ED, I pretty much agree with Mike's post below.
Let me give you another example: Let's not use the term 'Buddha Nature' because it has too much baggage, especially in this forum. Let's use the term 'hot'. Mayka talks about experiencing 'hot'. I talk about experiencing 'hot'. Mayka calls it 'caliente'. I call it 'hot'. Mike calls it 'Ow!!!!' We have all (probably) experienced the same thing but have different terms for it and different ways of trying to communicate what 'hot' feels like. Mayka can call it 'caliente', but when she talks more about it, or better shows me how it feels I can make a judgement of whether or not it's the same feeling I have that I call 'hot'. Experiencing and describing Buddha Nauture is kind of like that...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > ED, > > I may be wrong here, but you still seem to think of 'Buddha Nature' in terms > of > something that has qualities 'out there' that can be experienced and known if > we > just follow certain steps (whether zazen, reason or science etc) 'Buddha > Nature > (or whatever) is not something that is attained, gained or even experienced > (but > 'experienced' is ok if we understand there is no 'I' for an experience to > happen > to). In fact, it's more about dropping/losing than adding/finding. > 'Kensho'/'satori' are just rough pointers, 'tools' if you like, that > symbolise a > 'state' where our sense of 'I' has been dropped and duality has been > transcended > (Dogen's 'dropping of body and mind' is the best description IMO). This > 'state' > is impossible to be conveyed by words/logic although it can be hinted at. > How > this is done depends on the idiosyncronies/personality of the person > expressing > it and so will always be different from person to person. Thus Mayka's > method of > conveying what she has 'experienced' will be different to Bill's. How this > 'experience' has been further cultivated and intergrated into one's daily > living > will also have a bearing on how it is expressed. The feeling I get on this > forum > is that some people have being practicing Zen for some time, doing all the > 'right' things, going to sesshins, reading lots of material etc. but have > yet to > 'experience' that 'experience' that turns the conceptual world upside down > and > so feel (maybe subconsciously) they have to knock (or hint at) other people's > insights as just woo-woo or delusional. Just saying. > > Mike > > > > ________________________________ > From: ED <seacrofter001@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, 24 March, 2011 1:02:23 > Subject: [Zen] Re: Add Nothing Extra > >  > > Mayka, > Then, can we ever know whether the 'Buddha Nature' you talk about is the same > as > or is different from the 'Buddha Nature' Bill talks about? > --ED >  > --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@> wrote: > > > > ED; > >  > > I have to tell you that I don't understand a word about Scholastic terms. > > But > >that doesn't stop me to open the gate any time I want to experience buddha > >nature. What a slap over all increasingly commercial zen writers, isn't > >it? > > > >   > > Mayka >  > ------------------------------------ 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/
