Anthony and Ed,  My comments are embedded below:

[Anthony] Zen is illogical, so undefinable.
[Ed] To an individual student, the utterances of his Zen master may appear
to be none, one or both of {logical, not-logical} simultaneously. 
In other words, Zen is beyond logic, or is it?
[Bill!] Zen is allogical – not confined or restricted by logic.
[Anthony] But we can try to use our finger to point to the Moon.
[Ed] In the final analysis one must just have faith in the reality of
'Buddha mind', yes?
[Bill!] Yes!

[Anthony] For instance, zen strives to see and realize your own Buddha
[Ed] Is 'Buddha nature' definable?
[Bill!] Not really.  We have a lot of answers to that question – such as Mu,
The Cypress Tree in the Garden, A Dried Shit-stick, and Just THIS!

[Anthony] What the hell is the use of Buddha nature? Don't worry, as long as
that makes you happy.
[Ed] I have good reason to believe that experiencing my Buddha nature would
make me a much happier person. But if that were my only motivation, would
that not be unacceptable in Buddhism? 
[Bill!] Zen/Buddha Nature is of no practical use.  It is the absence of
illusions and therefore the absence of attachments.  Without attachments
there is an end to suffering, but and end to suffering is not the same as
happy.  Happy, suffering, etc…, are illusory dualisms which evaporate with
the awareness of Buddha Nature.


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5540 (20101017) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


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:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to