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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @NoaidiX
In no way was it my intent to suggest that the monks question pointed to it having an adamantine body. It was my intent to suggest that a more permanent body was possible one that was largely immune to change. This is rather clearly stated in the relevant text.pic.twitter.com/vaxNMNEmZF
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
This line also suggests a succession of incarnations. I am only offering this as a curiosity. https://www.bdkamerica.org/system/files/pdf/dBET_T0374_NirvanaSutra1_2013_0.pdf … "Having upheld the causal principles of the dharma since the distant past, I have now attained this adamantine body, permanent and indestructible."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
See earlier conversation about language constructs and worldly conventions. Causality gives rise to all manners of illusion/delusion. Wield them wisely and knowingly, as would the lucid dreamer.
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.