Wilbro 2024

The following selected posts appeared on or around June 24, 2,000 at the Universe of Zen and Zenhells. They were picked for my study of the Process of Mind. I focused on Wilbro and Sue dragon’s posts for wits and mysteriously enriching contents that I wanted to understand. My comments are in ((…)). Also I underlined key points as I viewed that way. At the end of this note is brief summary of key points. After finishing this – if there is such a thing, I felt like chasing the track of a bird in the sky already flown away. Or, perhaps, I was searching for a footprint of Ox – or "rhubarb". If we chase the words, that is what happens…(So, let me twist my nose and "Goad" as I reread this piece…to see if goose, rhubarb, Ox, Koi or whatever may pop up.)

My suggestion is to read the summary at the bottom if you are in a hurry. Overall, you should find out that I tried to decode the message by using often-defunct mind modem and universal translator of mine. A cautionary note is that I do not guarantee the quality of this translation. I just did my best shot – never mind, translation is just a translation. – Kio (6/26/00)

Kio, a short reply. Your comments are sometimes miles off because you are not privy to the past of Buzzcook and myself. The Trashmaster** was a poster who delighted in tearing people apart. Paint your Wagon** is a musical. "I talked to the trees"** is a song from that musical. Spontaneous combustion** referred to the outburst by the poster I call bushman; a violent reaction. I goaded** (tormented) him into an immature reaction. Be careful about what you assume someone means. I'll look it over more carefully, then reply.

-- Wilbro (in response 6/26/00)

** These are noted with ** marks in the text below. (Kio)

So, there are jokes I missed. Perhaps, lack of my English background does not help either. While I wait for Wilbro’s comment if any, let me next ask Sue for her comments/impression, if she will.

. – Kio (6/30/00)

Attached at the end is Sue's comments, titled Battle analysis #1. Amazing analysis! Entertaining!! (per her e-mail 7/1/00)

=====================================================================

At the end is my conclusion.

=====================================================================

…from the Universe of Zen (UZ)

Wilbro #2024

Hi buzzyboy, when you get used to this interface, it is an easy one to handle. Yes, there are some very good game players here; in fact, all are. I'll send you an Email and let you in on the weakness of each, and each has that heel. Watch out for the dragon lady; mucho smarts.

I am still looking forward to your appearance in the main ring. You know, where the real thinking is done.

Sue #2029

Darling brother

You ARE a heel to snitch on us all to the newby buzzy cookie before we've had any fun.
Tell me what you think my weaknesses are then, do!
==

Wilbro #2030

Ah, lady of the dragon behind the door when the smarts to avoid a trap of utter simplicity was passed out, your weakness is the weakness of all who can not let words pass through without leaving a mark.((Main issue then is the movement, expression of energy??!!, Words.. to be kept them in the words/startle box?)) I just knew that if I cast out those words someone would want themselves talked about, like having their palm read. I had nothing in mind other than to elicit the response I got. Thanks. Great fun! Now you know what your undipped heel is. ((Be playful, have fun, and on the toe to push the issue?))

Both the buzzer and I were honed and tempered in the greatest fire possible, the flame of the Trashmaster**. That was back when the Discovery Channel had its old threads. ((??)) I invited him over because of the easy pickings here. ((Is trashmaster, Krishnamurti, or some one related to him?))

Wilbro # 2040

Buzzer, the dance of the dialectic, as I see it, lies at the heart of the Zen koan. Inwardness(State of attention, no mind)) and enlightenment ((release insight)), in my lexicon, mean the same thing.((Part of the same process?)) Both speak to a negation. ((Hannya’s immediate denial logic, A and not A to Know "A" – leading to prajna)) One calls that to be negated the Error((error of using thoughts instruments as human)), while the other calls that to be negated Samsara.((Forgot the meaning. I think it meant "this world" of suffering)) One leads to the God-relation ((human to God – save people who are in between by correcting the behavior/practice)) and the other leads to Nirvana ((jump, insight, aha!, that world)). But the form of the two differ in that the former speaks to a knight of faith, read Bodhisattva, ((Pray, Namuamidabutsu, one with Nembutsu, Buddha the savior, Everybody/every act is One.)) as the means/goal((ultimate process)), while the latter speaks to a beyond the Bodhisattva.((beyond means Enlightenment by individual’s journey, i.e., Hinayana)) I think the former is grounded in reality ((meaning be with people with suffering. Joshu, "I will be in hell to save you all")), while the latter is more of a mind trip.((In a way, he is "useless" for other people, i.e., contained in one’s mind)) ((So, there are two approaches of "journey" – external and internal implied. Perhaps, Mahayana and Hinayana. **This view corresponds to my idea of Part three: Journey in my white book.))

And while I have the floor, that mind trip quality of Zen allows the mind to dabble with inwardness without having appropriated it. The dabblers always fail the dialectical test when pushed to take it. ((like facing a live koan on the spot…)) Unless the difference between knowing and the thought of knowing is seen, all is dabble. ((Thousands of miles between the two.)) Those who have no toes to be stepped upon will understand what I say((know the taste of chocolate once eaten)), while those whose toes have just been stepped upon will know the pain of having their toes stepped upon. ((toes: wrong use of tools, e.g., words, conscious mind)) ((Stepped upon: Kaatz/guidance given))

Now, has that wily old Willie just set another trap((Knowing level/ultimate level TRAP – paradox for the earnest travelers)), or has that wily old Willie set another trap((thought level trap, perhaps for dabblers?))? There you go buzzer, are you up to the challenge? Is anyone else up to the challenge? The dialectical test has just been offered. The grin of Cheshire ((?)) fades to black, and the commercial turns up the volume.

bush #2042

Wily Willie

The problem is no one can reach the truth through discussion or debate.((Re: Knowing)) You frame the debate in your mind the other person sees it through his mind and what do you have. Nothing. ((i.e., cannot communicate))
Now in person, when each can see the body language of the other. When I can look into your eyes and see whether or not you believe your words than each can get somewhere. But on the net, you might as well talk to a tree.
There’s another problem with debate. Debate is violence. Debate is murder. Truths are murdered through debate. When you debate you are not looking for truth you are looking for victory. ((??!!)) When victory is the goal truth is sacrificed.
You end up with the untruth.
Theres nothing Wily about you Willie you just want to puff up your ego.
Look she reacted she has toes blah blah blah.

wilbro 2061 ((I like this mysterious post—like tied to so what, perhaps?))

