07-24-2010, 12:05 AM
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote:Gonzo, where does essential Zen text explicitly state there is no such thing as Buddha-nature? I doubt it does and rather this is merely your interpreted conclusion. Even upon reading what you quote here I see no negation of the Buddha-nature.Ya got me. It doesn't. It is implied, however, imo, when it is stated frequently that all beings have Buddha Nature. So, as with awakening, it's not something to be accomplished since it already is.
Tiff wrote: I agree Buddha nature is our nature, I just think back to the analogy of the clouds obscuring the sun, the sun is ever-present, but the clouds represent all the obscurations to clear in order to directly experience Sun to the fullest.
And, btw...someone somewhere stated that the proper translation of "Buddha" was "the awakened one". If there's no such thing as awakening, etc...easy syllogism.
Tiff wrote: But we know there are very elating experiences we can have in waking or dreaming and these states are not continued indefinitely. Its said in Buddhism that entering into the experience of nirvana permanently is the ultimate goal, so to enter these states of ecstasy permanently. Do you feel we have no work to do? That reminds me of Communism. A Chinese friend told me it failed because when a doctor and a floor sweeper made the same money, got the same house and all, the people lost motivation and less wanted to be doctors. Its kinda the same with your view of enlightenment, isn't it? If you say you are "already there" in the form of experience, you do not seek anything that may be even more exquisite.
There's a neat Haiku that's relevant here:
Not yet having become a Buddha
This ancient pine-tree
Idly dreaming.
Tiff wrote:And, according to TBCR (based on what you tell me), enlightenment is not awakened to, it just IS in all (sentient beings). So does this not point to no essential, individual and thus separate "I" if in each "I" are all that are enlightened? "I alone am the honored one" is reference to the permanent Buddha-nature. It has no essence to make it separate from anything. It is empty of essence and permanent in nature. No true, no false. Beyond dual perception.Good point. Am I being hoist on me own petard here? Heh.
Tiff wrote: No I think this just shows at times you agree with me yet perceive it was a disagree. So much has been entered into this discussion and it is getting rather complex in aspects to account for all the times it happens, and I see you at these times supporting what I'm saying but not acknowledging it directly and then going in the other direction afterwards so it appears as a disagree.
Tiff wrote: I agree Buddha nature is our nature, I just think back to the analogy of the clouds obscuring the sun, the sun is ever-present, but the clouds represent all the obscurations to clear in order to directly experience Sun to the fullest.
And, btw...someone somewhere stated that the proper translation of "Buddha" was "the awakened one". If there's no such thing as awakening, etc...easy syllogism.
Tiff wrote: But we know there are very elating experiences we can have in waking or dreaming and these states are not continued indefinitely. Its said in Buddhism that entering into the experience of nirvana permanently is the ultimate goal, so to enter these states of ecstasy permanently. Do you feel we have no work to do? That reminds me of Communism. A Chinese friend told me it failed because when a doctor and a floor sweeper made the same money, got the same house and all, the people lost motivation and less wanted to be doctors. Its kinda the same with your view of enlightenment, isn't it? If you say you are "already there" in the form of experience, you do not seek anything that may be even more exquisite.
There's a neat Haiku that's relevant here:
Not yet having become a Buddha
This ancient pine-tree
Idly dreaming.
Tiff wrote:And, according to TBCR (based on what you tell me), enlightenment is not awakened to, it just IS in all (sentient beings). So does this not point to no essential, individual and thus separate "I" if in each "I" are all that are enlightened? "I alone am the honored one" is reference to the permanent Buddha-nature. It has no essence to make it separate from anything. It is empty of essence and permanent in nature. No true, no false. Beyond dual perception.Good point. Am I being hoist on me own petard here? Heh.
Tiff wrote: No I think this just shows at times you agree with me yet perceive it was a disagree. So much has been entered into this discussion and it is getting rather complex in aspects to account for all the times it happens, and I see you at these times supporting what I'm saying but not acknowledging it directly and then going in the other direction afterwards so it appears as a disagree.