Is the ability to follow multiple thought streams an aberration or a skill? IE engage in a internal chant and visualize an image simultaneously. If skill what to do with it?
-
-
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
Existence requires engagement. Is it possible to exist without a self? Does ones Buddha nature itself, constitute a self? I wonder if when you are reading following the words you have observed the moment when imagination comes into the process? 2 streams 1 verbal 1 visual
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
An instance of an "I" or a self in relation to the external world is a boundary event arising out of the interaction of some external stimulus and the organism itself. It is generally either a conditioned response or an authentic engagement rooted in the body itself. I M O
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
Mechanics/ With the exception of the essential self/Buddha Nature all internal self's are imagination or artifacts. What is the role of attention in the generation of an I. From what source does attention come, what generates it? Can attention and selfness be separated? IMO
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor
Zhaozhou says a dog does not *have* Buddha nature. Dōgen says all beings *are* Buddha nature. Can attention and impermanence be separated? Can attention and awakening be separated?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX
Attention its movements and generation greatly interest me. It is one of the fundamental questions driving my current inquires. "impermanence" is part of generation IMO Buddha nature is the essential qualities inherent in form and function. My dog certainly has a Buddha nature.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor
Your dog *has* Buddha nature or your dog *is* Buddha nature? There's a significant difference, at least for Zhaozhou and Dōgen.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX
A monk asked Master Zhao Zhou, "Does a dog have Buddha Nature?" Zhao Zhou replied, "Yes." And then the monk said, "Since it has, how did it get into that bag of skin?" Zhao Zhou said, "Because knowingly, he purposefully offends."[13]pic.twitter.com/JzxaPE65Vp
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
The monks question and Zhao Zhou reply suggests that ones Buddha nature transmigrates from one incarnation to another.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor
The monk's question: "If the dog *has* (有) Buddha nature, why does it !nevertheless! (卻) *enter* (入) a sack of flesh (i.e., a dog's body, not a Buddha's "adamantine" body)?" A misguided question pertaining to substance, just like the *has* or *lacks* (有/無) from the Mu Kōan.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Zhaozhou's reply: "Because he knowingly (知) and 而 purposefully (故) offends (犯)," i.e., commits unwholesome karma (activity informed by cetanā, intention) and thereby still participates in saṃsāra.
-
-
Replying to @NoaidiX @memeristor
Nothing about transmigrating from one incarnation to another. When one no longer *has*/*lacks* (有/無) Buddha nature and instead *is*, no longer *enters* (入 rù) but is instead *thus* (如 rú), then the question transforms.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.