What is better than ho-hum? I know how to liven things up. I say, "Go for the Goad!"** I say that if you leave room for reflection between the stimulus and the response, the response given is the reflected response. If you want to know who one is, goad** them* into responding so that there is no room for reflection. ((Face the reality, Katz, See)) If they* find your goad** amusing, you will know there is nothing to goad**. If, however, spontaneous combustion** ((insights?)) occurs, wherein could boredom persist? ((they: fractionalised self? Me? Dualistic world?))

This goad** is presented to you courtesy of Captain Goad** ((God factor, X??)), and is intended solely to step on whatever toes whose owner takes words as reality. Let me quote the flaming bush, who got it spot-on, "The problem is no one can reach the truth through discussion or debate. You frame the debate in your mind the other person sees it through his mind and what do you have. Nothing. Now in person, when each can see the body language of the other. When I can look into your eyes and see whether or not you believe your words than each can get somewhere. But on the net, you might as well talk to a tree."

"I talked to the trees**, but they wouldn't listen to me." Who knows where that came from? ((Perhaps, it came from our conscious mind, or toe…))

Sue

Dear Captain

Ahhh but, "in the dialectic... " ((Goad** and spontaneous combustion** may represent a process of dialectic…))

I am preparing to 'Paint Your Wagon' **((She talked about three wheeled wagon elsewhere. Wilbro refers to I, Me, Knower or perhaps Father, Son, and Holy ghost))
What colour would you like it? ((Referring to enter into dialectic process??))

Dragon ((Sue, this is Difficult!!))

cook 2074

Ok now where was I? Ah yes my questions about faith and Knowing and such like.
Of course it’s not logical ya silly goose. If it were logical then I would consult Mr. Spock. ((Who is he??))
Bad grammar I’ll plead guilty to any time.
Tricks, I’ve only played two so far and I’m not singed yet.
I would have to know some philosophy before I could tumble around it.

You’ll be much happier when you realize that Willie and I aren’t in cahoots.

Buzzcook

2075 cook

Yup that’s what I think Goodinthe.
But many people seem to hide behind the rituals and phrases that protect them from interacting with their fellows and their community. Maybe it’s as simple as greed or fear. I tend to think that we create for ourselves and have others create for us, a false self. When we interact with others in any but the most cursory or formal manner there is the risk that the façade might crack.
As I see it the Awareness of the false self is the first knowing. It is the reflection on that knowing that hopefully leads us to the first act of faith. That act is an act of self-destruction ((negation – wilbro)) and facing our great fear of embarrassment, which I think is in a dead heat with fear of death for top spot.
Most people that make that leap live through it to tell the tale. Most find that the leap wasn’t even a hop. So the mountain is still a mountain (you were right about that one). ((Therefore, goad**!?))

Anyway that's what I was trying to get at with my introductory questions, so does that make sense?

Buzzcook

sue 2076

Dear Cooky

Right, I eventually found your original question!

>>If the leap of faith is a thoughtless act. Once we have jumped the gorge, do we arrive in a place of no thought?<<

In my experience a leap of faith is not 'a thoughtless act'. If it were thoughtless it wouldn't be faith! It is rather a conscious decision to trust beyond our understanding. To walk into the unknown, knowing only that our steps are founded on the trustworthy and that we are walking in the right direction. When making a leap of faith there are many thoughts that emerge, most based in emotion, some analytical. ((Refer to scientific process of problem-solving, even tied with eight noble paths)) And when reaching the other side (that is, coming into understanding) there is always a period of adjustment that requires a re-assessment of the previous world-view and belief system. This requires a great deal of thought, reflection, analysis, etc. until the experience has been assimilated. A leap of faith always, in my experience, results in a mini-enlightenment. ((This ties with the journey process in white book. Or, perhaps, Buddha’s middle way. Also tied are her comments on Sirius’ comments, "Realization... is a continuous unfolding... " and peeling off process.))

>>If knowing has no cognitive element. Then what about knowing that we know?<< ((Here, first knowing is Knowing, i.e., direct grasp/oneness I think, not just knowing/cognitive. But..))

This is only confusing because you use the linguistic confusion of repeating the word 'knowing'(and 'cognitive' which means knowing) when the sense of your sentence is *If certainty is not mentated then what about understanding our store of facts*. Firstly. since 'certainty' is an emotional event which emerges from a re-assessment of our world-view and belief system, it has been mentated in the past. Secondly, in order for something to be classed as 'fact' it has to be analysed and assimilated, so all 'facts' have been mentated at some time. >>knowing that we know<< requires only a quick scan of our list of (previously categorised) 'facts'. ((mentate…think, analyze and assimilate for use in the journey?))

It is the point at which we are required to act on something that has not been assimilated as 'fact' that we need 'a leap of faith'. To behave as though something were 'fact' although we have yet to establish that to our own satisfaction. Having experienced the event (or whatever) we are then able to mentate and assimilate and thus to understand. Pooof! The light goes on! You have an Ahaaaa!!! moment - enlightenment on a small scale! ((Scientific problem-solving process, eight noble paths, correct process in the brain, leading to prajna.))

The question is, if you understand the mechanism and logic of a leap of faith, does it degrade the value of the experience? ((Emphasis on finding the effective process for the human with brain vs. say practice-experience process, e.g., sitting? Emphasis on not blinded by cause and effect?))

