Edgar, Yes! Yes! Yes!
You wrote: --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > I agree. Every experience...[snip]... includes the 5 senses...[snip]. Since > these experiences are all the same fundamental nature, AND as you say it is > only experience that is reality, is why ...[snip]...these ...[snip]...are > REAL, are REALITY. They ...[snip]...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.) > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
