Edgar,

I have repeatedly stated that Buddha Nature is the direct, sensual experience 
of reality; and have occasionally followed that up with the caveat that the 
qualifiers 'direct', 'sensual' and even 'of reality' are really not necessary.  
Buddha Nature is indeed just experience; but thoughts are not experience.  
Thoughts are mental constructs and are therefore illusory.

Thanks for helping me clear this point up with you...Bill!

--- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> 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...
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> >
>




------------------------------------

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/

Reply via email to