I don’t recall a similar thread, but I might have missed it.  I was very busy 
working about 6 months ago and was distracted to the point of not keeping up 
with all the postings on Yahoo! Zen Forum.

If you want to thank someone for resurrecting this topic, thank Philomonk 
(Philosopher-Monk?).  He’s yet to respond to my posting, but I invite him to 
also respond to this one.

Before I start I want to make it very clear that Joshu did indeed completely 
respond to ALL questions about Buddha Nature in his laser reply ‘Mu!’.  All of 
these things we’re discussing are just intellectual masturbation,  rhetorical 
Sudoku – based entirely on manufactured human concepts, much like dreams or the 
shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave.  They are all fantasies, little more than 
dreams.  They really have nothing to do at all with Buddha Nature and in many 
cases only serve mislead.  They are overflowing tea in your teacup.

Now that I’ve warned you that the cakes I’m about to offer are dusty, tasteless 
and may make you sick (an Al analogy), I’ll serve you up a generous portion of 
them.  Eat them at your peril.

The phrase we’re trying to analyze is ‘it depends on YOU (the observer) if a 
being has Buddha Nature or not’.

The first thing that jumps out at me in this phrase are the terms ‘you’, 
‘observer’ and ‘being’.  They are support a dualistic view of reality.  If 
there is a ‘you’, then there is a ‘not-you’.  If there is an ‘observer’, then 
there is an object, something that is separate from the observer that is being 
observed.  ‘Being’ also seems to refer to some ‘other being’, perhaps the 
object being observed by the observer, which again supports a dualistic view.

As already discussed, ‘Buddha Nature’ is a manufactured human concept, an 

So, what I interpret this phrase to mean is:  If you are operating in a 
dualistic mode then there is a ‘you’ separate from everything else, like other 
‘beings’.  This ‘you’ creates concepts, like ‘Buddha Nature’.  Since it is 
‘you’ that creates this concept, it is also entirely up to ‘you’ to assign the 
existence of this concept in an ‘other being’.

So I guess the statement is correct in its own context.

But now that you’ve read all this intellectual gibberish and the dusty cakes 
sit heavy in your stomach, doesn’t Joshu’s ‘Mu!’ seem much more elegant and to 
the point?





From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL 
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:28 PM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Zen] Buddha Nature (was: Practice, Psychosis and the Human)



Thank you for taking up this topic again. I remember we had a similar 
thread some time (half a year?) ago. I tried to look it up the other day 
but did not find it any more. 
There was one post the author of which wrote that it depended on you (the 
observer) if a being had the Buddha nature or not. This surprised me very 
much and I would be thankful for some clarification. 

Gasshoo / Heshou, Kai 

Reply via email to