I reread my paragraph and the garbled bit is "so then I am not really addressing you" rather than "do then I am really addressing you."
I am not addressing you because you seem to have some idea of one mind is God seeing and no mind is superior. I am trying to make a point about using rhe language "to meet God" instead of "experience Buddha nature" so that Westerners new to Zen will not mistake silly thin ideas for experiencing Buddha nature. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 16, 2013 10:39 AM, "Joe" <desert_woodwor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Chris, > > Something's garbled in that reply's 2nd paragraph, Chris. I don't know if > I can pull it out. Maybe try a full-sized keybd.? > > As far as trivializing Buddha Nature goes, even to do so in speech one or > two times may not ruin a person's career in Zen practice: we live a long > life. Once it is experienced, there is no trivializing that would come to > mind. And since Zen is not the Teaching School, one need not, as a > teacher, say much, or anything, about Buddha Nature, Nirmanakaya, etc. In > Dokusan is another story, perhaps. > > --Joe > > > Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> wrote: > > > > I think we can find people on this very listserv that trivialize Buddha > > nature, making it a picture of itself rather. > > > > And you seem resolute in keeping rhe meanings you assign to words and to > > change the topic to that rather than working for communication about the > > meanings I was explaining for the words, do then I am really addressing > > you. If you wish to have some discussion about one mind, fine, but I am > > interested in discussion the parallels between experiencing Buddha nature > > and meeting God. In order to convey to Westerner's that this experience > is > > not some small point. > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