Dragon

sue 2077

Dear Cooky

Just because the subject goes beyond the everyday into the emotional or spiritual does not mean that it cannot be described using logical argument. Mr Spock would be a good person to consult (if that were possible); he does not reject the emotional and spiritual - it is logically analysed and assimilated in such a way as to not give rise to emotional disturbance or duality. In other words, he understands the mechanism so he just doesn't get up-tight about it!* (although, I think Gene Roddenberry misunderstands the human relationship between logic and emotion and therefore writes Spock into some unnecessary conflicts) ((This underlined portion correspond to A10 neuron, perhaps. Once understood the process and its effectiveness, in our unconscious level, raft – or detailed process to go across the river for the other shore - can be forgotten. Toes are replaced by right use of tools, i.e., quiet center/rhubarb/X.))

Philosophy is *talking about what we think about what we are thinking about* (my definition). Isn't that what we are doing? ((Is this a little sarcastic comment? Agreeing the limit of communication/thoughts? Or?))

As for bad grammar, if you haven't mastered the language how do you expect to master anything as complex as life?

Dragon

Wilbro 2080

cooky cutter, before I partake of the two brilliant posts that follow your post, in which the lady of draggin the waggin painted** cool has exposed the truth for all to see, let me comment, if I may, and of course I may, on you cahoots theory.

If we are not in cahoots, and I pretend we are in cahoots, why then the force of Goad** has a crowd behind it and is more likely to succeed, for no one likes top be left out while the rest are reveling in satori. I do think our good cop/bad cop routine is playing well, don't you? Tee-hee!
==

2084 wilbro

Lady Dragon, the first words I uttered while reading your response to the Cooky-Cutter were, "Well, well, well, what have we here?" Let me say what I think you have just said ((in #2084 above)), just to make sure the well I am looking into has no bottom. There is a release/insight (leap complex) of such a nature that it requires a re-assessment of the previous world-view and belief system. This requires a great deal of thought, reflection, analysis etc until the experience has been assimilated. The release is known, but the meaning has not yet been assimilated. One has been thrown into an understanding and there is the need to understand that understanding. The assimilation process leads to an understanding. As this is a process, there is no final understanding, the re-assessment becomes ongoing, whose end is but a mystery against which the understanding may only lean. ((This is the evolution process – human/natural way. Picture of this process in the brain is like growing of a neuron tree. It may go back and forth, may break the brunch, but the process is similar, physical or mental.))

One question. When the release of the release/insight has been registered in memory, like a cud to be ruminated again and again, does the insight bring it to life? Is this perhaps the process itself?

Sue 2098

Dear Brother

Weeeell Yes. Although, I think you overcomplicate it... and it loses something in the translation,... and I'm not sure what you mean by <<leap complex>>... and I think your last sentence may take it a bit far... but generally you have the idea, dear.

<< One question. When the release of the release/insight has been registered in memory, like a cud to be ruminated again and again, does the insight bring it to life? Is this perhaps the process itself? >>

I don't think we endlessly ruminate on our experiences in quite the way you seem to be suggesting. That sounds unhealthy to me. Having taken the leap of faith, I think we see the event. We then have to apply meaning to the event - to understand what happened and what it means generally and to us in particularly. Then we look at the event and its' associated meanings alongside our existing world-view and belief system. We then identify what needs reassessment and juggle with our map until the new event/ experience/ meaning is included (assimilated). At this point we have arrived at a new understanding - a new world-view and belief system - a new map. ((Brain-neuron structure)) I think that we then go forward into new experiences with this new map. Life-changing, you are never the same again! It would only be any value to reassess the original event if you needed to draw on it for information or if new events called it into question. I think the 'process' is unending in that if we are open to it there are always new events to engage in. And (as it happens) I think this is the purpose of existence, the pursuit of the next learning event; the continual rewriting of our 'map' until delusion is eradicated.

Sue Dragon

wilbro 2100

SueD, thanks for the laugh. It's a good thing we are playing horseshoes, else my close would not count. The only thing I would add to your answer to my question is a tag end, commenly known as the tail, and perhaps a bit complicated, but, hey, the more complicated the simple can be made to look, the more you can charge for it.

I would say the delusion is continually being formed and it requires understanding to catch and dissolve it in 'real time.' ((Think like rain falling from the sky.)) If you fall asleep at the wheel, the road suddenly disappears.

============

((What follow is from the Zenhells. These took place before most of the above posts from the Universe of Zen))

sue449

Dear brother

… you said,

<<Since the observer is the act of observation, the act of sitting will only catch itself sitting, and since the identity is itself, the distance of reflection comes to an end.>>

Taking the conditions of the conversation at the time I am not sure if you mean this or not. Are you suggesting that meditation has a finite value, or no value? ((End is explode or mature. Process of meditation is to get into No-mind state, oneness, and insight. Act is act is act, or "Goad**" till the toe is gone, perhaps.))

You also said, <<It is my experience that there are three
identity continuities that may break, each providing an insight into their nature; the I, the me, and the knower>>

This seems to equate generally with the Ego, the Id and the Super-ego. (I'm not sure that this model is terribly useful) But it is my experience that both the Ego and the Id are fractionalised and that personality elements are identifiable and describable.

I don't understand. If the 'observer' or the 'knower' (I would call it the 'watcher') or the 'super-ego' is actively watching the other elements, why is it not useful? I am deliberately NOT using the expression 'identity' since I think this is a group noun. Please turn on the light! ((I sense wilbro has three identities in structure. It can be more if you think mini-brain and mini-mini-brain type of structure. Then, each is auf-habened so to speak by dialectic method to get finally to reach the level of no-self, ghost, or rhubarb.))

