Bill,

When the plate is present it is a form in reality that exists as pure 
information. And your mind also constructs forms in your mind that represent 
how you represent the plate internally.

When the plate is not present the internal mental forms persist but the 
external form is not present...

Edgar



On May 26, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Bill! wrote:

> Edgar,
> 
> I answered this is a prior, separate post, but I wanted to ask you if you 
> think your questions below answered my question. In other word is your answer 
> to 'what is an example of a form' a plate or some other object that is not 
> now present?
> 
> If your answer to that is 'yes', then is there any difference if the object 
> is present? Is it still a form then, or is it something else?
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> > 
> > Does the round plate you ate your last meal off of exist only in your mind?
> > 
> > If not then where?
> > 
> > Does your wife who loyally cooked that last meal exist only in your mind?
> > 
> > If not then where?
> > 
> > Answer carefully as I'll be forwarding your answer to your wife!
> > :-)
> > 
> > Edgar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 26, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > 
> > > Edgar,
> > > 
> > > Okay, then give me an example of a 'form' that you believe arises in 
> > > Nature...Bill!
> > > 
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > > 
> > > > You've read too much Plato!
> > > > 
> > > > The concept of a circle is something that arises in human minds. It's a 
> > > > human generalization or idealization of certain types of forms that 
> > > > arise in nature.
> > > > 
> > > > You thought I'd agree with Plato that the ideal circle exists somewhere 
> > > > in never never land out there but I don't...
> > > > 
> > > > Edgar
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On May 26, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Siska,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I also think some of Edgar's and my differences are semantic or even 
> > > > > a misunderstanding of what each one is saying. I know that is the 
> > > > > case when I talk about 'experience of Buddha Nature' and Edgar talks 
> > > > > about 'Zen'. I've detected that and tried to steer clear of those 
> > > > > situations to avoid the seemingly endless and useless refutations in 
> > > > > which we often engage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let me give an example of what I think is an illusion and we'll see 
> > > > > what Edgar says when he wakes up in the USA and logs in:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I claim the mental concept of a circle is illusory; and by extension 
> > > > > so is the mathematical formulas expressing the relationships between 
> > > > > a circle's circumference, diameter, radius and volume.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I hope when Edgar reads this he will leave us a comment explaining 
> > > > > his belief about circles and if he responds the way I think he will 
> > > > > I'll take it from there to illustrate how our differences become 
> > > > > amplified.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...Bill!
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Bill,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar 
> > > > > > > claims they are part of reality.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If I understand correctly, you said, all thoughts are illusory 
> > > > > > because 'thoughts' to you is how we perceive the reality. And all 
> > > > > > is illusory because we are still trapped in duality. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Also, if I understand correctly, Edgar said, whatever is in our 
> > > > > > head, that is what it is. Whether or not they are illusory, they 
> > > > > > are what they are, the reality.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think the two of you are not talking about exactly the same 
> > > > > > thing....
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Siska
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@>
> > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:28:32 
> > > > > > To: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Siska,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No, unfortunately not.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Edgar does this all the time. He says something that seems to agree 
> > > > > > with what I've stated but then slips in one word that corrupts what 
> > > > > > I have stated. In this case the word is 'forms'.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Edgar believes forms (structure, rationality) exists independently 
> > > > > > of us and we perceive it with our intellect. I believe we create 
> > > > > > the structures and superimpose it upon our experiences to create 
> > > > > > our perceptions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The bottom line is I claim all thoughts are illusory and Edgar 
> > > > > > claims they are part of reality.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We have other disagreements but I still think most of them are 
> > > > > > semantic, but in some cases they do indeed to be fundamental.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Other than that all is well...Bill! 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeeaaay, Edgar and Bill are in total agreement, finally!
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > Siska
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@>
> > > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 07:55:25 
> > > > > > > To: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Bill,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Total agreement as stated.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in 
> > > > > > > reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole 
> > > > > > > meaning..
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Edgar
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Siska,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar 
> > > > > > > > opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll 
> > > > > > > > probably disagree with this statement ;>) and will certainly 
> > > > > > > > jump all over the rest of this post.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > > > > > - Rumi
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the 
> > > > > > > > waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and then 
> > > > > > > > spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing himself 
> > > > > > > > in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My 
> > > > > > > > interpretation of it is:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I looked for my self,
> > > > > > > > But my self was gone.
> > > > > > > > The boundaries of my being
> > > > > > > > Had disappeared in the sea.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. 
> > > > > > > > The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of 'self' 
> > > > > > > > as something independent and apart from everything else has 
> > > > > > > > vanished with it. It has vanished into sea which is a metaphor 
> > > > > > > > for emptiness.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again.
> > > > > > > > And a voice returned me to myself.
> > > > > > > > It always happens like this.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has 
> > > > > > > > been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This 
> > > > > > > > alternation between holism and dualism, between emptiness and 
> > > > > > > > self happens regularly, much like the waves surging 
> > > > > > > > rhythmically upon the beach. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams,
> > > > > > > > And with every foaming bit another body.
> > > > > > > > Another being takes form.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, 
> > > > > > > > perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things 
> > > > > > > > appear.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > And when the sea sends word,
> > > > > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions 
> > > > > > > > melt back into emptiness.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to see 
> > > > > > > > what Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost write 
> > > > > > > > it for him...
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ...Bill!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Bill,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I followed until: "Waves broke".
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Siska
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@
> > > > > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 
> > > > > > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ..Bill!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Reply via email to