Bill, If thoughts were not experienced they would not exist. They do exist, therefor they are experience... Therefore they are reality, but only experienced so when their true nature is realized.
Edgar On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Bill! wrote: > 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
