buddha nature just IS...merle
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! > > > > > > > > > >
