Edgar, I think Buddha Nature is only direct, sensual experience because I have experienced it. It does not include thoughts. No one told me this but two zen masters formally confirmed this to me, and one other zen master informally confirmed it. Also many of my peers, some of which are on this forum, have agreed with me on this.
Why do you keep insisting Buddha Nature includes not only thinking but and "everything without exception"? If it does why do you call it 'Buddha Nature'? Why don't you just call it 'Everything'? ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > Why do you think you are right and I, JM, Dogen, and the other great Zen > masters and Zen tradition are all wrong on this? > > Did someone tell you this? Or did you make it up yourself? Did you read it in > a zen comic book somewhere? Or what? > > Edgar > > > > On May 20, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > 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/
