>On Saturday, December 17 in Zen Digest #1287 Ian wrote: <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
Ian, your intuitive feelings here are correct. There is actually no 'buddha nature', no 'enlightenment', and even no 'buddha' and no 'zen'. There is just THIS. All of these terms are just teaching-words used to try to point you in the right direction to experience THIS directly and without prejudgments. This is why many of the zen masters avoided using words when asked about buddha nature [remained silent, walked away, hit the questioner], or used responded with apparent 'nonsense' words or phrases [mu, three pounds of flax, the tree in the garden, wash your bowls]. They did not want to try to explain something unexplainable, or rationalize something that is irrational, fearing that any attempt to do so would be more misleading than helpful. Some zen masters, especially today, believe it is necessary to try to communicate rationally with their students, especially in the beginning, so they use words like 'buddha nature'. Some caveats: - Don't think the Judeo-Christian-Islamic term 'God' and the Buddhist term 'Buddha Nature' are synonymous. Their original concepts might have been (I'd like to think so, but ???), but their current-day usage is definitely not. - Don't associate zen absolutely with Buddhism. Current day zen evolved out of a Buddhism context so many times zen uses Buddhist terms and concepts to talk about things from a teaching perspective. - Zen talk would not say 'The TV has Buddha Nature'. If asked 'What is Buddha nature?' a response might be 'The TV in the living room.', but that is not the same as saying that a TV has Buddha nature. It is saying your ability to perceive and interact [pre-thought] with the TV in the living room is a function of Buddha nature. - As always, my postings are only my opinion and are not to be taken as something written by an 'authority' (whatever and whoever that may be)... Gassho...Bill! ------------------------ 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/
