Zen and Tao are the same damn thing!!
Sufi Musfaad
two. Zen is Tao. Tao is Zen. I defy you one and all to prove that they are
in any significant way,different! You go on and on about the superiority of
this as opposed to that. The only superiority I can see here is the
superiority of those who keep quiet about these so-called differences. This
is only a game. Have fun with it. The more seriously a person tries to
convince that they are different, the more I will be laughing. They can
already hear me all the way down the street. Buddhism in China mixed with
Taoism and gave birth to Zen ( which means meditation) Buddhism. How many
times do we have to say it??? I sure hate to see people fooling themselves
like this. It's like saying "This foot is better than that foot!!!
Your friend, Sufi Musfaad ( sharpening his sword)
tjn
>
> These things are identical!!
rubbish.
> Buddhism in China mixed with
> Taoism and gave birth to Zen ( which means meditation) Buddhism. How many
> times do we have to say it???
false.
saying they are different does not mean that one is better than the
other in some absolute way. i certainly have my preference but
fortunately there are alternatives for those who would choose
differently.
the Zen = Tao myth, is eminently discreditable by looking at the
earliest Ch'an literature. there is no Taoism in it except the borrowing
of a few metaphors. all the early Ch'an meditation method and philosophy
has Indian roots.
Kirt Undercoffer
>
> These things are identical!! Only idiots will argue the differences of the
> two. Zen is Tao. Tao is Zen.
My former Taoist teacher and his teacher would disagree. As has
been noted in other posts, the Taoist view of emptiness is somewhat
different from the Buddhist position (Zen or otherwise, acknowledging
the differences in understanding of emptiness between Buddhist
traditions).
Similar, some interaction historically. Not identical.
Kirt
Andre Boulanger
>These things are identical!! Only idiots will argue the differences of the
>in any significant way,different! You go on and on about the superiority of
>this as opposed to that. The only superiority I can see here is the
>superiority of those who keep quiet about these so-called differences. This
>is only a game. Have fun with it. The more seriously a person tries to
>convince that they are different, the more I will be laughing. They can
>Taoism and gave birth to Zen ( which means meditation) Buddhism. How many
>like this. It's like saying "This foot is better than that foot!!!
>Your friend, Sufi Musfaad ( sharpening his sword)
>
>
You could have said the same thing in less abrasive and offensive language.
You're not really a Sufi, are you?
Andre
Phoenix AZ
IAMYHWH
two. Zen is Tao. Tao is Zen.<<<
Not quite true...
TAO is included as a mathematical proper subset of ZEN, although forming the
essence of ZEN. Arguing is for fools and not in accordance with the Great Way.
TomLupe
IAMYHWH
What a crack up! and yer credintials?
The apt zen idiot?
ratman
++++ Shantytown Resident Rodent Developer ++++
Shanty town --Give us your decrepid, ignorant, Stupid & the ugly
Free space fer all ( except grovies). squalid conditions, Filth & ignorance
abound. A resident owned community.
Brian R Higgins
constitute a fundamental ontological priority. But you are referring to
your own values, are you not?
Craig
TomLupe wrote in message
<199808051957...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>>>These things are identical!! Only idiots will argue the differences of
the
>two. Zen is Tao. Tao is Zen.<<<
>
Condolences on having the YWH..etc in this ng.
The guy will note that apples and oranges have a roundness to them and
conclude they are balls.
Have you seen his web page? There is some real crackerjack reasoning and
logic there. - Wouldn't get the bugger a passing grade in the most basic of
philosophy.
Nuts - said all that and forgot what was something in what I snipped
that I was going to respond to.
Craig
tjn wrote in message <35C7C297...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Sufi Musfaad wrote:
>>
>> These things are identical!!
>
>
While the argument commenced of whether to first serve the fish or the
fowl the dogs ate the dinner.
Craig
TomLupe wrote in message
snip
>...... Arguing is for fools and not in accordance with the Great Way.
>IAMYHWH
>
Nor is the labeling of fools you fool.
IAMYHWH
Tao came first, later on ZEN absorbed it, forming the most significant part
(the essence) of ZEN.
IAMYHWH
>IAMYHWH
>
Nor is the labeling of fools you fool.<<<
See you on Judgment Day, won't you be Flabbergasted !!!
Beware God is Not Mocked for you reap whatever you sow.
Believe it or NOT its TRUE Either Way!
Craig
IAMYHWH wrote in message
snip
>See you on Judgment Day, won't you be Flabbergasted !!!
>
>Beware God is Not Mocked for you reap whatever you sow.
>
>Believe it or NOT its TRUE Either Way!
Giggling bed wetter.
Steve Godfrey
I personally find it humorouse that the proud people that and can't answer a
question tend to insult rather than shut up and learn.
Steve Godfrey
Steve Godfrey
Craig wrote in message <6qakq5$t4a$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>
>TomLupe wrote in message
>snip
>>IAMYHWH
>>
>
> Nor is the labeling of fools you fool.
How do you know?
Steve Godfrey
>
>
Steve Godfrey
>TAO is included as a mathematical proper subset of ZEN, although forming
the
Way.
Who is arguing? He asked a question that you chose not to think about. You
chose to give an answer that is calculated to make you sound smart and
humble and discredit the original poster. Take these opportunities to think
and grow rather than bolster yourself. No offense intended. I am learning
too.
Steve Godfrey
IAMYHWH
chose to give an answer that is calculated to make you sound smart and humble
and discredit the original poster. Take these opportunities to think and grow
rather than bolster yourself. No offense intended. I am learning too. Steve
Godfrey<<<
(1) The term {damn} is argumentative.
(2) ZEN and TAO are not the same, although they are related as I have
specifically outlined.
Craig
Zapp14
except for that Zen is a way of life
and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
Zen potter,
silverlakes, ca
Steve Godfrey
I am new at zen and ignorant of the tao but from your attempt to show a
difference I see the same thing. What is the difference between a way of
life and a code or law you live by?
Steve Godfrey
>
>
Don James
zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> I agree,
> except for that Zen is a way of life
> and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
>
> Zen potter,
> silverlakes, ca
>
>
enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
--
Alt.zen photos:
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/altzen/altzen.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Steve Godfrey
tjn wrote in message <35CFC1ED...@worldnet.att.net>...
>ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <6qkt8f$5to$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
>> > In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>> > zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
>> > > I agree,
>> > > except for that Zen is a way of life
>> > > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
>> > >
>> > > Zen potter,
>> > > silverlakes, ca
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
>> > enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
>> >
>> > --
>>
>
>if you answer in a spelling bee to spell Zen with "T-A-O"
>you get disqualified.
That is a difference. But the same applies when asked to spell phony and
you spell F.A.K.E. Or any other synonym
Steve Godfrey
ld...@pathcom.com
Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
> In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> > I agree,
> > except for that Zen is a way of life
> > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
> >
> > Zen potter,
> > silverlakes, ca
> >
> >
> Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
> enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
>
> --
the same, exactly the same!
--lawrence
tjn
>
> In article <6qkt8f$5to$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
> > In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> > > I agree,
> > > except for that Zen is a way of life
> > > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
> > >
> > > Zen potter,
> > > silverlakes, ca
> > >
> > >
> > Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
> > enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
> >
> > --
>
> the same, exactly the same!
if you answer in a spelling bee to spell Zen with "T-A-O"
you get disqualified.
tjn
> >>
> >> In article <6qkt8f$5to$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> >> > zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> >> > > I agree,
> >> > > except for that Zen is a way of life
> >> > > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
> >> > >
> >> > > Zen potter,
> >> > > silverlakes, ca
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
> >> > enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
> >>
> >
> >if you answer in a spelling bee to spell Zen with "T-A-O"
> >you get disqualified.
>
> you spell F.A.K.E. Or any other synonym
true, you will be disqualified when you answer with a synonym just the
same as when you answer with something that is not even a synonym, like
Zen and Tao.
since the philosophies are different and the practices are different,
they are synonymous only in myth.
t...@hup.harvard.edu
Obviously, different philosophies, different practices, different cultures,
different words, different paths, etc............
This all avoids the question:
Are these different paths leading one in the same direction?
Of all the paths that have historically produced enlightened humans, does it
matter which path one takes?
Do the different words, descriptions, cultures, definitions, practices, etc,
point to true differences in the way one is affected by the practice, and in
the "outcome" or are these differences different masks on the same face?
Isn't it true that no matter what choice one makes as to what path to follow,
that it is a fairy path, leading one only around and around until exhaustion
and death, unless and until all these things we create that make up these
"differences" fall away?
And if this is true, what is the point of debating and analysing these
differences (except as the fun game of exploring histories and cultures)?
Wouldn't it be more useful to find the likenesses?
And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
Just wondering,
T.
ld...@pathcom.com
"Steve Godfrey" <sl...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:
>
> tjn wrote in message <35CFC1ED...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <6qkt8f$5to$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> >> > zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> >> > > I agree,
> >> > > except for that Zen is a way of life
> >> > > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
> >> > >
> >> > > Zen potter,
> >> > > silverlakes, ca
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
> >> > enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
> >> >
> >>
> >> the same, exactly the same!
> >
> >if you answer in a spelling bee to spell Zen with "T-A-O"
> >you get disqualified.
