--- In [email protected], woof puppy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All this talk of Christianity and Buddhism reminds me > of a Zen story I've drawn inspiration from in the > past... > > A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: > "Have you ever read the Christian Bible?" > > "No, read it to me," said Gasan. > > The student opened the Bible and read from St. > Matthew: "And why take ye thought for rainment? > Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They > toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you > that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed > like one of these... Take therefore no thought for the > morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the > things of itself." > > Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an > enlightened man." > > The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be > given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall > be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh > receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him > that knocketh, it shall be opened." > > Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that > is not far from Buddhahood." > > > As for the theology, one could argue that the Holy > Spirit is one's own Buddha Nature. Buddha nature, > like the Holy Spirit is present in all things. The > real trick is learning to see it. > > > SPROCKET
When I was very little, I asked my mom about God. Where is God? It's in all things. Ok... is he in that TV over there? Yes, was the doubtful answer. I doubted the answer too. I couldn't see anything "in" the tv. All I saw was the tv. Since I couldn't see anything "in" the tv, and all that was apparent was the tv, I pretty much came to the conclusion that the whole idea was bogus, because it seemed like nonsense to say the tv IS God. So here I am all these years later, wondering what sense to make of the idea that something called "Buddha nature" is in the tv. Or whether the tv IS Buddha nature. Or why bother calling that which is apparent, by some mysterious name. It seems to me that that which is apparent, is exactly it's apparentness. Allowing for the distinction between the apparent and ideas about the apparent. Any thoughts here? I'm inclined to jettison this "Buddha nature" idea completely. Can't see what good it does. Ian ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> 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/
