I interpreted Edgar's post to be the one purporting (what with the arising and dualities being created later) to be from some non-dual perspective. But he starts out with your, even with YOUR. Battle lost.
Your language is much clearly read by me, Bill! Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 26, 2013 9:34 PM, "Bill!" <billsm...@hhs1963.org> wrote: > Chris, > > You're starting to sound a little like Edgar now. In your case assuming > I've trying to do something I'm not trying to do - at least in the > referenced post. > > Don't ever think that any post of mine is "...purporting to be from the > view point of the absolute...". Virtually none are. Most are from a > dualistic, relative POV. Some of my posts do attempt to describe holistic > experience (Buddha Nature) but always from a dualistic POV. That's the > whole challenge of the Zen Forum, and virtually all other communication > modes as well but especially those based solely on language. > > If I were to attempt to post something directly communicating holistic > experience it would have to be in a poem, and even then would I'm sure fall > way short. > > The only way I know to directly communicate Buddha Nature is with a > face-to-face encounter because the communication has to take the form of an > experience, not an explanation. > > Just a clarification and FYI...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> wrote: > > > > I find it amusing when email purporting to be from the view point of the > > absolute includes such watch phrases as Me or Mine or You or Yours. Mind > is > > just mind, water is just water. But whose water? > > > > Thanks, > > --Chris > > 301-270-6524 > > On May 26, 2013 5:58 PM, "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > I know this was a reply to Edgar's post below, but I wasn't sure if it > was > > > in support or qualifying his post. > > > > > > I agree with you that the 'your' part of 'your mind' is the critical > > > qualifier that signals illusion. This is because it signals dualism. > > > > > > So yes, I do claim forms arise in the duality created by 'your mind'. > If > > > 'your mind' does not exist then duality does not exist; then there is > only > > > the One Mind, the Original Mind - Buddha Nature. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane <chris@> wrote: > > > > > > > > "Your mind". > > > > > > > > I think the illusory word there is your, moreso than mind. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Chris > > > > 301-270-6524 > > > > On May 26, 2013 5:10 AM, "Edgar Owen" <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > NO! > > > > > > > > > > You claim that the forms arise in YOUR mind. > > > > > > > > > > But YOUR mind IS A FORM. Is one of the forms that arises. > > > > > > > > > > I've told you a hundred times that forms CANNOT arise in what does > not > > > > > exist! > > > > > > > > > > Forms arise - and only then are they categorized into the duality > of > > > mind > > > > > and not mind. > > > > > > > > > > So you cannot say that forms arise in your mind because your mind > does > > > not > > > > > yet exist when the forms arise. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore forms arise as experience - but NOT the experience of any > > > mind. > > > > > > > > > > Therefor what exists and manifests cannot be said to either arise > in > > > mind > > > > > OR external world, since these are both forms that arise. > > > > > > > > > > So the true and proper view is that pure experience is the > fundamental > > > > > reality, but this is just pure experience prior to the dualism of > > > > > experiencer and experienced. > > > > > > > > > > < div>Therefore your claim that forms arise in YOUR mind is dead > > > wrong... > > > > > > > > > > At the most fundamental level forms just arise. > > > > > > > > > > What do they arise within? They arise within Buddha Nature for > that is > > > all > > > > > that is possible for anything to arise within. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the forms, as manifestations of Buddha Nature, are > reality, > > > > > because reality is the totality of all that exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully this will get through to you someday. It's so clear and > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > > > There are a couple of additional subtleties beyond this but I won't > > > > > confuse you with them right now..... > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or > are > > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