>
> That is a difference. But the same applies when asked to spell phony and
> you spell F.A.K.E. Or any other synonym
>
>
Steve is grumpy, nevertheless, Zen and Tao are the same damn thing.
regards,
--lawrence
ld...@pathcom.com
ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <6qkt8f$5to$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
> > > In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > > zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> > > > I agree,
> > > > except for that Zen is a way of life
> > > > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
> > > >
> > > > Zen potter,
> > > > silverlakes, ca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
> > > enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > the same, exactly the same!
>
> if you answer in a spelling bee to spell Zen with "T-A-O"
> you get disqualified.
>
ld...@pathcom.com
> > >>
> > >> In article <6qkt8f$5to$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > >> Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
> > >> > In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > >> > zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> > >> > > I agree,
> > >> > > except for that Zen is a way of life
> > >> > > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Zen potter,
> > >> > > silverlakes, ca
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
> > >> > enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
> > >>
> > >
> > >if you answer in a spelling bee to spell Zen with "T-A-O"
> > >you get disqualified.
> >
> > you spell F.A.K.E. Or any other synonym
>
> same as when you answer with something that is not even a synonym, like
> Zen and Tao.
>
> since the philosophies are different and the practices are different,
> they are synonymous only in myth.
>
Or, they are different because Dogen stole the Chinese kid, took to Japan,
renamed, absorbed..etc.. However, REALLY, neither Tao nor Ch'an/Zen has any
room for philosophies or practises---those are your creations, not imposable!
They are 'the same damn thing' regardless! --lawrence
ld...@pathcom.com
t...@hup.harvard.edu wrote:
> In article <35D01B09...@worldnet.att.net>,
> ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Steve Godfrey wrote:
> > >
> > > tjn wrote in message <35CFC1ED...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > > >ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> In article <6qkt8f$5to$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > >> Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
> > > >> > In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > > >> > zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> > > >> > > I agree,
> > > >> > > except for that Zen is a way of life
> > > >> > > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Zen potter,
> > > >> > > silverlakes, ca
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
> > > >> > enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
yes.
> > > >>
> > > >> the same, exactly the same!
> > > >
> > > >if you answer in a spelling bee to spell Zen with "T-A-O"
> > > >you get disqualified.
> > >
> > > That is a difference. But the same applies when asked to spell phony and
> > > you spell F.A.K.E. Or any other synonym
> >
> > true, you will be disqualified when you answer with a synonym just the
> > same as when you answer with something that is not even a synonym, like
> > Zen and Tao.
> >
> > since the philosophies are different and the practices are different,
> > they are synonymous only in myth.
> >
>
> Obviously, different philosophies, different practices, different cultures,
> different words, different paths, etc............
>
> This all avoids the question:
> Are these different paths leading one in the same direction?
>
> Of all the paths that have historically produced enlightened humans, does it
> matter which path one takes?
No.
>
> Do the different words, descriptions, cultures, definitions, practices, etc,
> point to true differences in the way one is affected by the practice, and in
> the "outcome" or are these differences different masks on the same face?
>
Yes.
> Isn't it true that no matter what choice one makes as to what path to follow,
> that it is a fairy path, leading one only around and around until exhaustion
> and death, unless and until all these things we create that make up these
> "differences" fall away?
Yes.
>
> And if this is true, what is the point of debating and analysing these
> differences (except as the fun game of exploring histories and cultures)?
Fun!
> Wouldn't it be more useful to find the likenesses?
> And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
Yes.
>
> Just wondering,
> T.
Hi T., Yes, they are the same. What is different is Buddhism and Taoism. As
for Ch'an/Zen, Buddhism is the father, Taoism the mother. Ts'ao-shan, one of
the founders of Tsao-tung (Soto) was asked.. Monk: What is the general idea
of Buddhism? Tsao-shan: To fill a ditch and ravine! monk: What is a lion?
[symbol of Buddha]. Tsao-shan: It is the one that no other animal can come
near. monk: What is the lion's son? TS: It is the one that devours it's
parents. [ch'an/zen and tao devour Buddhism and Taoism] monk: Since the lion
is one that no animal can come near, how can it be devoured by its son? TS:
If the lion's son should roar, its parent would be devoured!" [lion-roar is
metaphorcally the 'sound' of an enlightened mind]. another monk: As for
grandparents, does the lion's son also devour them? [hinduism, yoga,
shamanism, etc] TS: Yes it does second monk: What will happen after all the
others are devoured? TS: Its [chan's] body will completely dissolve in the
father [Buddhism]. first monk: Why should you say that the the lion's son
also devours its grandparents? TS: Haven't you seen that a prince can
successfully manage the affairs of the whole country, and from dry wood the
buds of blossoms can be gathered? [The prince is Ch'an/Zen, not needing
either Buddhism or Taoism. The blossom refers to the 'flower sermon'
(Buddhist) while the 'dry wood' refers to Taoism which also produces a basis
for enlightenment (buds). monk: Why is it that as soon as there is
affirmation and denial, the mind is lost in confusion? TS: Cut off! Cut off!
[he doesn't want to deal with stupid one-up-man-ship!]
tjn
>
> In article <35D01B09...@worldnet.att.net>,
> ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Steve Godfrey wrote:
> > >
> > > tjn wrote in message <35CFC1ED...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > > >ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> In article <6qkt8f$5to$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > >> Don James<o...@ntr.net> wrote:
> > > >> > In article <199808090725...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > > >> > zap...@aol.com (Zapp14) wrote:
> > > >> > > I agree,
> > > >> > > except for that Zen is a way of life
> > > >> > > and Tao is a code of laws and teachings of honer.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Zen potter,
> > > >> > > silverlakes, ca
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > Don: I know little about taoism, is there the concept of
> > > >> > enlightenment in taoism? Was Lao Tzu considered enlightened?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >if you answer in a spelling bee to spell Zen with "T-A-O"
> > > >you get disqualified.
> > >
> > > That is a difference. But the same applies when asked to spell phony and
> > > you spell F.A.K.E. Or any other synonym
> >
> > true, you will be disqualified when you answer with a synonym just the
> > same as when you answer with something that is not even a synonym, like
> > Zen and Tao.
> >
> > since the philosophies are different and the practices are different,
> > they are synonymous only in myth.
> >
>
> Obviously, different philosophies, different practices, different cultures,
> different words, different paths, etc............
>
> This all avoids the question:
> Are these different paths leading one in the same direction?
since the paths are different, the end of the journey is different.
some like to say that since practices all lead to the same place
that the differences do not matter. i disagree. if i travel by two
different routes to the same location, how i am at the 'end' of the
journey is different. it is conditioned, not absolute, and the
difference
in itinerary makes a difference at the destination.
now someone might say that the end of the journey is absolute, and
independent or 'liberated' from conditioning. then we are certainly
talking about something different Zen Buddhism, where there is nothing
but mutual interaction and conditioning... no liberation from that.
(see Hyakujo's fox)
> Of all the paths that have historically produced enlightened humans, does it
> matter which path one takes?
it certainly matters to the individual who picks one. it is wonderful
that
the choice is so wide to accomodate so many, is it not?
> Do the different words, descriptions, cultures, definitions, practices, etc,
> point to true differences in the way one is affected by the practice, and in
> the "outcome" or are these differences different masks on the same face?
the only way one would know this is to do it. no one has. everyone
follows
an individual path.
> Isn't it true that no matter what choice one makes as to what path to follow,
> that it is a fairy path, leading one only around and around until exhaustion
> and death, unless and until all these things we create that make up these
> "differences" fall away?
differences are part of the reality of life.
it is useless and bigoted to hate them.
> And if this is true, what is the point of debating and analysing these
> differences (except as the fun game of exploring histories and cultures)?
> Wouldn't it be more useful to find the likenesses?
why the prejudice in favor of likenesses?
if (as many here do) prefer likenesses to differences then
that preference in itself means one does not see things
as they are.
> And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
why not Tao and Islam? both are present in China....
actually Taoist clerics and politicians mounted a vigorous
anti-Buddhist persecution in the middle of the 9th century
so clearly _they_ thought there was a difference _and_ they
hated it. in the actual documents of Chan/ Zen in China there
is no dependence on Taoist thought. everything is explainable
in reference to the Indian tradition.
> Just wondering,
the saying of Chinese that the "3 teachings are one" has at least
two possible meanings.
1) implies that Buddhism (not just Zen) and Taoism (which has many
many subschools) and Confucianism are either the same _in essence_.
that leaves differences _in manifestation_ wide open.
note that no Zen = Tao person wants to own Confucianism, wonder why
not?
;-)
2) it is simply a gesture of politeness and inclusiveness, not a
confusion
of practices and doctrines which _cannot_ be confused because they
are
_quite_ distinct.
so if you insist that Zen=Tao i still ask why not
=Islam=Confucianism=*.*?
i know the trolls that live under the bridge....
ld...@pathcom.com
why talk about zen buddhism? why not talk about zen? alt.zen eh?
>
> (see Hyakujo's fox)
>
> > Of all the paths that have historically produced enlightened humans, does it
> > matter which path one takes?
>
> it certainly matters to the individual who picks one. it is wonderful
> that
> the choice is so wide to accomodate so many, is it not?
>
> > Do the different words, descriptions, cultures, definitions, practices, etc,
> > point to true differences in the way one is affected by the practice, and in
> > the "outcome" or are these differences different masks on the same face?
imo yes.
>
> the only way one would know this is to do it. no one has. everyone
> follows
> an individual path.
speak for yourself. How would you know..??
>
> > Isn't it true that no matter what choice one makes as to what path to
follow,
> > that it is a fairy path, leading one only around and around until exhaustion
> > and death, unless and until all these things we create that make up these
> > "differences" fall away?
