Edgar,
My view is not crazy, it's just not rational and you can't accept anything that
is not rational.
Reality has no structure, no forms. That's why it's called 'emptiness'. Human
thought supplies the illusion of structure and forms.
No one has 'figured it out' because there is nothing to figure out.
The best you can do is experience. The rest, as I've been saying, is illusory.
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Your view is crazy. If actual reality was "chaotic" (random and without form)
> YOUR mind couldn't impose form on it. In fact you or anything else could not
> exist in a chaotic random world - no form could.
>
> My view is the same as the great Vedic thinkers, Buddha, The Zen patriarchs,
> Dogen and anyone else who has figured it out.
>
> Your view is held only by Bishop Berkeley and the serious demented inmates of
> insane asylums....
>
> My view is the essence of Zen. Your view IS solipsism....
>
> You are assuming that because you cannot directly experience form in reality
> there is none. But that is a logical deduction, and an unwarranted one.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On May 27, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Bill! wrote:
>
> > Edgar,
> >
> > This is really getting complex and very hard to follow. I've tried to write
> > down what I have deduced from your statements both here and in previous
> > posts but it is very difficult.
> >
> > - First of all you say all forms are 'real' whether they exist in what you
> > call the 'external world of forms' or whether they exist in the human mind.
> > - You state there are forms that exist in both places (like the plate)
> > - You state there are forms that exist only in the human mind (like Zeus)
> > - I can infer that you probably also believe there are forms that exist in
> > the 'external world of forms' but not in the human mind (like the Higgs
> > Boson 2000 years ago)
> > - You state there are 'laws of nature' but deny the existence of a piece of
> > one model of those laws - Zeus, while accepting a piece of another model of
> > those laws - the Higgs Boson.
> >
> > My model is very simple: Reality is chaos and can only be experienced. That
> > experience is Buddha Nature. Any structure or logic we perceive exists only
> > in the human mind. Those perceptions are what I call 'illusions'.
> >
> > You don't KNOW I live in a house. You BELIEVE I live in a house. You don't
> > KNOW there is such a thing as a Higgs Boson. You BELIEVE there is such a
> > thing as a Higgs Boson. You don't even KNOW there is no such thing as Zeus.
> > You just don't BELIEVE there is. And you don't KNOW the sun will rise
> > tomorrow. You BELIEVE it will.
> >
> > The only way you can KNOW something is to EXPERIENCE it. All else is
> > belief. You could also call that 'thoughts' or 'mental models' or 'forms in
> > the human mind'. I refer to them as 'illusion'.
> >
> > I keep hammering on this because if you see the world as you are describing
> > you will be tempted to think zen practice is some kind of knowledge-based
> > practice. It is not. It is an experience-based practice. I have no problem
> > with you advocated a knowledge-based practice. That is what Plato
> > advocates. What I do have a problem with is you calling it zen. It is not.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > I fear Zeus was never real in the external world of forms but existed
> > > only as forms within human minds.
> > >
> > > However the natural forms of thunderstorms and unpredictable fates that
> > > Zeus was associated with and loosely modeled after did exist as programs
> > > in the external world of forms.
> > >
> > > The Higgs boson and all of human science exists as forms in human minds,
> > > or perhaps more accurately the collective human knowledge base.
> > >
> > > However human science works because it is a fairly accurate mental model
> > > of the actual external programs called the laws of nature that run in the
> > > real external world of forms.
> > >
> > > This is the crux of your misunderstanding - or one of them...
> > >
> > > It is completely true that the entire world we think we live in exists
> > > entirely in our minds - IN OUR EXPERIENCE. There is an external real
> > > world but we do not experience it directly. I'm sure you actually have a
> > > house in Thailand - even though I do not experience it directly. Should I
> > > claim like you would that it doesn't exist if I can't experience it
> > > directly?
> > >
> > > Thus that internal world of our experience IS modeled on an actual
> > > external reality of similar though not identical structure. The basic
> > > logical structure is similar, but we vastly embellish that logical
> > > structure into the illusion of a physical colorful world that doesn't
> > > actually exist 'out there'. Only the underlying logical structure of
> > > information exists 'out there'.
> > >
> > > That being said the whole complex of internal experience and external and
> > > internal forms exists only as empty forms and active programs consisting
> > > only of and running in Buddha Nature, what I call ontological energy, the
> > > reality of being real and actual, which by its presence creates and
> > > manifests a present moment full of happening.
> > >
> > > If all forms and illusions did not manifest in the reality of Buddha
> > > Nature they could never even appear. Because they do appear they do have
> > > Buddha Nature and thus are part of reality. But their reality is as empty
> > > forms of illusions, not the reality they seem to be.
> > >
> > > Mountains are mountains again. Mountains are the information forms of
> > > external reality fleshed out with mental attributes such as size,
> > > hardness, color, coldness etc. by our minds.
> > >
> > > Reality for Dummies might illustrate this as a paint by color of a
> > > mountain. The b/w line drawing of the mountain is (very roughly) what
> > > exists in reality (its underlying form). The mind colors in all the
> > > colors and textures in its mental model of the mountain.
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 27, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > > Edgar,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You now have told me what you think about thoughts of things that have
> > > > been experienced that are present and not present. I don't necessarily
> > > > agree with you but I understand, especially since you claim in both
> > > > cases these thoughts exist in my mind so they are REAL. That's pretty
> > > > easy to follow.
> > > >
> > > > Now I'd like to ask you about thoughts about things that have not been
> > > > experienced, and about forms over time.
> > > >
> > > > The two examples are Zeus and the Higgs Bosun. The two time periods are
> > > > 2000 years ago and now.
> > > >
> > > > 2000 years ago was Zeus a form?
> > > > - if so,
> > > > - was Zeus real then?
> > > > - is Zeus still a form now?
> > > > - if so, is Zeus real now?
> > > >
> > > > At the present time is the Higgs Bosun a form?
> > > > - If so,
> > > > - is the Higgs Bosun real now?
> > > > - was the Higgs Bosun a form 2000 years ago?
> > > > - if not, was the Higgs Bosun not real then?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your cooperation...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > > Everything in your mind in both cases IS REAL.
> > > > >
> > > > > But its reality is as thoughts and forms in your mind...
> > > > >
> > > > > Edgar
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 26, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Edgar,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, now we're getting somewhere...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's start with the 'not present' condition...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You state that (following the example) when the plate is not
> > > > > > present it exists/persists as a mental form. I would call that an
> > > > > > idea. Are you saying that ideas are real, that thoughts are real?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Likewise when the plate is 'present' (and by that I mean is
> > > > > > experienced) are you saying that my perceptions of the plate are
> > > > > > real? By perceptions I mean my discriminations and judgements I've
> > > > > > formed about the plate such as: circular, white in color, a dinner
> > > > > > plate, clean, named plate, etc... Do you contend all these ideas
> > > > > > about the plate are real?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks...Bill!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 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 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!"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
