Identifying the Zen master with a scientist seems to me tricky since scientists don't opt for solipsism as the best explanation of the data. Mystics are scientific in their observations of phenomena as such, which means they're dealing with phenomenology, whereas scientists scrutinize the objective patterns in sense data. True, the scientist depends on mind to access the world, but there's a difference between focusing on how a sensation feels, and on what caused the sensation. Scientists posit an external, material, orderly world to explain what are apparently cosmological, physical, chemical, biological, psychological, and social events. So there's some sleight of hand in your interpretation of the parable.

Another problem for me is with your claim that the "world as we perceive it is without slightest doubt an illusion." Yet in the next sentence you say, "The whole universe is rendered within mind-brain which in turn is an inseperable part of the universe."

What's the difference between an illusion and an emergent construct? If an "illusion" is rendered in the mind-brain that exists as a "part" of a whole, doesn't the illusion become a reality? So this belittlement of complexities or of emergent natural constructs is another semantic trick, I think, a sleight of hand.