>
> differences are part of the reality of life.
> it is useless and bigoted to hate them.
>
> > And if this is true, what is the point of debating and analysing these
> > differences (except as the fun game of exploring histories and cultures)?
> > Wouldn't it be more useful to find the likenesses?
>
> why the prejudice in favor of likenesses?
> if (as many here do) prefer likenesses to differences then
> that preference in itself means one does not see things
> as they are.
'The great way is not difficult, if you do not pick and choose.' (Seng-tsan)
>
> > And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
yes.
>
> why not Tao and Islam?
digression, irrelevant!
both are present in China....
as are cheese and dolphins, so?
> actually Taoist clerics and politicians mounted a vigorous
> anti-Buddhist persecution in the middle of the 9th century
> so clearly _they_ thought there was a difference _and_ they
> hated it.
Logically because then Buddhist monasteries were (a) brothels (b) dealt drugs
(c) avoided taxes (d) etc.,,,
in the actual documents of Chan/ Zen in China there
> is no dependence on Taoist thought. everything is explainable
> in reference to the Indian tradition.
if all Chinese spoke Sanskrit, and deferred to their 'superiors' in
metaphysics.
>
> > Just wondering,
>
> the saying of Chinese that the "3 teachings are one" has at least
> two possible meanings.
>
> 1) implies that Buddhism (not just Zen) and Taoism (which has many
> many subschools) and Confucianism are either the same _in essence_.
> that leaves differences _in manifestation_ wide open.
> note that no Zen = Tao person wants to own Confucianism, wonder why
> not?
Hui-neng's advice for lay people echoed Confucianism exactly. It has no
conflict with Taoism at all.
> ;-)
>
> 2) it is simply a gesture of politeness and inclusiveness, not a
> confusion
> of practices and doctrines which _cannot_ be confused because they
> are
> _quite_ distinct.
so you say.
>
> so if you insist that Zen=Tao i still ask why not
> =Islam=Confucianism=*.*?
confusing digression without basis. Prove the Sun doesn't equal Uranus, and in
triplicate by tomorrow dawn!
>
> i know the trolls that live under the bridge....
>
grr grr,
--lawrence
IAMYHWH
terms. Zen and Tao are not the same since Tao does not have Satori !!!
Omnivore
Steve Godfrey wrote in message ...
snip
>
>That is a difference. But the same applies when asked to spell phony and
>you spell F.A.K.E. Or any other synonym
>
>
And if you were pitted against Dan Quale in a spelling bee you could
answer with random letters and score as well.
Omnivore
tjn wrote in
snip
>
>since the paths are different, the end of the journey is different.
>some like to say that since practices all lead to the same place
>that the differences do not matter. i disagree. if i travel by two
>different routes to the same location, how i am at the 'end' of the
>journey is different. it is conditioned, not absolute, and the
>difference
>in itinerary makes a difference at the destination.
>
Rivers and strams flow to different named oceans.
From way high up it might appear that one great body of water covers
much of the planet.
Some streams end in lakes that have no apparent connection to other
bodies of water. Yet the water permeates the soil.
Dig a hole here or there and one is likely to find water.
Where did it come from and where does it go?
Omnivore
tjn wrote in message
snip
>true, you will be disqualified when you answer with a synonym just the
>same as when you answer with something that is not even a synonym, like
>Zen and Tao.
>
>since the philosophies are different and the practices are different,
>they are synonymous only in myth.
This year I planted various squashes and some gourds too close to one
another. Lot of cross pollination have resulted in some interesting
combinations - and one that was nearly caustic to the tongue.
Zuchinni is still zuchinni and acorn squash is still acorn squash. I
think the gourd was likely responsible for the inedible mix.
ld...@pathcom.com
iam...@aol.com (IAMYHWH) wrote:
> It seems that many people did not understand my reply. I will use simpler
> terms. Zen and Tao are not the same since Tao does not have Satori !!!
>
Omnivore
ld...@pathcom.com wrote in
Whether by stream or sewer water will find the same place and go through
the same cycle.
I have seen that it would seem that some have made claim such that the
sewer and the stream are the same then.
I've been much more in the Tao group than this one.
I've seen such that withing Taoism there would be that which would claim
that Taoism and Taoism is not the same and that Tao and Dao is not the same
and that Tao and Tao is not the same.
Well, they might not claim that but their output would make it seem so.
My own way would seem one day to the next as some beautiful mountian
stream or some dark smelly sewer.
I suppose lack of enough knowledge of either Zen or Tao (and my own
wishywashyness )would keep me from much involvement in taking a side of
whether Zen and Tao might be the same or not.
Different flavors of the same sort of fruit perhaps?
Omnivore
IAMYHWH wrote in message
<199808121534...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>It seems that many people did not understand my reply. I will use simpler
>terms. Zen and Tao are not the same since Tao does not have Satori !!!
Don't it now?
Then perhaps Christianity practiced speaking English is not the same as
that practiced speaking Latin?
Perhaps you have not seen that word in some Taoist writing?
Does giving a different name, or giving a name or not, to an event alter
the nature of the event?
tjn
>
> In article <35D0B82D...@worldnet.att.net>,
> ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > t...@hup.harvard.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > > true, you will be disqualified when you answer with a synonym just the
> > > > same as when you answer with something that is not even a synonym, like
> > > > Zen and Tao.
> > > >
> > > > since the philosophies are different and the practices are different,
> > > > they are synonymous only in myth.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Obviously, different philosophies, different practices, different cultures,
> > > different words, different paths, etc............
> > >
> > > This all avoids the question:
> > > Are these different paths leading one in the same direction?
> >
> > since the paths are different, the end of the journey is different.
> > some like to say that since practices all lead to the same place
> > that the differences do not matter. i disagree. if i travel by two
> > different routes to the same location, how i am at the 'end' of the
> > journey is different. it is conditioned, not absolute, and the
> > difference
> > in itinerary makes a difference at the destination.
> >
> > now someone might say that the end of the journey is absolute, and
> > independent or 'liberated' from conditioning. then we are certainly
> > talking about something different Zen Buddhism, where there is nothing
> > but mutual interaction and conditioning... no liberation from that.
>
> why talk about zen buddhism? why not talk about zen? alt.zen eh?
IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism. just as there is no
presbyterianism apart from christianity and no 'complete reality school'
apart from taoism.
> > (see Hyakujo's fox)
> >
> > > Of all the paths that have historically produced enlightened humans, does it
> > > matter which path one takes?
> >
> > it certainly matters to the individual who picks one. it is wonderful
> > that
> > the choice is so wide to accomodate so many, is it not?
> >
> > > Do the different words, descriptions, cultures, definitions, practices, etc,
> > > point to true differences in the way one is affected by the practice, and in
> > > the "outcome" or are these differences different masks on the same face?
>
> imo yes.
how would you know unless you have attained enlightenment by one path,
erased that attainment, and attained it again by another?
without that kind of learning it is then _just_ an opinion with
_nothing_
to back it up, a mere dogma, a belief not based on experience.
> > the only way one would know this is to do it. no one has. everyone
> > follows
> > an individual path.
>
> speak for yourself. How would you know..??
the answer is obvious.
every individual follows an individual path.
zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
shi'a islam yet another collective,
.....
these collectives are all empty labels, generalizations.
the individual paths is what counts.
> > > Isn't it true that no matter what choice one makes as to what path to
> follow,
> > > that it is a fairy path, leading one only around and around until exhaustion
> > > and death, unless and until all these things we create that make up these
> > > "differences" fall away?
> >
> > differences are part of the reality of life.
> > it is useless and bigoted to hate them.
> >
> > > And if this is true, what is the point of debating and analysing these
> > > differences (except as the fun game of exploring histories and cultures)?
> > > Wouldn't it be more useful to find the likenesses?
> >
> > why the prejudice in favor of likenesses?
> > if (as many here do) prefer likenesses to differences then
> > that preference in itself means one does not see things
> > as they are.
>
> 'The great way is not difficult, if you do not pick and choose.' (Seng-tsan)
you have picked and chosen to view the world through glasses that blur
distinctions.
to be open to distinctions _and_ similarites is to not pick or choose.
> > > And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
>
> yes.
you have failed to show how.
> > why not Tao and Islam?
>
> digression, irrelevant!
no SUPREMELY relevant. it points directly to the prejudice in saying
Zen=Tao!
[del]
> > actually Taoist clerics and politicians mounted a vigorous
> > anti-Buddhist persecution in the middle of the 9th century
> > so clearly _they_ thought there was a difference _and_ they
> > hated it.
>
> Logically because then Buddhist monasteries were (a) brothels (b) dealt drugs
> (c) avoided taxes (d) etc.,,,
not logical at all and not historically founded.
this piece of bait is unworthy of response,
nevertheless, the reason was pure suppression.
yes intolerant Taoists suppressed Buddhist institutions
that were innocent of wrongdoings listed.
Japanese monks visiting China at the time were terrified
because they could not 'blend in' to the populace and disappear
like some of the Ch'am monks had to do in order to get through it.
> in the actual documents of Chan/ Zen in China there
> > is no dependence on Taoist thought. everything is explainable
> > in reference to the Indian tradition.
>
> if all Chinese spoke Sanskrit, and deferred to their 'superiors' in
> metaphysics.
they did have Chinese translations after all.... so your point?
> >
> > > Just wondering,
> >
> > the saying of Chinese that the "3 teachings are one" has at least
> > two possible meanings.
