Edgar, Buddha Nature is experience. It doesn't include everything. For example it doesn't include thinking. You have to halt thinking in order to experience Buddha Nature, at least initially.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > No.... As JM says, and I also say, everything without exception is part of > Buddha Nature and that includes thinking and the world of forms also... > > Edgar > > > > On May 19, 2013, at 9:12 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > YES!, Yes and no, Not exactly, Not quite, Not exactly, and No and yes...I'd > > give you an overall grade of C- or D+ for this post. > > > > You wrote: > > > > > Initially realization involves stopping thinking. (As in sitting Buddha > > > Nature is directly realized) > > - YES! Buddha Nature has been there all along. Thinking (dualism / > > intellectualization) has been operating in the foreground and has obscured > > Buddha Nature. The degree of opacity of thinking could be related to the > > degree of attachment to thinking. When thinking is halted Buddha Nature is > > revealed (realized). > > > > > But after that realization is brought BACK into thinking and thinking is > > > realized as part of Buddha Nature. > > - Yes and no. Thinking is reinstated but it is not part of Buddha Nature. > > Buddha Nature and thinking now co-exist in awareness. Unless you've had a > > very, very strong initial awakening thinking still operates in the > > foreground and Buddha Nature in the background, but thinking is not now > > completely opaque so Buddha Nature is not completely obscured. The degree > > of opaqueness of thinking vis-a-vis Buddha Nature is dependent upon the > > strength of the initial realization and the application of practice. > > > > > If that were not true Realized masters would be unable to think without > > > losing their realization. > > - Not exactly. This is just a nit pick point, but if "Realized masters" > > were unable to think they would not necessarily loose their realization > > (experience) of Buddha Nature, but I imagine they would not be able to > > express it or function in everyday life. It's just hypothetical but I'd > > imagine if this did occur the person would just be in a trance-like state > > until they died of dehydration or starvation (unless they were a prisoner > > at Gitmo and were being force-fed). > > > > > And Realized masters clearly DO THINK without losing their realization.... > > - Yes. They do, and that's possible because the have learned (through zen > > practice or some other discipline like maybe Chan) to maintain a BALANCE > > between Buddha Nature and thinking (intellectualization). In a fully > > 'Realized master' Buddha Nature operates in the foreground and thinking > > occurs transparently (without attachment) in the background. As a > > 'authoritative' reference (which must be 'true', right?) I offer: > > > > "It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which > > the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the > > experienced object, and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or > > concentrated while the person remains conscious. In Buddhism, it can also > > refer to an abiding in which mind becomes very still but does not merge > > with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight > > into the changing flow of experience." > > - Samadhi: Wikipedia.com > > > > Not does this description must sound very familiar to anyone whose read my > > posts! > > > > > Therefore thinking becomes part of realization..... > > - Not quite. 'Realization' is realization of Buddha Nature. After > > realization thinking is reinstated, but it is not a part of realization. It > > is a part of enlightenment playing a secondary, background role. > > > > > > > > Realization is the realization of everything without exception including > > > thinking..... > > - No. The term 'realization', is the realization (experience) of Buddha > > Nature. Buddha Nature is not 'everything' as you constantly use this term. > > > > > Realization is the realization of the true nature of ALL things. > > - Not exactly. Realization is the experience of Buddha Nature. Experience > > is 'the true nature of things', and it is because it is devoid of illusion > > - thinking. Thinking does not represent the 'true nature of all things'. > > > > > Realization is not just making the world of things and thoughts go away... > > - No and Yes. No, realization is just experiencing Buddha Nature. Buddha > > Nature does not include the 'world of things' and thoughts which are based > > on dualism. Yes, realization (experience) of Buddha Nature does make "the > > world of things and thoughts go away" - although I'd re-word that to be > > 'Experience of Buddha Nature does dissolve the illusory world of things and > > thoughts' but as I've said above these are then reinstated without > > attachments in a more balanced manner. