JMJM, Bill! (not Bill) is always somebody. You are also somebody by claiming you are nobody. Good argument. Anthony
________________________________ From: 覺妙精明 （JMJM） <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 22:46 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl Hi Bill, You are still trying to show me that you are somebody. Sorry. I have come to realized that only when we realized that we are truly nobody, then we could be everybody. Then we see the wisdom in everything. jm On 9/5/2012 11:31 PM, Bill! wrote: >JMJM, > >Thanks for your post. I also posted something recently that you probably had >not read before you posted this. That post mirrors some of what you say, only >refers to style rather than perspective. > >Thanks...Bill! > >--- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） >mailto:chan.jmjm@... wrote: >> >> Hello Bill and all, >> >> Thank you for responding. If I may share some perspectives.... >> >> Some of us grew up as cactus in the desert. Some of us grew up as >> orchid in a pot. One can not truly experience the other. No one truly >> qualify to judge another. Yet our ego still do. >> >> The practice of Chan is to focus inward, utilizing external information, >> so to enhance our spirit and liberate our lives. Chan always emphasize >> the importance of not to judge externally the practice of others, >> especially when comes to dharma, especially when they are forms in the >> first place. >> >> All Buddhists know the basic practice is to detach from ego and detach >> from dharma. This suggestion from Buddha, is not for me to point out >> who is who, but for each of us to reflect on. >> >> This is the reasons why sutra are written in riddle like languages. So >> that we would not pick sides, then we could sleep on it, reflect >> inwardly and wake up from our dream. >> >> The simplest suggestion I like to make is try to begin by seeing the >> value of others, accept them with faith, then someday upon our >> awakening, we will realize that all are valuable, all are similar and >> all end up in the same place. We label that as oneness. >> >> We argue, because we don't have the whole picture. >> >> jm >> >> >> >> >> On 9/5/2012 8:24 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 mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com >> > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, >> > 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! >> > > >>>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >
