Bill!,
Wow!, I never made that step, the step to THAT realization, before. One
"sense"... Buddha Nature. Of course, that has to be right. Not because you
said it... but because it is clear. Well, it is now.
It diverges from Buddhist philosophy, though. See the system according to Mind
Only. Which is also clear.
I love that old story about Suzuki at the conference.
Sometime, let me tell the story of my old Professor, Sidney Morgenbesser, at
the conference with the Oxford philosopher, J. L. Austin. Or maybe I did,
already.
--Joe
> "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> For me Suzuki's answer was appropriate because he was relating the reality of
> the table to sensual experience - in the case of the table probably sight and
> touch. (Although as I've said before repeatedly the division of senses into 5
> categories is in itself a dualistic product of the discriminating mind.
> There is only one 'sense' and it is Buddha Nature.)
------------------------------------
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:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