> >
> > 1) implies that Buddhism (not just Zen) and Taoism (which has many
> > many subschools) and Confucianism are either the same _in essence_.
> > that leaves differences _in manifestation_ wide open.
> > note that no Zen = Tao person wants to own Confucianism, wonder why
> > not?
>
> Hui-neng's advice for lay people echoed Confucianism exactly. It has no
> conflict with Taoism at all.
how do you explain then the conflict between Taoist and Confucian
parties
in China?
> > ;-)
> >
> > 2) it is simply a gesture of politeness and inclusiveness, not a
> > confusion
> > of practices and doctrines which _cannot_ be confused because they
> > are
> > _quite_ distinct.
>
> so you say.
and so do the T'ang dynasty practitioners.
> > so if you insist that Zen=Tao i still ask why not
> > =Islam=Confucianism=*.*?
>
> confusing digression without basis. Prove the Sun doesn't equal Uranus, and in
> triplicate by tomorrow dawn!
not a confusion, again a pointing at the prejudice implicit in the very
statement that Zen=Tao.
> > i know the trolls that live under the bridge....
> >
> grr grr,
yes i know.
please remember that the all teachings are equal ideology was used
precisely
to justify the imposition of State Shinto control over Buddhist and
Christian
institutions in Japan and the consequent militarization of the country
in
preparation for the war gainst easr asia....
you can just as easily use an ideology of harmony as a justification for
war
and genocide as an ideology of differentiation.
ideas themselves are not sufficient as guarantors of morality or freedom
from the horror of gratuitous suffering.
tjn
>
> tjn wrote in
> snip
> >
> >since the paths are different, the end of the journey is different.
> >some like to say that since practices all lead to the same place
> >that the differences do not matter. i disagree. if i travel by two
> >different routes to the same location, how i am at the 'end' of the
> >journey is different. it is conditioned, not absolute, and the
> >difference
> >in itinerary makes a difference at the destination.
> >
>
> From way high up it might appear that one great body of water covers
> much of the planet.
> Some streams end in lakes that have no apparent connection to other
> bodies of water. Yet the water permeates the soil.
> Dig a hole here or there and one is likely to find water.
> Where did it come from and where does it go?
watch it flow
tjn
>
> tjn wrote in message
>
> snip
> >true, you will be disqualified when you answer with a synonym just the
> >same as when you answer with something that is not even a synonym, like
> >Zen and Tao.
> >
> >since the philosophies are different and the practices are different,
> >they are synonymous only in myth.
>
> another. Lot of cross pollination have resulted in some interesting
> combinations - and one that was nearly caustic to the tongue.
> Zuchinni is still zuchinni and acorn squash is still acorn squash. I
> think the gourd was likely responsible for the inedible mix.
carefully watching conditions, the exact transmission of a verified
buddha
Omnivore
tjn wrote in message
snip>
>buddha
I don't know much about Buddha or Buddhism.
I suppose that a buddha would have better sense than to plant various
squashes and gourds so close?
Actually I planted much for purpose of something to compete with the
weeds in the area. Lunch was a side benefit.
But things like that.....??
Shit, sometimes all that I observe seems much as metaphor.
Oh well.
Omnivore
tjn wrote in message
snip
drugs
>> (c) avoided taxes (d) etc.,,,
>
>not logical at all and not historically founded.
>this piece of bait is unworthy of response,
>nevertheless, the reason was pure suppression.
>yes intolerant Taoists suppressed Buddhist institutions
>that were innocent of wrongdoings listed.
>
Seems that history and current would indicate that there be substance to
what you say.
Pogroms and such similar things don't much honostly state their purpose.
Well, it seems to be much pushed by someone with an agenda. Perhaps the
troops believe much of the propaganda.
I think it just comes much from folks with need for somebody to look
down on for sake of some illusion of their own elevation.
Are or aren't Tao and Zen the same thing?
I dunno. - I gather there is enough in common to support argument of the
issue.
The whole bikkering affair has given me some urge to study more of Zen
though - and of Tao - and of whatever. - Or, just study what gets presented
for me to see on my monitor.
IAMYHWH
Then perhaps Christianity practiced speaking English is not the same as
that practiced speaking Latin?
Perhaps you have not seen that word in some Taoist writing?
Does giving a different name, or giving a name or not, to an event alter
the nature of the event?
<<<
I have read the entire Tao Te Ching several times, and the idea of Satori is
nowhere to be found.
IAMYHWH
<<<
Quote me where the Tao Te Ching has any idea even slightly similar to Satori.
I AM YHWH
lawrence day
>
> ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <35D0B82D...@worldnet.att.net>,(stuff)
> >
> > why talk about zen buddhism? why not talk about zen? alt.zen eh?
>
> IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism. just as there is no
> presbyterianism apart from christianity and no 'complete reality school'
> apart from taoism.
(1) Philosophic Taoists usually ignor the 'complete reality' school, as
well as 'religious taoism';
(2) If 'Zen' is inseperable from Zen Buddhism, then why is there a
transmission outside the scriptures (sutras)?
>
> > > (see Hyakujo's fox)
> > >
> > > > Of all the paths that have historically produced enlightened humans, does it
> > > > matter which path one takes?
> > >
> > > it certainly matters to the individual who picks one. it is wonderful
> > > that
> > > the choice is so wide to accomodate so many, is it not?
yes.
> > >
> > > > Do the different words, descriptions, cultures, definitions, practices, etc,
> > > > point to true differences in the way one is affected by the practice, and in
> > > > the "outcome" or are these differences different masks on the same face?
outcome, hopefully identical!
> >
> > imo yes.
>
> how would you know unless you have attained enlightenment by one path,
> erased that attainment, and attained it again by another?
>
> without that kind of learning it is then _just_ an opinion with
> _nothing_
> to back it up, a mere dogma, a belief not based on experience.
>
> > > the only way one would know this is to do it. no one has. everyone
> > > follows
> > > an individual path.
> >
> > speak for yourself. How would you know..??
>
> the answer is obvious.
> every individual follows an individual path.
> zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
> complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
> shi'a islam yet another collective,
> .....
>
> these collectives are all empty labels, generalizations.
> the individual paths is what counts.
this is true!
>
> > > > Isn't it true that no matter what choice one makes as to what path to
> > follow,
> > > > that it is a fairy path, leading one only around and around until exhaustion
> > > > and death, unless and until all these things we create that make up these
> > > > "differences" fall away?
> > >
> > > differences are part of the reality of life.
> > > it is useless and bigoted to hate them.
> > >
> > > > And if this is true, what is the point of debating and analysing these
> > > > differences (except as the fun game of exploring histories and cultures)?
> > > > Wouldn't it be more useful to find the likenesses?
> > >
> > > why the prejudice in favor of likenesses?
> > > if (as many here do) prefer likenesses to differences then
> > > that preference in itself means one does not see things
> > > as they are.
> >
> > 'The great way is not difficult, if you do not pick and choose.' (Seng-tsan)
>
> you have picked and chosen to view the world through glasses that blur
> distinctions.
Yes! deliberately! Because the 'true self-nature' is non-dualistic
(Hui-neng). All distinctions must eventually be transcended/forgotten!
For all the 'fun' of argument, you cannot disagree with this!
> to be open to distinctions _and_ similarites is to not pick or choose.
>
hmmm, seems so to me...
> > > > And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
> >
> > yes.
>
> you have failed to show how.
non-dualism/unism has no room for two.. simple!
>
> > > why not Tao and Islam?
> >
> > digression, irrelevant!
>
> no SUPREMELY relevant. it points directly to the prejudice in saying
> Zen=Tao!
Enlightened Sufis are welcome in the lifeboat/raft--no prob!
>
> [del]
>
> > > actually Taoist(actually confucian skeptics) clerics and politicians mounted a vigorous
> > > anti-Buddhist persecution in the middle of the 9th century
> > > so clearly _they_ thought there was a difference _and_ they
> > > hated it.
> >
> > Logically because then Buddhist monasteries were (a) brothels (b) dealt drugs
> > (c) avoided taxes (d) etc.,,,
>
> not logical at all and not historically founded.
> this piece of bait is unworthy of response,
> nevertheless, the reason was pure suppression.
> yes intolerant Taoists (actually Confucians--ld.) suppressed Buddhist institutions
> that were innocent of wrongdoings listed.
hmm, a question for historians.. but during the Tang dynasty Taoists had
been suppressed, Confucians ruled! Not until the Sung dynasty did a real
Taoist (Shao-yung) stick his head up to see if it would be chopped off..
Regarding Taoist/Confucian conflicts the Hsu-yen.org can give a
non-aligned 'Buddhist' perspective..
>
> Japanese monks visiting China at the time were terrified
> because they could not 'blend in' to the populace and disappear
> like some of the Ch'am monks had to do in order to get through it.
Personally, I would not have kicked Dogen to death, just because
Yung-ming Yen-shou was worse. After he blended Ch'an with 'Pure-land'
not a single person got enlightened for three centuries! Dogen rescued
the child, took it to Japan, thanx! Alas it forgot it's mother. Such is
life!
>
> > in the actual documents of Chan/ Zen in China there
> > > is no dependence on Taoist thought. everything is explainable
> > > in reference to the Indian tradition.
except few Chinese read Sanskrit, and the basic, important ideas were
already available, rhyming, already memorized, in the first two verses
of the Tao-te-ching.. Reality is reality, enlightenment is
enlightenment, the wise are the wise, where is the prob???
