Bill, Just when I think you finally agree with me and have finally attained full realization I find I'm actually speaking to a Buddhist demon impersonating the real Bill!
Maybe in your next lifetime? :-) Edgar On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > SORRY! I forgot the translation key. Here it is ---> 8>| ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > > 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.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