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > JM, > > > > > > This is correct but JM expresses only the first part. > > > > > > Initially realization involves stopping thinking. (As in sitting Buddha > > > Nature is directly realized) > > > > > > But after that realization is brought BACK into thinking and thinking is > > > realized as part of Buddha Nature. > > > > > > If that were not true Realized masters would be unable to think without > > > losing their realization. > > > > > > And Realized masters clearly DO THINK without losing their realization.... > > > > > > Therefore thinking becomes part of realization..... > > > > > > Realization is the realization of everything without exception including > > > thinking..... > > > > > > Realization is the realization of the true nature of ALL things. > > > > > > Realization is not just making the world of things and thoughts go away... > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Juemiao Jingming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > As I said, your definition of zen, is also part of Chan. Not different, > > > > just incomplete. > > > > > > > > If we go back to the origin, Chan is "Not cast in words. Transmit > > > > beyond teaching." > > > > > > > > In other words, Chan does not involve with any concept or logic. Chan > > > > is pure transmission, meaning synchronization. > > > > > > > > All practices are part of Chan. Just different routes, some more direct. > > > > > > > > The key is not trying to understand it, but to feel and sense it. > > > > Begins by completely drop our logic. > > > > > > > > For your reference. > > > > Jm > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2013 7:06 AM, "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > JMJM, > > > > > > > > I've never insisted that zen and Chan are different. I've only pointed > > > > out that some of your descriptions of Chan are different from what I > > > > know as zen. > > > > > > > > I don't think there are any fundamental difference, but then again I > > > > don't know for sure. Like I said below zen is not everything. It is a > > > > practice. There are human activities that are not part of that practice. > > > > > > > > If that's different for Chan then they are different. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 覺å¦ç²¾æ ï¼JMJMï¼ <chan.jmjm@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > > > You always insisted that there are differences in zen, Zen, Chan. I > > > > > can > > > > > accept all of that, because all of that is inclusive in Chan. They > > > > > are > > > > > all description of the same one fundamental thing, the universal life > > > > > force and wisdom and all of its manifestations. > > > > > > > > > > JM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/19/2013 6:52 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > JMJM and Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know about Chan, but zen is a human practice that assists > > > > > > in > > > > > > balancing the interplay between Human Nature and Buddha Nature. I > > > > > > went > > > > > > on to describe it in more detail in a recent post. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not everything. It is a practice. There are human activities > > > > > > that are not part of that practice. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JMJM, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's my understanding too. That's how I use the word though I > > > > > > usually refer to it as Zen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not something confined to any sect, temple or teacher though > > > > > > > it > > > > > > may be recognized and taught therein. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chan or Zen is just a name for the fundamental reality of the > > > > > > > world. > > > > > > But the name is not the reality, it just references the reality... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2013, at 9:08 AM, 覺å¦â¢Ã§Â²Â¾Ã¦ËŽ > > > > > > > ï¼ËJMJMï¼Ⱐwrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chan is the absolute and most fundamental dharma. Chan is the > > > > > > essence of all and everything. > > > > > > > > Chan can be expressed with any kind of word or no word at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/19/2013 1:00 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Would it be fair to say that Cha'n still retains more of its > > > > > > original Indian Mahayana flavour than Japanese Zen? At least in > > > > > > it's > > > > > > outward expression, if not in its stories. I can almost smell the > > > > > > incense from here! ( meant respectfully). > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> With cheeks together, on a chair, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Mike > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> From: Joe <desert_woodworker@>; > > > > > > > >> To: <[email protected] > > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>; > > > > > > > >> Subject: [Zen] Re: What is Enlightenment? > > > > > > > >> Sent: Sun, May 19, 2013 5:26:17 AM > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> JMJM, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Well done. Well expressed. Be well. Please take good care. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Hands together, and with bow, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> --Joe > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > <chan.jmjm@> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Everything we truly seek belongs to heart, i.e. peace, > > > > > > > >> > happiness, > > > > > > > >> > etc. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Enhance the sensitivity of our heart. Accept all as is. > > > > > > > >> > Surpass > > > > > > the realm of desire, form and formlessness. Sync with the universal > > > > > > wisdom through our heart is the key to enlightenment. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > with palms together, > > > > > > > >> > jm > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
