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
If a dog *has* Buddha nature, why is he a dog and not a Buddha (bodywise)? Such is the monk’s inquiry. Form is not something that *has*/*lacks* Buddha nature. The question is misguided. By means of causality, all manners of illusion arise, whether dog bodies or adamantine bodies.
-
-
Surly it is suggested that in a previous incarnation his un-meritorious actions directly resulted in his current state of embodiment. Truthfully the whole subject detracts from the reality that here now is all that can be known. At least by one of my degree of attainment.
-
Practically this is a rabbit hole which has swallowed vast numbers of beings. It seems that enough material has been generated to support any position that one would like to argue. No self yet it seems that some self reincarnates. No permanence yet an impermanent body is possible
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.