Dragon

wilbro 450

Oh brother sister, can you paradigm. And you are Dragon all of this into the lair of fast eddy, the only Abbot who does not fade in hot water, and, at the same time getting me in hot water. Well, let's see if I can answer your questions and at the same time escape with my scalp intact. Maybe I can weasel my words around on this matter of meditation.

On the meditation thing, I was sending a coded message that could only be understood by someone who understands it, understand? If the observer is the observed, and it is when the Watcher is the Watching, to use your terms, when the self is the Watcher, when that watching does not take time to do… ((Krishnamurti’s also points out few minutes is enough)) or however else one would care to put it, then what difference should it make what one is doing; be it sitting, walking, or passing wind. But hey, if someone wants to sit like a log and explore logging, who am I to say they should not.

Now, my three-in-one is more like Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, rather than Ego, Id, and SE. ((Me, I , Knower…Wilbro san, you promised to write an essay on that to Sue, didn’t you?)) Since there was an agreement that the assumed continuity could be seen as assumed when it broke up, I was just throwing three break-up's that I know on the table to see if I would get a response of recognition. All three are self-identity continuities that reveal their structure when they lose their continuity*, then reset. ((The meaning of continuity…assumed life of its own, like self.)) The experience between the before and the after reveals the ground that supports the identity. But enough of that. If you want more of that sort of stuff, Kio, SuzakiCo, talked me into putting my writings into a homepage, and then set it up for me. It feels awkward referring people to it, but if eddy can handle the heat with his, I can too. Though I would never go as far as putting a picture of myself it; ugh! ((Then, discontinuity means..break up/insight process.))

http://www.oocities.org/wilbro99/

sue 451

Dear brother

Help! My de-coding equipment has blown a fuse! It may take a while to fix it. You see I haven't used it for many years and the unaccustomed use is straining the capacitors.

My apologies for Dragon controversy in your back yard. The door was open, so to speak. See it as an opportunity!

Ahhh! Right! I think I've got it now. "..it matters not whether you sit or lie..." I think we agree on this point. However, I think there are other purposes to 'sitting' which I won't go into here.((Sue; let us hear..)) But, if the watcher has his view obscured by mountains of garbage - wouldn't it be wiser to dig him out first? Or persuade him to dig himself out? Or at the very least tell him he's in there? ((Wilbro thinks to trick it(unwatcher) into beginning to watch itself is the way. - #452. "Goad**" again..))

"All three are self-identity continuities that reveal their structure when they lose their continuity, then reset" I think I'd like to dig deeper into this mountain. ((Ripple/dipple on the pond- fractionalized selfs, Koi, and the Sun(X) seem to be the relationship))

I have rifled through your briefcase (although 'brief' is a misnomer) I very much enjoyed your "Guide" which accords with my own independent experience. However, the machine code titles don't help with the search, perhaps you could suggest something? I have posted a few poems in my (very) briefcase but still wary of exposing myself (if you'll excuse the expression) inappropriately. ((Any picture, Sue .. Dragon??))

Sue Dragon
"Three wheels on my wagon....La la la"
==

Wilbro 452

lady of dragon, no wheels is tough sleddin' --- but first, I must apologize to the man from nether for the clutter I bring to his well-raked sand pile. Of course, had I packed the clutter properly, he could have called it for what it was; baggage. ((Still, I think it as throw-away raft for all to use.)) Now, let's see what's to see. We have a Watcher whose view is obscured by mountains of baggage. That is no Watcher, that is an Unwatcher. The notion of an obstructed view can only mean that all this "Watcher" has to do is unobscure its view to become the "Watcher for real." ((Here is the notion of removing the cloud of Unknowing)) It does not say what is the fact; namely, that the baggage is the "Watcher," and that to become the Watcher, it is necessary to self-negate. ((This is the Rhubarb process – continuously upward toward the X, nothingness – where there is no center and centers everywhere)) Of course, to say that goes nowhere, for the Unwatcher can not negate itself. It is my guess that the only way to turn an Unwatcher into a Watcher is to trick it into beginning to watch itself, whatever that means. ((Koan, meditation, Kaatz, twist nose, sudden stop and look streight into the eyes., etc.)) It seems to me that if you get an Unwatcher to begin watching, the seed is planted. So, maybe sitting is better that nothing. Oh heavens, I don't know. Let's defer to eddy here to straighten us out. He's the, er, sitting expert.

As to rifling thru my briefcase, perhaps #154, as a summary of what went before might be a good start, but other than that, I'd have to look thru them myself and I tend not to revisit old stuff because I am tempted to rewrite it and bring it up to date, which ruins its hysterical value. As to the other mountain, when the spirit moves, not the mountain, I will write something about the insights into the structure of the three identities and send it to you. I don't want to fill any of these clubs with long essays. ((Briefcase #154: See Impressions to DW for key points – to be posted at phil-life-mgmt club))

sue456

Dear Brother

Having read your #11((DW))I still think your gate is a fallacy.((because gateless gate?!)) You use the metaphor of 'gate' to replace 'to experience' and then tie yourself in knots with your metaphor. Whats more (if you will forgive the cheek of critique) I think that your argument has more holes than Nottingham Lace! Nice image, but it doesn't fit - there is no gate!

THE GATE
From a children's rhyme

I walked round the garden tomorrow
And found a front gate at the back
Then no-one gave me a banana
I ate it and gave it him back
He fell from the grass to the treetops
And broke a front bone in his back
The gate turned into a run(a)way
The post is here for the 'craic'

(NB. 'craic' is an Irish word signifying 'banter' and is pronounced 'crack')

Dragon
Laughing her socks off..... I think I fixed that wheel!

Wilbro #464 Zenhells on Quiz

1) It is said that if you meet the Buddha along the road, kill him. What implement of death would you use? : I would use shame for foisting such nonsense upon the unsuspecting seeker. Why anyone would sit still for mind numbing questions is beyond the pale, or the bucket, for that matter. ((Yet, the process was what he brought…which correspond to what you and Sue discussed in the Universe of Zen. It is the image people created that need to be killed, like toe stepping.))

