Well Bill, even by your line of reasoning Buddha Nature has nothing to do with "sensual" experience. It's just experience, the totality of ALL experience, which is prior to any categorization into "sensual" or non-sensual.
As I explained a couple of days ago (and thought you had seen the light and agreed) the primacy of experience also includes the experience you label as "thought" so that too must be realized as an aspect of experience and thus a part of Buddha Nature. Ah well, we Boddhisattvas don't always get our message through, but at least we stick to our vows and try! :-) Edgar On Nov 28, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar and Joe, > > I see no 'zen parable' in this discussion. > > The line of reasoning you described below is your intellect at work, not > Buddha Nature. This might be a good illustration of how ALL intellectual > activity creates illusions, but there is no comparison or reference at all to > Buddha Nature. > > You're conclusive declaration that "Proper realization of the true nature of > things depends on clear and well informed thought!" is poppycock. If by the > phrase 'realization of the true nature of things' you mean realizing Buddha > Nature then thought, well-informed or not, is not a factor at all. Buddha > Nature is realized solely through sensual experience. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > I don't think vibrations would be a problem with my house since it's > > constructed of the massive I bars used to construct skyscrapers welded > > together. Heat from the roof might be but I tend to keep the house at > > pretty much ambient air temperature anyway. > > > > > > This BTW is a good Zen parable for you. What you imagine is real and true > > DEPENDS entirely upon your unrecognized assumptions which MAY NOT be true! > > > > Your assumption that my house was of the usual American ticky tacky > > construction was not correct. Thus your deduction of a further aspect of > > the 'true nature of things' was not correct.... > > > > Proper realization of the true nature of things depends on clear and well > > informed thought! > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:45 AM, Joe wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > You know, vibrations in and of the house will spoil any views with the > > > telescope, unless you have the telescope mount isolated from the house > > > structure upon its own concrete, masonry, or metal pier which runs to an > > > independent foundation, not touching any of the house, nor house > > > foundation. > > > > > > BTW, several of the formal namings I've made of asteroids I've discovered > > > during searches for Earth-Approaching asteroids could be of interest to > > > members of this Group: > > > > > > Haiku > > > Samadhi > > > Suiseki > > > Wabi-Sabi > > > > > > (I leave off their permanent catalog numbers for convenience) > > > > > > I've named minor planets for lots of musicians, too, but none of these > > > bear overtly on our topic. > > > > > > My comet discoveries are all automatically named for the discoverer by > > > default, whether I like it or not. ;-) > > > > > > Full Moon should be quite close to Jupiter, maybe closest on about 28 > > > Nov, 23:15 UTC, at moonrise time in NJ. Others around the world will see > > > it when they see it! > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > BTW I have a 14" Meade telescope though viewing here is somewhat > > > > > obstructed by all the trees around. I've thought of putting it on a > > > > > platform on top of my house which would greatly improving viewing > > > > > even with the addition of some heat distortion but haven't gotten > > > > > around to it... > > > > > > > > > >