> >
> > if all Chinese spoke Sanskrit, and deferred to their 'superiors' in
> > metaphysics.
>
> they did have Chinese translations after all.... so your point?
few could read. the Tao-te-ching rhymed, was oral, common..everybody
knew it. How many could study dusty translations to learn the same thing
in a foreign language? And it is definitely the SAME THING!! The wise
agree with each other. Where is the prob???
>
> > >
> > > > Just wondering,
> > >
> > > the saying of Chinese that the "3 teachings are one" has at least
> > > two possible meanings.
> > >
> > > 1) implies that Buddhism (not just Zen) and Taoism (which has many
> > > many subschools) and Confucianism are either the same _in essence_.
> > > that leaves differences _in manifestation_ wide open.
> > > note that no Zen = Tao person wants to own Confucianism, wonder why
> > > not?
cementheads.
> >
> > Hui-neng's advice for lay people echoed Confucianism exactly. It has no
> > conflict with Taoism at all.
>
> how do you explain then the conflict between Taoist and Confucian
> parties
> in China?
Taoism hid out through-out the Tang dynasty when Confucianism
flourished, (roughly 619-916) while the Confucians ruled in the Chinese
gov't. Buddhism crept up more and more powerful until 845 when Emperor
Wu-tsung stepped on it. Thereafter only 'Chan' monasteries were
permitted. Whether they were Buddhist or Taoist is an open question for
historians, they themselves made no claims, but Taoism re-emerges in the
11th century with Shao-yung's 'The Nature of Things'. By that time
'Ch'an' had survived only in "Buddhist' (ie, illegal) monasteries. In
the 12th century Dogen rescued it, took it to Japan, and married it to
Shinto and medieval Japanese Buddhist feudal authoritarianism. Thus
Chan/Zen survives today, absorbed into it's father, and not knowing its
mother at all..
hi toshu, thought a while about posting this,
concluded: more beneficial than negative!
best regards,
--lawrence
)
(
*
&
6%
$
3
21
~
der mo inlclu txt thn..etc,
.
,
.,
.
;
'
[
=
-
\-
9
,
(happy now?)
no more, well okay, der big gunz,
?
?
?
+
+
-
_
|
&
@
~
#
@
B
F
U
c
k
o
f
f
!
!
!
howzat??
argh!!
Still insufficient?
De is gettin wise to me!
,
,
,
,
,
, ok?
argh!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!
!
etc,
try again,
--l
urgh!
what did I do, quote the world????
??????
???????
????????????
??????????/
?????????????
??????????????
??????????????????
????????????????????
??????????????????????
?????????????????????????
????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????
ok, had enuf?
--l
oy! so frstrating!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!11
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok, grr grr motherfucking isp. eat that punctuatation!!
ok, is we ok??
aloft!!
Omnivore
ld...@pathcom.com wrote in message
snip
>>
>Yo, OM guy, gettin yer point!
>But Tao is definitely not the same as Tao,
>But is the same as Chan/Zen!
>Logic will be quickly mastered,
>If you hang around these loons.
>
Well hey!
Some of my best frends have been quite loopy.
Kind seems to seek out kind.
Lapidary would be boring if all rocks were granite. - well, lot of
material for toumbstones and statues but wedding rings would be kind of
yucky.
Omnivore
IAMYHWH wrote in message
snip
>
>I have read the entire Tao Te Ching several times, and the idea of Satori
is
>nowhere to be found.
Then read another book you moron.
I have attempted to carry on rational discussion with you before. It
come to the same end as I have noticed with others that have attempted the
same.
I do find your megalomaniac buffoonery amusing on occasion though.
I'd suggest a place having some discussion of humor where you could post
some of your irrefutable reasoning - they would likely lose their humor and
hunt me down for a good thrashing if I did though.
Omnivore
tjn wrote in message
>
>if you study objectively
>you will see similarites and differences
I suspect as much..
I've seen rivalries between one and another Christian church. One and
another can't seem to agree on how to get it right even reading the same
translation of the same book. Sometimes on and another has thought killing
each other was a viable solution to the issue.
Ned Ludd
Toshu:
>> IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism.
Lawrence:
> Give us back the word!
>
Ha ha. Not bad.
Ned
tjn
>
> > Give us back the word!
> >
>
> Ha ha. Not bad.
>
> Ned
ho ho
i refuse to let you guys steal what was never yours!
tjn
>
> tjn wrote in message
> snip>
> >buddha
>
> I don't know much about Buddha or Buddhism.
> I suppose that a buddha would have better sense than to plant various
> squashes and gourds so close?
not necessarily buddhas differ in gardening skill ;-)
what they do no differ at is looking at how different conditions give
different effects!
> Actually I planted much for purpose of something to compete with the
> weeds in the area. Lunch was a side benefit.
> But things like that.....??
> Shit, sometimes all that I observe seems much as metaphor.
> Oh well.
it's the weather...
Ned Ludd
writes:
Toshu:
>>> IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism.
Lawrence:
>> Give us back the word!
Ned:
> Ha ha. Not bad.
Toshu:
> ho ho
> i refuse to let you guys steal what was never yours!
>
Oh my God, a chrnosynclastic infundibula! "You can't give
up what you never had."
Ned
tjn
>
> tjn wrote in message
> >> Logically because then Buddhist monasteries were (a) brothels (b) dealt
> drugs
> >> (c) avoided taxes (d) etc.,,,
> >
> >not logical at all and not historically founded.
> >this piece of bait is unworthy of response,
> >nevertheless, the reason was pure suppression.
> >yes intolerant Taoists suppressed Buddhist institutions
> >that were innocent of wrongdoings listed.
> >
>
> what you say.
> Pogroms and such similar things don't much honostly state their purpose.
> Well, it seems to be much pushed by someone with an agenda. Perhaps the
> troops believe much of the propaganda.
> I think it just comes much from folks with need for somebody to look
> down on for sake of some illusion of their own elevation.
>
> Are or aren't Tao and Zen the same thing?
> I dunno. - I gather there is enough in common to support argument of the
> issue.
> The whole bikkering affair has given me some urge to study more of Zen
> though - and of Tao - and of whatever. - Or, just study what gets presented
> for me to see on my monitor.
if you study objectively
ld...@pathcom.com
Get a life.
ld...@pathcom.com
ld...@pathcom.com
iam...@aol.com (IAMYHWH) wrote:
> >>> Don't it now?
> Then perhaps Christianity practiced speaking English is not the same as
> that practiced speaking Latin?
> Perhaps you have not seen that word in some Taoist writing?
> Does giving a different name, or giving a name or not, to an event alter
> the nature of the event?
> <<<
>
> nowhere to be found.
>
satori you are confused. Get a life!
ld...@pathcom.com
But Tao is definitely not the same as Tao,
But is the same as Chan/Zen!
Logic will be quickly mastered,
If you hang around these loons.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
ld...@pathcom.com
ld...@pathcom.com
Give us back the word!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
tjn
>
> tjn wrote:
> >
> > ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <35D0B82D...@worldnet.att.net>,(stuff)
> > >
> > > why talk about zen buddhism? why not talk about zen? alt.zen eh?
> >
> > IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism. just as there is no
> > presbyterianism apart from christianity and no 'complete reality school'
> > apart from taoism.
>
> (1) Philosophic Taoists usually ignor the 'complete reality' school, as
> well as 'religious taoism';
fine more examples that Tao is not equal to Tao let alone Zen!
> (2) If 'Zen' is inseperable from Zen Buddhism, then why is there a
> transmission outside the scriptures (sutras)?
who said that Buddhism was confined to the sutras!
Tibetan and other Buddhisms have transmission outside scriptures too!
the Chinese schools at Bodhidharma's time were often quite academic,
too academic to understand Buddhism in some cases...
[del]
> > > > why the prejudice in favor of likenesses?
> > > > if (as many here do) prefer likenesses to differences then
> > > > that preference in itself means one does not see things
> > > > as they are.
> > >
> > > 'The great way is not difficult, if you do not pick and choose.' (Seng-tsan)
> >
> > you have picked and chosen to view the world through glasses that blur
> > distinctions.
>
> Yes! deliberately! Because the 'true self-nature' is non-dualistic
> (Hui-neng). All distinctions must eventually be transcended/forgotten!
> For all the 'fun' of argument, you cannot disagree with this!
but nondualism is not the same as antidualism!
> > to be open to distinctions _and_ similarites is to not pick or choose.
>
> hmmm, seems so to me...
it is a mistake to confuse nondualism with everything being the same
nondualism is capable of reflecting differences and appearances as they
are
not as we wish they might be
> > > > > And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
> > >
> > > yes.
> >
> > you have failed to show how.
>
> non-dualism/unism has no room for two.. simple!
wrong! that is antidualism!
nondualism is _not_ unism.
it accepts the sameness and the difference equally
and reflects it impartially
> > > > why not Tao and Islam?
> > >
> > > digression, irrelevant!
> >
> > no SUPREMELY relevant. it points directly to the prejudice in saying
> > Zen=Tao!
>
> Enlightened Sufis are welcome in the lifeboat/raft--no prob!
what about the rest of Islam? picking? choosing?
[del]
> > > in the actual documents of Chan/ Zen in China there
> > > > is no dependence on Taoist thought. everything is explainable
> > > > in reference to the Indian tradition.
