Edgar, No, your explanation below is not trivial at all. That's just what I said in my previous post. It's super-sizing it.
Buddha Nature is Just THIS! That's trivial. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > Buddha Nature is not so much everything as the true formless nature of > everything in which their forms appear. > > If all forms disappear Buddha Nature is still there. it's the fundamental > nameless 'stuff' of reality that makes whatever form appears within it real. > > Buddha Nature is like the ocean in which waves, ripples and currents appear. > Waves, ripples and currents are the forms of the world but their true nature > is all water which corresponds to Buddha Nature in the analogy... > > That's not trivial. > > Edgar > > > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > I do agree with you both in changing the emphasis on the term to 'meeting > > God', and I do agree with you that all these terms are made up > > after-the-fact to try to communicate a holistic experience in dualistic > > terms (language). Not an easy task. > > > > I also think 'Buddha Nature' and especially 'God' have too many meanings > > now to be really useful. That's why I e-bend over backwards to clearly > > define what I mean when I use the term 'Buddha Nature'. It's definitely not > > the way Edgar uses it and different from Buddhist literature also. I don't > > think however it is much different than purely zen literature. > > > > Also I think most in the West (and Buddhist literature, and especially > > Edgar) have not trivialized Buddha Nature but super-sized it to mean > > EVERYTHING. I like the idea of trivializing it. That's what I try to do. > > Buddha Nature is quintessentially mundane. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@> wrote: > > > > > > That is pretty much what Sensei Warner is calling the experience of > > > meeting > > > God. Only afterwards, of course, not during. He favors this word over the > > > Buddha nature word for Westerners who have a tendency to trivialize Budda > > > nature. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > --Chris > > > 301-270-6524 > > > On Jun 16, 2013 9:40 AM, "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > > > Warner gets a demerit. > > > > > > > > One-Mind is the state where-from God can be perceived. > > > > > > > > From No-Mind there is no such thing. Nor is there anything else. > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > > Chris Austin-Lane <chris@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think a more exact parallel is "meeting God" with "experiencing > > > > > Buddha > > > > > nature." > > > > > > > > > > As a non-Christian mystic I wonder how you derived your theory of > > > > > seeing > > > > > God being fundamentally distinct from no-mind. Surely you are not > > > > speaking > > > > > from experience? > > > > > > > > > > Credit to Brad Warner for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > > > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