2) Limitlessley open, Nothing is sacred. Explain: (Note, you must use the word rhubarb at least twice in your answer): Limitlessy open can only be imagined as a field in which every point in the field would be the center of that field, for to posit a single center would to limit that field. As the only sacred thing is Nothing, and all of this means Nothing, this field is the perfect place to grow rhubarb; glorious, uplifting rhubarb! ((X, the creative process))

3) If I were suddenly transformed into a danish, I would: Be able to read Kierkegaard first hand.

4) If a bhodisattva left New York traveling at 3 miles per hour, and a Hinayanist departed San Fransisco at the same time, traveling at 4 miles per hour, who would attain perfect enlightenment first? : Piece of cake. In enlightenment, there is no first, nor any last, therefore, no between, and if there is no between, hamburgers are out. ((Continuous creation process..))

5) You have 3 apples and 4 friends, how do you divide the apples in such a way that everyone can understand exactly what an apple is? : I would threaten the first one who could tell me what an apple was with six months of cleaning out eddy's latrine, and leave the room.((In other words, Go for the Goad**!"))

6) There is noooooooooo question number 6 : So why is there no Q#6? As in all things Zennish there must be a discontinuity that reveals the continuity that supports the discontinuity so that the discontinuous may continue unencumbered by its non-being, thus giving praise to rhubarb pie. ((Again, the process of evolution - tied to insight process.))

7) Define in simple terms the meaning of the cosmos (Extra credit for involving the tv show YeeHaw) : Since the meaning that is defined is not the meaning that is given, the distinction must leave enough room between the two to host any TV show, let alone the cosmos. ((Difference of Knowing and knowing is the size of the universe a part.))

8) Complete this sentence: It would all be so much easier if the world just understood : what it means to be someone trying to finish this sentence when the only good answer has already been given. ((If you Know the broken light bulb in the backyard, you know it all. Is it??))

9) It has been a hot day plowing the fields, you hold in your hand an ice cold beer, but you realize your bottleopener is back at the main house, and your beer will be warm before you return. Name at least 3 ways to open the beer. : It's open. It's open. It's open. The goose is not harmed by any container that rests solely on being defined, then identified with. Now, that's pure rhubarb. ((It is OK after all…))

10) Boxers or briefs, and explain why. (You ladies don't get a freebie on this one, if you havn't tried either, go down to your local Sears and formulate your own opinion) : There are four choices, A or B, A & B, Neither Anor B, or none of the above. Another goose is rescued. ((A magic of goose coming out of goad**? You call this dialectic?))

==================================================================

((What follows are the key points of the above posts))

****About Goading**, etc.****

The following is taken from the Universe of Zen (wilbro’s post # 2061)

"What is better than ho-hum? I know how to liven things up. I say, "Go for the Goad**!" I say that if you leave room for reflection between the stimulus and the response, the response given is the reflected response. If you want to know who one* is, goad** them* into responding* so that there is no room for reflection. If they find your goad** amusing, you will know* there is nothing to goad**. If, however, spontaneous combustion*/** occurs, wherein could boredom persist?

This goad** is presented to you courtesy of Captain Goad**, and is intended solely to step on whatever toes* whose owner takes words as reality."

Decoding with my mental modem – for universal translation, hopefully. Wilbro san please comment to my translation:

"one" represents "not two," not dualistic, but absolute, that one.
"them" refers all things and action around us. Fractionalized self, me, dualistic world.
"Responding" is direct action, no words involved.
"know" here means the state of attention. For Knowing/Seeing.
"Spontaneous combustion**" refers to burning of life energy, insight. Or, sort of oneness with the movement of the universe - for maximization of H-universe.
"toe" refers wrong use of tools like words and conscious mind that often get into the way.
"goad**" is a process as represented by Katz, to get to no mind. "nothing to goad**" is oneness.

Basically, the point indicated is that the goading** is a key process for anytime anywhere. Three identity structure of me, I, and Knower may help understand the process of breaking up of false self, mini-self, etc. which is insight. (An essay from wilbro may be in progress on this point. Actually, I doubt that. But who Knows?)

****About Dialectical Test****

The following is taken from the Universe of Zen (wilbro’s post # 2040)

"Inwardness((State of attention, no mind)) and enlightenment ((release insight)), in my lexicon, mean the same thing.((Part of the same process.)) Both speak to a negation. ((Hannya’s immediate denial logic, A and not A to Know "A" – leading to prajna)) One calls that to be negated the Error((error of using thoughts instruments as human)), while the other calls that to be negated Samsara.((Forgot the meaning. I think it meant "this world" of suffering)) One leads to the God-relation ((human to God – save people who are in between by correcting the behavior/practice)) and the other leads to Nirvana ((jump, insight, aha!, that world)). But the form of the two differ in that the former speaks to a knight of faith, read Bodhisattva, ((Pray, Namuamidabutsu, one with Nembutsu, Buddha the savior, Everybody/every act is One.)) as the means/goal((ultimate process)), while the latter speaks to a beyond the Bodhisattva.((beyond means Enlightenment by individual’s journey, i.e., Hinayana)) I think the former is grounded in reality ((meaning be with people with suffering. Joshu, "I will be in hell to save you all")), while the latter is more of a mind trip.((In a way, he is "useless" for other people, i.e., be contained in one’s mind like arahat)) ((So, even though the principle is the same as I see it, it appears there are two approaches of the "journey" One more externally oriented with people, while the other more internally oriented to one’s own. Perhaps, corresponding to Mahayana and Hinayana. **This view matches with my idea of Part Three: Journey in my white book.))"

"… that mind trip quality of Zen allows the mind to dabble with inwardness without having appropriated it. The dabblers always fail the dialectical test when pushed to take it. Unless the difference between knowing and the thought of knowing is seen, all is dabble. Those who have no toes to be stepped upon will understand what I say, while those whose toes have just been stepped upon will know the pain of having their toes stepped upon. Now, has that wily old Willie just set another trap, or has that wily old Willie set another trap?"