>
> except few Chinese read Sanskrit, and the basic, important ideas were
> already available, rhyming, already memorized, in the first two verses
> of the Tao-te-ching.. Reality is reality, enlightenment is
> enlightenment, the wise are the wise, where is the prob???
there is no problem as long as one respects that wisdoms
can differ.
> > >
> > > if all Chinese spoke Sanskrit, and deferred to their 'superiors' in
> > > metaphysics.
> >
> > they did have Chinese translations after all.... so your point?
>
> few could read. the Tao-te-ching rhymed, was oral, common..everybody
> knew it. How many could study dusty translations to learn the same thing
> in a foreign language? And it is definitely the SAME THING!! The wise
> agree with each other. Where is the prob???
not relevant. fact is that the early Ch'an documents are chock full
of Buddhist imagery and explanations that have an unmistakeably Indian
Buddhist flavor. there is insufficient Taoism to say that Zen Buddhism
and Taoism did more than mutually interact.
> > > >
> > > > > Just wondering,
> > > >
> > > > the saying of Chinese that the "3 teachings are one" has at least
> > > > two possible meanings.
> > > >
> > > > 1) implies that Buddhism (not just Zen) and Taoism (which has many
> > > > many subschools) and Confucianism are either the same _in essence_.
> > > > that leaves differences _in manifestation_ wide open.
> > > > note that no Zen = Tao person wants to own Confucianism, wonder why
> > > > not?
>
> cementheads.
hmm.
> Taoism hid out through-out the Tang dynasty when Confucianism
> flourished, (roughly 619-916) while the Confucians ruled in the Chinese
> gov't. Buddhism crept up more and more powerful until 845 when Emperor
> Wu-tsung stepped on it. Thereafter only 'Chan' monasteries were
> permitted.
false. 1) many Ch'an Buddhist monasteries were closed and the monks
forced to
return to lay life. the survival of some institutions was purely because
of regional political factors. 2) Pure Land Buddhist groups survived in
the same areas where Ch'an Buddhist groups survivved.
> Whether they were Buddhist or Taoist is an open question for
> historians, they themselves made no claims,
false. there are many documents from this time that indicates Ch'an
Buddhists
making claims of being Buddhist in the areas where they were able to
continue.
[del]
> but Taoism re-emerges in the
> 11th century with Shao-yung's 'The Nature of Things'. By that time
> 'Ch'an' had survived only in "Buddhist' (ie, illegal) monasteries.
a misrepresentation. there was an official 5 mountain system of
Buddhist monasteries in China well before this. the persecution
of Buddhist groups by the short lived Taoist clique responsible
for the 845 CE events failed largely because the Taoists soon
found themselves out of favor again.
[del]
> > > > so if you insist that Zen=Tao i still ask why not
> > > > =Islam=Confucianism=*.*?
> > >
> > > confusing digression without basis. Prove the Sun doesn't equal Uranus, and in
> > > triplicate by tomorrow dawn!
> >
> > not a confusion, again a pointing at the prejudice implicit in the very
> > statement that Zen=Tao.
[del]
> > you can just as easily use an ideology of harmony as a justification for
> > war
> > and genocide as an ideology of differentiation.
> >
> > ideas themselves are not sufficient as guarantors of morality or freedom
> > from the horror of gratuitous suffering.
>
> hi toshu, thought a while about posting this,
> concluded: more beneficial than negative!
your opinion. i don't share your prejudice. i have no faith in mere
intellect.
i grant that it seems more likely to be beneficial but am convinced it
isn't.
it is just another one sided picking and choosing.
tjn
>
> tjn wrote in message
>
> >
> >you will see similarites and differences
>
> I've seen rivalries between one and another Christian church. One and
> another can't seem to agree on how to get it right even reading the same
> translation of the same book. Sometimes on and another has thought killing
> each other was a viable solution to the issue.
and in this Christians are not different from anyone else.
Buddhists and Daoists have done the same among themselves
and to each other. but the origin of the trouble is not
noticing the differences in practice or the differences
in what the book says, it is the reaction to the difference.
it is the emotional revulsion against difference that leads
to elimination of the difference as a so called solution.
pretending the difference does not exist merely hides or
suppresses the problem. it is not a solution.
IAMYHWH
satori you are confused. Get a life!<<<
It is both, and can't possibly be an experience unless it is also an idea.
IAMYHWH
I have attempted to carry on rational discussion with you before. It come to
the same end as I have noticed with others that have attempted the same.<<<
If the assertion is made that TAOISM contains Satori, and yet no aspect of
Satori is contianed within the definitive specification of TAOISM, then this
assertion is FALSE !!!
PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
IAMYHWH
Get a life.
--lawrence<<<
There is NO EXCUSE, your merely failed to support your claim...
ALL
>Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
>> In <6qtj6o$ejc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ld...@pathcom.com writes:
>>
>> Toshu:
>> >> IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism.
>>
>> Lawrence:
>> > Give us back the word!
>> >
>>
>> Ha ha. Not bad.
>>
>> Ned
>
>ho ho
>i refuse to let you guys steal what was never yours!
ALL:
You are a compassionate man John.
ALL
>In <35D25653...@worldnet.att.net> tjn <ryu...@worldnet.att.net>
>writes:
>
>Toshu:
>>>> IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism.
>
>Lawrence:
>>> Give us back the word!
>
>Ned:
>> Ha ha. Not bad.
>
>Toshu:
>> ho ho
>> i refuse to let you guys steal what was never yours!
>>
>
> Oh my God, a chrnosynclastic infundibula! "You can't give
> up what you never had."
>
> Ned
>
ALL:
You've never had anything Ned, so give it up. If you can't swim,
don't stand on the banks of the river yelling at those that can.
It's too simple.
>
ALL
>>>>These things are identical!! Only idiots will argue the differences of the
>two. Zen is Tao. Tao is Zen.<<<
>
>Not quite true...
>TAO is included as a mathematical proper subset of ZEN, although forming the
>essence of ZEN. Arguing is for fools and not in accordance with the Great Way.
ALL:
So why did you create arguers? <g>
ALL
>>>>Who is arguing? He asked a question that you chose not to think about. You
>chose to give an answer that is calculated to make you sound smart and humble
>and discredit the original poster. Take these opportunities to think and grow
>rather than bolster yourself. No offense intended. I am learning too. Steve
>Godfrey<<<
>
>(1) The term {damn} is argumentative.
>(2) ZEN and TAO are not the same, although they are related as I have
>specifically outlined.
ALL:
You say you are the creator and yet you created and argue with
yourself telling yourself that you are not in accord with the way.
You'll drive yourself nuts that way, you know. God thing you lie
or I wouldn't be here to point this out to you. If the truth be as
you claim, then better to leave yourself alone and enjoy a sunset
you've created, it doesn't argue with itself.
ld...@pathcom.com
"David Oller" <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> tjn wrote in message <35D20926...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> (Snipped a ton)
>
> |the answer is obvious.
> |every individual follows an individual path.
> |zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
> |complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
> |shi'a islam yet another collective,
>
soon
> as things settle down I'll get a better handle on what the hell they are
talking
> about.
'tis sometimes mysterious!
>
> I've had some pretty good email, and so far it seems the main issues are:
>
> 1. Shamanism (including healing powers, divination, etc.)
>
> This is considered an obstacle by most Zen teachers I've known or read about.
we dump everybody after 1100 AD! Japan makes Ch'an so strict and
authoritarian~~somehow goes 'against the grain' if you know what I mean..??
>
> 2. How to rule, or not be ruled. Social and political dynamics and anarchy.
yes, true! Taoism is practical and sometimes political. Dumping that part may
have been what lead Japan to its tyrannical phase perhap.
>
> It's very intellectual and philosophical over there, lots of very bright minds
> and philosophic people. But it's very difficult to relate to, and a
problematic
> paradigm for me. I can go to a Thervadin group or a Tibetan group and relate
> very quickly. I can't there!
turtle-slow goes a Way..
>
> 3. Interests in martial arts.
just a few keen guys..
>
> Zen has some associations here, but you don't here much talk of it in alt.zen.
>
> I think Kathy and Redwind would love it over there--they have a lot in common,
> but I have a theory that people come to alt.zen to get that baggage torn away.
> Perhaps on a deep subconsious level, but how else would you explain continuing
> with a group who's beliefs and approaches are so radically different than your
> own.
hafta admit I'm a bit sucked in myself!
>
> I don't think I would last two days in a Hindu, Sufi, or Christian group.
> alt.meditation drives me nuts with all the objective ideas of oneness.
>
> Let's look at something here: On the suface alt.zen looks like a debate over
> views and beliefs. It appears we are arguing over the right and wrong of
> subjects. Look deeper and you will see the oldtimers chewing away at the
> baggage. Some have subtle and soft ways, some are 900 pound gorrillas with a
two
> ton club, but, both are doing the same thing.
I miss Michael. He was wise!
>
> The simple fact is common, and if people here are "straight up" they will tell
> you: "We don't give a damn what you believe!" You bring beliefs here and you
are
> going to have them bashed against the rocks--simple as that!
fortunately I have no beliefs!
>
> Gassho,
>
> David
>
>
Thanx David,
I appreciate your logical post, especially having seen how well you growl!
regards,
--lawrence
IAMYHWH
You say you are the creator and yet you created and argue with
yourself telling yourself that you are not in accord with the way. You'll
drive yourself nuts that way, you know. God thing you lie or I wouldn't be
here to point this out to you. If the truth be as
you claim, then better to leave yourself alone and enjoy a sunset you've
created, it doesn't argue with itself. <<<
I could argue BOTH sides of this, in this case I will choose to agree...
