Mike, I agree with you about the sunset. If you 'loose your self' while experiencing the sunset then there is no you separate from the sunset and it is holistic. That's Buddha Nature.
I think I'd have to disagree with you about the stunned mullet. A stunned mullet is a lot closer to realizing Buddha Nature than a rationalist. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "mike" <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > > Bill!, > > Ok, sounds reasonable ; ) > > Just out of interest tho, I think you can still enjoy a beautiful sunset > without the mental chatter you alluded to. Same as awe. It's just a part of > the holistic framework you mentioned. Beng a stunned mullet isn't > 'experiencing' Buddha Nature either. > > Mike > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > Good question and the answer is 'no'. > > > > Experience does not have to be dualistic (subject/object). It can be > > holistic, and in fact holistic experience IS Buddha Nature. Dualistic > > experience (I am experiencing a beautiful sunset)is not pure experience. > > It's a post-processing of the experience by your discriminating mind - your > > intellect. It's forced into a dualistic framework and often subjected to > > judgements and categorizations. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "mike" <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > Aren't experiences also illusory in the sense that an experience requires > > > someone to have the experience? > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > > > Right, sort of. > > > > > > > > To be a 'rationalist' is to be someone who depends on rationality which > > > > is clearly illusory. > > > > > > > > As someone who practices zen which is based entirely on experience I > > > > would hope I would be an 'experientialist' - or a 'realist'. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > > > > > I'd say the concept may be rational, although there is not an > > > > > empirical demonstration or proof of existence of such a being. > > > > > > > > > > We know too that various Doctors of the Church did their darnedest > > > > > along rational lines, chief among them Augustine. > > > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see anything rational about the concept of God at > > > > > > all...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