- Paradox: Knowing is not knowing, it is knowing. Knowing is beyond knowing and not-knowing. It is the absolute state.

- Dogen: The human state: There are life and death. Then, animal state: There are no life and death. And after aufhaben: There are Life and Death. (I forgot the exact lines. From Shobogenzo.)

- Hannya’s immediate dinial logic: A is not A, therefore "A" Or, see the difference of A and A.

- More examples: Elephant Tail is out: Bottle is open.; Goose is out.

- Words are not the reality.

- So, Willie’s trap is not a Willie’s trap but the TRAP?!

**** About Scientific Problem-Solving Process****

Wilbro and Sue discussed this another key point. I see the link to eight noble paths and prajna mechanism. The notion of the way or evolution may be detected from this and dialectic process mentioned above. It is nature’s way… call it scientific.

Now, what did I do here? Is it called a process of assimilation? But was there an insight or two? Can I have your help to gain insight and assimilate - collectively??? Or is such a process contradicting? What about oneness, the attention, mini-enlightenment, the process of the universe – everything is connected? Any Bottisatvas around?? Remember, I have practiced management consulting – for organizational enlightenment with dialectical method. Is it not also the process you are going through at the Universe of Zen, Zenhells and elsewhere? Yet, I need to know more about how to paint the wagon** myself. At the same time, I want to check from the perspective of management to see the effectiveness. So, I need an annual report from each of you guys. Is it not fair for all? Now, that is X speaking! Where is the proof of insight, assimilation, workable process, and your existence? Show Me! (If you do, that should help writing my white book! BTW, that is how I worked as consultant and wrote other books come to think about it. So, this is a proven method.)

=============

E-mail from Sue (7/1/00):

Dear Kio

I can’t translate all this, it is too complicated! This isn’t a little healthy brain excercise it is a mental marathon! Besides, most of the time it is more about the process of establishing communication than it is about actually saying anything very profound. I’ll do what I can, although you will have to get Wilbro to clarify his posts as, when he was talking to Buzzcook they were sharing meanings that I was not party to and had to guess at or to respond to the outward meaning.

Wilbro #2024

Wilbro establishes his connection with the new member Buzzcook. (I had previously done something similar in zenhell) Ostensibly they are talking about how the club is organised on the screen, but wilbro may be using it as a direct metaphor for the ‘interface’ between posters; if so he ‘goads’ that we are "easy to handle". He ‘flags’ the ‘gameplay’ And ‘goads’ us all (particularly me as he refers to me directly) by promising to talk about us all in private. This would give Buzzcook an unfair advantage in the interplay later since we don’t know anything about him. Wilbro then ‘flags’ an invitation to a battle "main ring" which implies a boxing match, and a challenge "where the real thinking is done" implying that "real thinking" is NOT done here.

Sue #2029

I can’t resist the temptation! I slime in (take a stance of wheedling younger sister) tease him for being unfair and ask what he is going to say about me. I am hoping to lure him into saying something that I can destroy later with a witty phrase or a profound remark. You notice I make a pun on the word ‘heel’ which Wilbro has used to mean ‘weakness’ and I use to mean ‘spoilsport’.,

Wilbro #2030

Wilbro takes full advantage of my weakness; and does not fall into my trap. If I had not cared what he was going to say about me I would have ignored the taunt and not posted a reply. The fact that I replied at all is the proof, and the punchline of the joke. He refers to Achilles’ ‘heel’ which was his only weakness. Then he gloats at his easy victory (‘cast out’ implies fishing - and I took the hook) But tempers the sting with a ‘stroke’(something designed to elicit good feelings), " I had nothing in mind but..." Which tells me it is a good natured joke and not malicious, but he awards himself a point anyway for teaching me my Achilles heel.

He boasts of his and Buzzcooks prowess and experience. ‘Threads’ is a pun meaning both ‘clothing’ (which is a metaphor for the change undergone in another club) and ‘the thread of posts and (therefore) argument’ and issues another challenge with the taunt "easy pickings".

Sue

Somewhere following this is my post accepting defeat. (graciously) and redeeming myself a little by being very nice to him. He has been mean to me with his trick so I take the moral high ground by being generous to him (big strokes).

Wilbro #2040

Here Wilbro is talking in coded language to Buzzcook but he is referring to the "dance of the dialectic" and therefore alerts the reader, who he knows is reading the post and is waiting for some thread to arise. Having revealed previously that he had a way of speaking to Buzzcook outside the club "I have invited him over here" why is he writing such heavily coded messages here? He is probably checking the ability of the reader to decode the message and the content of the replies will tell him to what level they are able to decode. Part of the coding is referring to another poster and myself and he makes distinctions between the two of us (although the coding obscures the meaning somewhat) he is actually now ‘snitching’ (sneaking, telling) on us. We both argue AGAINST, as opposed to alternatives (counselling, koan etc). I am the "God-relation" who "calls that to be negated the Error" and who "speaks to a knight of faith" that is, I was having a conversation elsewhere about faith and trying to be helpful therefore "grounded in reality". The other alternatives apply to the other poster (mind trip)

Wilbro then offers a challenge of the ‘Catch 22’ type. If you respond you lose if you don’t respond you lose! If I respond to the "toes" taunt then I admit I don’t understand the coding, if I don’t respond at all then I have "failed the dialectical test" and am therefore a "dabbler" [[This should sort the sheep out from the goats! Dragons don’t have toes to be stepped on anyway!]] Wilbro creates a full stop to his leadership (commercials come at the end of the TV programme and hands over to Buzzcook to lead the battle. The Cheshire cat is from "Alice in Wonderland" who, having said something profound and unintelligible, habitually dissapeared from the tail forwards until all that was left was his smile, which suddenly blinks out.