ALL
>ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <35D0B82D...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> > t...@hup.harvard.edu wrote:
>> > >
>[del]
>
>> > > > true, you will be disqualified when you answer with a synonym just the
>> > > > same as when you answer with something that is not even a synonym, like
>> > > > Zen and Tao.
>> > > >
>> > > > since the philosophies are different and the practices are different,
>> > > > they are synonymous only in myth.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Obviously, different philosophies, different practices, different cultures,
>> > > different words, different paths, etc............
>> > >
>> > > This all avoids the question:
>> > > Are these different paths leading one in the same direction?
ALL:
Let's take the path as *being wealthy* and then look at sports stars,
business tycoons, actors, thiefs, etc. etc. Each of them may look
at what they've got and say that they have arrived at the same place
and what would you say? As far as one sport over another, the
baseball player, who couldn't play basketball, will consider baseball
his first love, not basketball. If you tell him they are the same,
just means to an end, he will say, "Not so, I only had one path I was
able to follow because of the circumstances and conditions in my life
and I followed it and because wealthy, the rest is just mere
speculation and philosophy."
The only person who needs many paths is the person who's going no
where.
>> > since the paths are different, the end of the journey is different.
>> > some like to say that since practices all lead to the same place
>> > that the differences do not matter. i disagree. if i travel by two
>> > different routes to the same location, how i am at the 'end' of the
>> > journey is different. it is conditioned, not absolute, and the
>> > difference
>> > in itinerary makes a difference at the destination.
>> >
>> > now someone might say that the end of the journey is absolute, and
>> > independent or 'liberated' from conditioning. then we are certainly
>> > talking about something different Zen Buddhism, where there is nothing
>> > but mutual interaction and conditioning... no liberation from that.
>>
>> why talk about zen buddhism? why not talk about zen? alt.zen eh?
ALL:
If you want to talk about three different things at once, I have no
problem with that.
>
>IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism. just as there is no
>presbyterianism apart from christianity and no 'complete reality school'
>apart from taoism.
>
>
>> > (see Hyakujo's fox)
>> >
>> > > Of all the paths that have historically produced enlightened humans, does it
>> > > matter which path one takes?
ALL:
It matters that one takes one. When they get there they can create
a new one with wider appeal than the way they came and more people
will have yet another choice. Spring waters run deep yet sometimes
someone has to have a mind to go down to the spring and bring water
back to those that can't make the trip themselves. They still get to
drink the same spring water. To save all beings means to make sure
everyone has water, not that everyone does the same thing to get it.
>> > it certainly matters to the individual who picks one. it is wonderful
>> > that
>> > the choice is so wide to accomodate so many, is it not?
>> >
>> > > Do the different words, descriptions, cultures, definitions, practices, etc,
>> > > point to true differences in the way one is affected by the practice, and in
>> > > the "outcome" or are these differences different masks on the same face?
>>
>> imo yes.
ALL:
imo, no. You see, and there is no need to argue over what anyone
else choces for themselves. unless they say that what you chose is
the same as what they chose without having any idea about that which
you chose. Then it would be immoral to let a philosopher keep his
folly.
>
>how would you know unless you have attained enlightenment by one path,
>erased that attainment, and attained it again by another?
>
>without that kind of learning it is then _just_ an opinion with
>_nothing_
>to back it up, a mere dogma, a belief not based on experience.
>
>> > the only way one would know this is to do it. no one has. everyone
>> > follows
>> > an individual path.
>>
>> speak for yourself. How would you know..??
ALL:
Even so, going through enlightenment and the forgetting it and going
through another path's enlightenment and forgetting it and etc. etc.
would be their path which would be strewn with their favorite colors.
Any path worth its salt does not stop with enlightenment, it goes on
to teach skillful means and how to get unenlightened and remain with
the people who are enlightened by the nature of the beast without
knowing it.
Ikkyu said, "No masters, only you, the master is you, wonderful no?"
You could exchange the word *path* for master, wonderful no?
>
>the answer is obvious.
>every individual follows an individual path.
>zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
>complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
>shi'a islam yet another collective,
>.....
>
>these collectives are all empty labels, generalizations.
>the individual paths is what counts.
ALL:
A baseball bat is not a football nor a basketball. A short guy who
can't jump nor shoot hoops very well will argue with you over mere
generalizations. If you want to go beyond Linguistic Conditioning,
I'll go there with you but that's a different subject.
>
>> > > Isn't it true that no matter what choice one makes as to what path to
>> follow,
>> > > that it is a fairy path, leading one only around and around until exhaustion
>> > > and death, unless and until all these things we create that make up these
>> > > "differences" fall away?
>> >
>> > differences are part of the reality of life.
>> > it is useless and bigoted to hate them.
>> >
>> > > And if this is true, what is the point of debating and analysing these
>> > > differences (except as the fun game of exploring histories and cultures)?
>> > > Wouldn't it be more useful to find the likenesses?
ALL:
And avoid choosing a path for yourself. If that is your intent,
yes. Who needs to choose among likenesses? You could say they are
alike in that they are paths, and then have at one because it felt
right. There's no accounting for taste. Whatever you *do* is your
path, even if it's nothing, but you've got to *do* it in order to call
it a path at all. What need to talk about something you are not
going to use. That's the reality behind all philosophy. It you are
no philosophizing in order to find something new which you can apply
to your life, it's mere mental masturbation and not as fulfilling as a
good relationship with useful reality. Only aberrant scholars enjoy
endless prattle to no end. The real one's scholarize in order to
clarify matters for those that haven't come to find their own minds
yet.
>> >
>> > why the prejudice in favor of likenesses?
>> > if (as many here do) prefer likenesses to differences then
>> > that preference in itself means one does not see things
>> > as they are.
>>
>> 'The great way is not difficult, if you do not pick and choose.' (Seng-tsan)
ALL:
Yet you choose a preference for likenesses? So much for being on
the Great Way.
>
>you have picked and chosen to view the world through glasses that blur
>distinctions.
>to be open to distinctions _and_ similarites is to not pick or choose.
ALL:
One must be natural before entering upon a path so that there is no
need to pick and choose, rather follow one's own propensities to their
end.
>
>> > > And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
>>
>> yes.
>
>you have failed to show how.
>
>> > why not Tao and Islam?
>>
>> digression, irrelevant!
>
>no SUPREMELY relevant. it points directly to the prejudice in saying
>Zen=Tao!
ALL:
And it does so by virtue of saying that all differences can be handled
with a word of dismissal of the differences yet making the matter more
complex than that when it comes to Tao and Islam. Perhaps I can
help, using that philosophy. Would you say that you and I are
exactly the same? No two people that walk any of these paths ever
walk the same path, which is what makes us each so interesting and
unique. One man's yes is another man's no.
>[del]
>> > 1) implies that Buddhism (not just Zen) and Taoism (which has many
>> > many subschools) and Confucianism are either the same _in essence_.
>> > that leaves differences _in manifestation_ wide open.
>> > note that no Zen = Tao person wants to own Confucianism, wonder why
>> > not?
>>
>> Hui-neng's advice for lay people echoed Confucianism exactly. It has no
>> conflict with Taoism at all.
ALL:
Are you saying that Hui-neng secretely studied Confucianism? Many
advices can apply to everyone, and more particularly everyone on a
spiritual path. For instance, "Have compassion on those who are
suffering." In sports you could say, "Always give 110%," yet does
that make basketball into baseball as far as the players are
concerned?
>
>how do you explain then the conflict between Taoist and Confucian
>parties
>in China?
>
>> > ;-)
ALL:
Wonderful.
>> >
>> > 2) it is simply a gesture of politeness and inclusiveness, not a
>> > confusion
>> > of practices and doctrines which _cannot_ be confused because they
>> > are
>> > _quite_ distinct.
>>
>> so you say.
ALL:
That's the same as saying something different, so what are you saying?
Everything is the same and alike so what difference does it make, I
understand all ways so I don't need to travel any, none of them
really make a difference and I have reduced them all to
meaninglessness linguistically. Watching the news everyday is the
same as feeding the hungry which is the same as walking, the same as
crashing in an airplane, etc. etc. You are arguing against
Linguistic Conditioning which is a different and valid approach yet
which must be argued within it's own context, not within anothers.
>
>and so do the T'ang dynasty practitioners.
>
>> > so if you insist that Zen=Tao i still ask why not
>> > =Islam=Confucianism=*.*?
>>
>> confusing digression without basis. Prove the Sun doesn't equal Uranus, and in
>> triplicate by tomorrow dawn!
ALL:
Are you saying it's easier to see a basis for not seeing the
differences in Zen/Tao, than it is in Islam/Confucianism?
>
>not a confusion, again a pointing at the prejudice implicit in the very
>statement that Zen=Tao.
>
>> > i know the trolls that live under the bridge....
>> >
>> grr grr,
>
>yes i know.
>
>please remember that the all teachings are equal ideology was used
>precisely
>to justify the imposition of State Shinto control over Buddhist and
>Christian
>institutions in Japan and the consequent militarization of the country
>in
>preparation for the war against east asia....
>
>you can just as easily use an ideology of harmony as a justification for
>war
>and genocide as an ideology of differentiation.
>
>ideas themselves are not sufficient as guarantors of morality or freedom
>from the horror of gratuitous suffering.
