Chris, How interesting! If mentation is a sixth sense, then I wonder what sense satori or mysicism (non-rational thought) would be? Are they beyond sense? Or do they transcend what we know objectivity/subjectivity to be, I wonder?
Mike ________________________________ From: ChrisAustinLane <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 5 November 2011, 10:38 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Do you disagree that the awareness of mentation is a sixth sense? (as I have considered the heart sutra et alia to imply? And which I personally find to be a very freeing bit of Buddhist insight). Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Nov 2, 2011, at 21:39, "Bill!" <[email protected]> wrote: > ED, > > I'll answer your questions below in the reverse order that you asked them: > > [ED] By 'senses' I assume you refer to the five senses: ... > > I do mean what we call the five senses. > > From an illusory dualistic and discriminating (categorizing/judging) > perspective there is a 'me/I' (self) so 'I have 5 senses. I see something > blue and it is pretty.' > > Contrast this with a non-dualistic, non-discriminating perspective which > would be: 'Just THIS!' - just awareness. That is no distinction between > 'self' and 'sight', no catagorization of the awareness as 'blue' and no > judgement made that it is 'pretty'. > > Just THIS! That is Buddha Nature. > > [ED] Was it the position of your Zen teachers? > > I've never discussed Buddha Nature in this manner with my Zen Buddhist > teachers. If I had they would have probably told me to 'empty my bowls' - > meaning 'don't try to intellectualize Buddha Nature'. But to directly answer > your question, no - none of my teachers ever told me this. > > [ED] Is this position traditional in Zen? > > I don't know if there's anyone or any organization that could officially > speak for Zen Buddhism. I think it is the 'traditional position' because > most of the traditional koans and stories (mondos) of historical zen adepts > that I've read or heard about support this position - at least it seems that > way to me. > > In the end however I don't need any validation from traditional zen or from > living Zen Buddhist teachers. I have experienced it myself. > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Bill, >> >>> I consider the 'root of zen' to be our senses ... >> >> Is this position traditional in Zen? >> >> Was it the position of your Zen teachers? >> >> Thanks, ED >> >> PS: By 'senses' I assume you refer to the five senses: seeing, hearing, >> touch, tasting, smelling. >> >> >> >>> ED, >>> >>> I consider the 'root of Buddhism' to be the sutras, and especially >> those that are presented as a first-hand account of the teachings of >> Siddartha Buddha. >>> >>> I consider the 'root of Zen Buddhism' to be the account of Siddartha >> Buddha's 'Flower Sermon' on Vulture Peak when he is reported to have >> wordlessly trasmited the Dharma to Mahakasyapa. >>> >>> I consider the 'root of zen' to be our senses: Just THIS! >>> >>> ...Bill! >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