Bush #2042

Bush can’t help but answer the challenge but he’s a bit of a fly-weight and hasn’t the faintest idea what Wilbro has said (although he is aware that there is some subterfuge going on "Whether or not you believe your words...") so he attacks the whole idea of debate and those who debate. There is no coded language here - just petulance. The Irony of it is that had he said it better it could have been a valid response that escaped the ‘Catch 22’.

Wilbro #2061

Quite - so what! Wilbro has got one answer - Bush is not up to the dialectic and Wilbro now knows what kind of person Bush is. What is more, Wilbro has succeeded in provoking petulance and attack from Bush and has therefore won the point. Wilbro turns Bush’s argument back on him (turns the mirror to reflect Bush’s words back to Bush) and closes the discussion with "...you might as well talk to a tree". Bush has spoiled the game, no-one will post now because they will have to put up with the Bush’s accusation of destroying truth by doing so.

I haven’t responded so far as I am watching to see what happens but Wilbros final statement gives me an opening where I can avoid Bush but still engage in the dialectic.

Sue

I post outside the Bush/ Wilbro argument so as to avoid Bush thinking I am joining in the conversation which will give him an opening to attack me and I can’t be bothered with him.

I refer to Wilbro as ‘Captain’ to flag his ‘goad’ and challenge. Then I flag the dialectic and incidentally refer him back to his posts discussing the dialectic, therefore taking the conversation back before Bush joined in. I also offer a continuance of the game if he wants it. "Ahhh but" is my convention of contradiction.

"I Talk To The Trees, but they don’t listen to me" is a song from "Paint Your Wagon" and Wilbro often refers to me as ‘wagon’ or ‘wagon tongue’ and we have had a conversation earlier where I expressed my decoding difficulties by singing an old song "Three wheels on my wagon... And I’m still rolling along". I am posturing here, strutting as I imply that I am ready for the dialectic - "I am preparing" and that I intend to win this time (paint your wagon) and issue a minor challenge of my own "what colour would you like it". I am also asking for the subject which is to discussed since he still has to ‘goad’ me this time.

Cook #2074

Mr Spock is a character in Star Trek who is always logical.

Cook has just had a personal dispute with Bush.

I have avoided Bush by joining the dialectic through the back door (so to speak), by attacking the cook in an earlier post and we are having a discussion about what the rules of the combat are. This is Cooks response to that earlier conversation.

"Ya silly goose" refers both to an earlier statement that koans were "a wild goose chase for the mind"; and is an endearing ‘put down’ to me;’ goose’ being a silly girl. It could also mean that he intends to ‘cook my goose’ which means to finish me off (win the battle). There are a number of sideline barbs which I ignore, particularly the continuation of the ‘cahoots’ goad.

Cook #2075

Cook has got tied up arguing with Bush which is a real wild goose chase!

There is a lot of coded language in here "..does that make sense?" while Cook tries to find out if Bush can decode and is someone else in diguise "False-self"; or if he will respond to the more obvious but still coded attack "many people seem to hide..." Or if he will latch on to something peripheral and obvious "... Greed or fear". But he flags his original question as a thread to the argument.

Sue #2076

So I go and find it. ( this is the conversation I refer to earlier)

And tear it to pieces. There is no coded language here I have launched into the argument proper and begun the battle real. I am laying my cards on the table but I am speaking from "my experience" which constrains the opponent to attacking only my statements of fact - they cannot argue against my experience.

I end with a direction question to extend the dialectic.

Sue #2077

This is my response to Cooks Mr Spock post. I take advantage of Cooks Mr Spock taunt and turn it back on him by using his own example to support my argument. I am taking a risk here because if he really knows his Star Trek he can destroy this argument so I pre-empt this by questioning the writers’ accuracy of view of the logic/emotion relationship.

Every skittle he puts up I knock down, and I add a few barbs of my own. (You score points if the opponent rises to the bait of these little personal attacks because you have won the major battle by distracting them into dead ends.)

Wilbro #2080

There is a side conversation going on with wilbro and cook about being "in cahoots". Wilbro is hoping to keep me (and the others) on the defensive and confused. He refers to me as "the lady of draggin the waggin painted cool" which is a collection of names he has used before but he implies I have no wheels (since I am ‘draggin’). Which may be a reference to my seriousness (cool). I have stopped coding and making jokes and that is what Wilbro enjoys. He shows his approval of the battle and my arguments ("brilliant", "truth"). And the fun of the game ( ... Playing well... Tee-hee")

Wilbro #2084

Wilbro engages with my earlier arguments and feeds back to me what he thinks I have said but includes a few hidden traps which I could fall into if I accept them without question.

Sue #2098

I (grudgingly) accept his translation highlighting the areas where his translation diverts too far from my original, softening it with a joke (idea dear). I engage with his closing question, extend it and end with a ‘concession’ statement. "I think." allows him to attack my statement of fact directly, whats more I have included Zen as well as argument (delusion). I am inviting an attack but he will not know enough about me to know whether he is safe or not and I have shown enough ability to make him unsure.

Wilbro #2100

Acknowledges my (grudging) affirmation and And flags the playful nature of the game. He also makes a ‘concession’ statement of fact as an opening to a dharma battle and then he throws a simple philosophical problem at me. Actually I suspect that there may be some coding here underlying this last paragraph since there has been an undercurrent of speculation about a ‘ghost poster’ and it sounds as though he is trying to say something coded. But to be truthful I haven’t the faintest idea what he’s really saying.

Sue

I decide to avoid the coded message (if it is there). I also avoid the dharma battle since he can probably run rings around me there. So I opt for the philosophy problem but include it as an afterthought. My response shows that I understand that problem and he disengages.

This is an unsatisfactory finish and I’m not entirely sure what the score was. I suspect that I failed to understand one of the undercurrents and so lost the battle. At best it was a stalemate, because the thread of the useful argument reached a dead end.

