Bill, I agree. Every experience of whatever kind, including thoughts, is just experience.. Experience includes the 5 senses, thoughts, emotions and all the others, including perhaps most importantly the internal feelings of the body. Since these experiences are all the same fundamental nature, AND as you say it is only experience that is reality, is why everything, every one of these types of experience, are REAL, are REALITY. They, including thoughts, are only illusion if they are misinterpreted as something they are not.
Edgar On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Bill! wrote: > Joe, > > In fact ever since Mu I've tried to 'explain' Buddha Nature as the 'One > experience which can be described as the aggregation of the 'five' senses. > That 'synthesis', that experience is Buddha Nature.' > > Now in actual fact the statement above is actually the REVERSE of what > happens. It's talking about AGGREGATION or SYNTHESIS when actually what > happens sequentially is first, the One Experience (Buddha Nature) and then > subsequently the SEPARATION of this One Experience into various parts > (dualism/subject-object)which we then describe as 'sight', 'sound', 'touch', > 'smell' and 'taste'. > > And then of course there is 'thought' which like the concept of five senses > above is just another set of illusory concepts. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > > > 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.) > > > >
