the same > > >> > > >error for him. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >It's only easy to be right about the image you have of him, no > > >> > > other can be known. There is no difference. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >Same goes for 'Zen' > > >> > > > > > >> > > >KG > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >On 9/4/2012 8:56 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >Â > > >> > > >>Bill!, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill! claims logic is NOT Zen... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill! says he uses logic in his daily life... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Therefore Bill must believe he CANNOT have Zen in his > > >> > > daily life... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>This is a serious error... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Zen is 24/7 whether one is using logic or sitting > > >> > > mindlessly. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>It is a fundamental error to believe only mindless sitting > > >> > > is Zen. That's mistaking a particular meditative state for > > >> > > Zen. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>There is no part of reality that is not Buddha Nature. > > >> > > Illusion is part of reality and thus is a manifestation of > > >> > > Buddha Nature. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Realization is seeing the illusion that is part of reality > > >> > > as illusion rather than the fake reality it pretends to > > >> > > be.... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>When Bill! understands that logic is part of reality and > > >> > > thus like everything else is a form manifesting Buddha > > >> > > Nature rather than something contrary to and apart from > > >> > > Buddha Nature, then and only then will Bill! allow himself > > >> > > to completely realize Zen in his daily life as well as > > >> > > when he is sitting mindlessly... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>This is the crux of Bill!'s misunderstanding.... At the > > >> > > most fundamental level he dualistically divides reality > > >> > > into illusion and Buddha nature without realizing that > > >> > > even illusion is a manifestation of Buddha Nature because > > >> > > there is nothing that is not Buddha Nature... The world of > > >> > > forms does NOT stand apart from Buddha Nature. The world > > >> > > of forms is a direct manifestation OF Buddha Nature. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Zen does not try to dismiss the world of forms; Zen is > > >> > > seeing the Buddha Nature that is manifested in the world > > >> > > of forms... It is seeing the world of forms AS Buddha > > >> > > Nature... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Only when this becomes clear can realization occur.... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Edgar > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