Since the next section is another argument, I will send this off to you Kio (before I review it into oblivion) and deal with the other one seperately. I hope this is the kind of thing you were looking for. I can’t comment on your comments as I can’t make the connections to your work as yet. I must stress that all this is not at the front of ones’ mind when playing these games. In hindsight it is easy to see what the transactions were but at the time you are busy being creative and enjoying the exchange, most of the calculation happens unconsciously or instinctively (Watcher).

Thanks for the ‘work-out’

Sue

<<My Conclusion>>

In relation to the process that went through in this series of dialogue, the comment from Sue responding to wilbro as shown below* seems to summarize the viewpoint that makes sense to me. However, wilbro's comments* are more on the principle process, which by itself also make sense. Then, the pragmatic issue left for us is in the application of these points in our real life while the dialogue here may be seen as a representation of it as to how we play the game and continuously figure out to proceed in our life's journey - whatever subject we may engage ourselves in.

So, the last point I arrived is the question, i.e., where do we put the process into action? Well, we may say everywhere. Yes, everywhere and all the time. Yet, if Buddha put his problem consciousness in saving people from suffering and used the principle process (through his meditation as many sutras indicate that he was often meditating), what subject/mission do we have may be a question by itself. If so, is it not a question still to be answered? Captain Goad!!!((Doesn't this indicate us to go back to H-max. and portfolio management with the principle process in hand, corresponding to the Journey, Part three of my white book?? If so, after the Process Guide, may wilbro san start to work on the Application Guide, while, series of parables/stories to be written by Sue Dragon san?? And if we keep doing this, eventually, the A10 neuron link will be thickened in human brains to bring out the planet we all feel right about?? Is this not how a dialectic method practiced in nature - called evolution of species???))

Eka: I have an unsettled mind. Please instruct and settle it for me.

Bodhidhama: OK, show it to me.

Eka: (After some time) I could not find it.

Bodhidhama: (Laughing to hear this…) I made it settled!

( Kio: Then, what?)

Thank you(Arigato)! Wilbro and Sue san!!!

Kio

* Wilbro:<< One question. When the release of the release/insight has been registered in memory, like a cud to be ruminated again and again, does the insight bring it to life? Is this perhaps the process itself? >>

* Sue: I don't think we endlessly ruminate on our experiences in quite the way you seem to be suggesting. That sounds unhealthy to me. Having taken the leap of faith, I think we see the event. We then have to apply meaning to the event - to understand what happened and what it means generally and to us in particularly. Then we look at the event and its' associated meanings alongside our existing world-view and belief system. We then identify what needs reassessment and juggle with our map** until the new event/ experience/ meaning is included (assimilated). At this point we have arrived at a new understanding - a new world-view and belief system - a new map. I think that we then go forward into new experiences with this new map. Life-changing, you are never the same again! It would only be any value to reassess the original event if you needed to draw on it for information or if new events called it into question. I think the 'process' is unending in that if we are open to it there are always new events to engage in. And (as it happens) I think this is the purpose of existence, the pursuit of the next learning event; the continual rewriting of our 'map' until delusion is eradicated.

(** Sue, corresponding to the notion of map, I have what is called a N-H matrix in Part One, white book, FYI. This corresponds to portfolio management mentioned above. However, please note that because of the structure of the book, it has a delusion element still left in Part One as it is not "processed" through quiet center, watcher/golden ball, or X. at that stage.)

Decoding Wilbro and Sue's dialogue at the Universe of Zen

Reading posts in the Universe of Zen has been educational as well as entertaining. So, on or around June 24, 2,000 at the Universe of Zen (and some form Zenhells), I picked about thirty or so posts to study. I focused on Wilbro and Sue dragon’s posts for their wits and mysteriously enriching contents that I was interested. Even though I felt like chasing the track of birds in the sky already flown away, I felt it was worth the efforts.

After I tried to decode their dialogue, I sent Wilbro and Sue Dragon my decoded (so I thought) version. Each gave me a feedback and all of these are posted as "Decoding Wilbro and Sue Dragon's Dialogue at the Universe of Zen" in my home page if there is anyone interested in this kind of work. At the end is my conclusion of some sort:

<<My Conclusion>>

((If we were to move on in our journey with the principle process in hand, after the Process Guide, may wilbro san start to work on the Application Guide, while, series of parables/stories to be written by Sue Dragon san?? In my case, this may be the point which correspond to the Journey, Part three of my white book. And if we keep working on such an idea, eventually, even our physiological construct may change, e.g., the A10 neuron link will be thickened in human brains, to do the work of Bodhisattva. Is this not how a dialectic method practiced in nature - called evolution of species???))

Eka: I have an unsettled mind. Please instruct and settle it for me.

Bodhidhama: OK, show it to me.

Eka: (After some time) I could not find it.

Bodhidhama: (Laughing to hear this…) I made it settled!

( Kio: Then, what?)

Thank you(Arigato)! Wilbro and Sue san!!!

Kio

* Sue: I don't think we endlessly ruminate on our experiences in quite the way you seem to be suggesting. That sounds unhealthy to me. Having taken the leap of faith, I think we see the event. We then have to apply meaning to the event - to understand what happened and what it means generally and to us in particularly. Then we look at the event and its' associated meanings alongside our existing world-view and belief system. We then identify what needs reassessment and juggle with our map until the new event/ experience/ meaning is included (assimilated). At this point we have arrived at a new understanding - a new world-view and belief system - a new map. I think that we then go forward into new experiences with this new map. Life-changing, you are never the same again! It would only be any value to reassess the original event if you needed to draw on it for information or if new events called it into question. I think the 'process' is unending in that if we are open to it there are always new events to engage in. And (as it happens) I think this is the purpose of existence, the pursuit of the next learning event; the continual rewriting of our 'map' until delusion is eradicated.