ALL:
Neither is enlightenment if not taken to the full assimiliation.
Nothing worse (I didn't say it wasn't funny) than a half enlightened
moron running around with their head cut off.
IamSpncycl
[I edited out the garbage]
[...]
>IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism. just as there is no
>presbyterianism apart from christianity and no 'complete reality school'
>apart from taoism.
>every individual follows an individual path.
>zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
>complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
>shi'a islam yet another collective,
>.....
>
>these collectives are all empty labels, generalizations.
>the individual paths is what counts.
>you have picked and chosen to view the world through glasses that blur
>distinctions.
>to be open to distinctions _and_ similarites is to not pick or choose.
>please remember that the all teachings are equal ideology was used
>precisely
>to justify the imposition of State Shinto control over Buddhist and
>Christian
>institutions in Japan and the consequent militarization of the country
>in
>preparation for the war gainst easr asia....
>
>you can just as easily use an ideology of harmony as a justification for
>war
>and genocide as an ideology of differentiation.
>
>ideas themselves are not sufficient as guarantors of morality or freedom
>from the horror of gratuitous suffering.
Very nice. I just hate to see you banging your head against the wall. That
and the fact that such wise words get lost in that long-ass garble.
Diane
ALL
>lawrence day wrote:
>>
>> tjn wrote:
>> >
>> > ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <35D0B82D...@worldnet.att.net>,(stuff)
>> > >
>> > > why talk about zen buddhism? why not talk about zen? alt.zen eh?
>> >
>> > IMO there is no zen aside from zen buddhism. just as there is no
>> > presbyterianism apart from christianity and no 'complete reality school'
>> > apart from taoism.
>>
>> (1) Philosophic Taoists usually ignor the 'complete reality' school, as
>> well as 'religious taoism';
>
>fine more examples that Tao is not equal to Tao let alone Zen!
>
>> (2) If 'Zen' is inseperable from Zen Buddhism, then why is there a
>> transmission outside the scriptures (sutras)?
>
>who said that Buddhism was confined to the sutras!
>Tibetan and other Buddhisms have transmission outside scriptures too!
>the Chinese schools at Bodhidharma's time were often quite academic,
>too academic to understand Buddhism in some cases...
ALL:
Sounds like Ardie's belief system has got him in the same pickle.
>
>[del]
>
>
>> > > > why the prejudice in favor of likenesses?
>> > > > if (as many here do) prefer likenesses to differences then
>> > > > that preference in itself means one does not see things
>> > > > as they are.
>> > >
>> > > 'The great way is not difficult, if you do not pick and choose.' (Seng-tsan)
>> >
>> > you have picked and chosen to view the world through glasses that blur
>> > distinctions.
>>
>> Yes! deliberately! Because the 'true self-nature' is non-dualistic
>> (Hui-neng). All distinctions must eventually be transcended/forgotten!
>> For all the 'fun' of argument, you cannot disagree with this!
ALL:
Yes, I certainly can. It is a bastardization of what Hui-neng said.
To get rid of dualistic clingings as if only one side is reality, not
to bury your head in the sand, is what he was saying. If you speak
heaven, you also speak hell, and one cannot be more real than the
other, or you've weakened the meaning of the other, if not destroyed
its power completely. If a word has no power, why use it? If you
say Zen, the Tao is born as something unique. If you say Tao, of
course Zen pops into your mind. Don't let that confuse you into
thinking that because you are capable of imagining this, that it is
more than your imagination that makes it so for you.
>
>but nondualism is not the same as antidualism!
>
>> > to be open to distinctions _and_ similarites is to not pick or choose.
>>
>> hmmm, seems so to me...
ALL:
Not to worry, you are only imagining things. <g> If you want to
talk about the truth that lies beyond imagination, then we can speak
of Linguistic Conditioning and I think you'll be spot on. That is
not a path, though, yet rather a way of looking at how paths are
created and how people misunderstand them because of their attachment
to Linguistic Representational Conditioning. This is how we enter
into conventional reality, and if we don't inter into interactions
with conditions as they are, (conventional reality) we don't enter.
Ardie has beaten down the door thousands of times and yet refuses to
enter.
>
>it is a mistake to confuse nondualism with everything being the same
>nondualism is capable of reflecting differences and appearances as they
>are
>not as we wish they might be
>
>> > > > > And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
>> > >
>> > > yes.
>> >
>> > you have failed to show how.
>>
>> non-dualism/unism has no room for two.. simple!
>wrong! that is antidualism!
>nondualism is _not_ unism.
>it accepts the sameness and the difference equally
>and reflects it impartially
ALL:
Antidualism sound like an ostritch sticking it's head in the sand and
being absorbed in the contemplation of *nothing is real* except I'm
safe with my head in the sand.
Nondualism seems to me to say that everything is not as it appears,
nor it is otherwise.
>
>> > > > why not Tao and Islam?
>> > >
>> > > digression, irrelevant!
>> >
>> > no SUPREMELY relevant. it points directly to the prejudice in saying
>> > Zen=Tao!
>>
>> Enlightened Sufis are welcome in the lifeboat/raft--no prob!
ALL:
One boat size fits all. We've seen that before.
>
>> > > in the actual documents of Chan/ Zen in China there
>> > > > is no dependence on Taoist thought. everything is explainable
>> > > > in reference to the Indian tradition.
>>
>> except few Chinese read Sanskrit, and the basic, important ideas were
>> already available, rhyming, already memorized, in the first two verses
>> of the Tao-te-ching.. Reality is reality, enlightenment is
>> enlightenment, the wise are the wise, where is the prob???
>
>there is no problem as long as one respects that wisdoms
>can differ.
ALL:
Only reactions against something, can desire to make everything the
same as everything else. Harmoney with everything as it is, enjoys
all that is.
>
>> > >
>> > > if all Chinese spoke Sanskrit, and deferred to their 'superiors' in
>> > > metaphysics.
>> >
>> > they did have Chinese translations after all.... so your point?
>>
>> few could read. the Tao-te-ching rhymed, was oral, common..everybody
>> knew it. How many could study dusty translations to learn the same thing
>> in a foreign language? And it is definitely the SAME THING!! The wise
>> agree with each other. Where is the prob???
ALL:
The wise wealthy all agree that it is better to be rich than poor.
Their methods of getting there are not the same between even two
people doing the same thing, how can you say that anything is the same
as anything else, without being so general as to render your comments
useless.
If you want to rise above Linguistic Representational Conditioning, I
agre with you 100%, yet for the purposes of discussing things with
even the slightest differences, why would we feel it somehow wrong to
look into the differences and enjoy the uniqueness, each brings to the
table. Why all the need to fight against any difference to the
point where you have to yell and shout your distain for them?
>
>not relevant. fact is that the early Ch'an documents are chock full
>of Buddhist imagery and explanations that have an unmistakeably Indian
>Buddhist flavor. there is insufficient Taoism to say that Zen Buddhism
>and Taoism did more than mutually interact.
>
>> > > >
>> > > > > Just wondering,
>> > > >
>> > > > the saying of Chinese that the "3 teachings are one" has at least
>> > > > two possible meanings.
>> > > >
>> > > > 1) implies that Buddhism (not just Zen) and Taoism (which has many
>> > > > many subschools) and Confucianism are either the same _in essence_.
>> > > > that leaves differences _in manifestation_ wide open.
>> > > > note that no Zen = Tao person wants to own Confucianism, wonder why
>> > > > not?
>>
>> cementheads.
>
>hmm.
ALL:
Granted fellows, there is no accounting for tastes, yet to say that
there are non and everything tastes alike is to say that we don't have
Linguistically Representational Conditioning through which we *must*
come into the light of day. I'm sorry, I can't go through anyone
elses conditioning in order to free myself from that ignorance which I
have attached myself to, and called, my opinion. If no path appeals
to my conditioning, I'll create one. In my opinion, that's all a
person does anyway no matter what fellowship they aspire to engender
with others.
>> > you can just as easily use an ideology of harmony as a justification for
>> > war
>> > and genocide as an ideology of differentiation.
>> >
>> > ideas themselves are not sufficient as guarantors of morality or freedom
>> > from the horror of gratuitous suffering.
>>
>> hi toshu, thought a while about posting this,
>> concluded: more beneficial than negative!
ALL:
Not to worry, we'll eat it up and spit it out even if it was more
negative. Then we can all digest it. <g>
>
>your opinion. i don't share your prejudice. i have no faith in mere
>intellect.
>i grant that it seems more likely to be beneficial but am convinced it
>isn't.
>it is just another one sided picking and choosing.
ALL:
I grant that you want to rise above your intellect yet to get rid of
it entirely will not help you to communicate your ideas with others.
That's the path I generally take also yet others find it confusing,
which to me, of course, is the point. If one can be confused, lets
get through it and on to more important matters. Like going to
lunch and stuff.
ALL
>Omnivore wrote:
>>
>> tjn wrote in
>> snip
>> >
>> >since the paths are different, the end of the journey is different.
>> >some like to say that since practices all lead to the same place
>> >that the differences do not matter. i disagree. if i travel by two
>> >different routes to the same location, how i am at the 'end' of the
>> >journey is different. it is conditioned, not absolute, and the
>> >difference
>> >in itinerary makes a difference at the destination.
>> >
>>
>> Rivers and strams flow to different named oceans.
>> From way high up it might appear that one great body of water covers
>> much of the planet.
>> Some streams end in lakes that have no apparent connection to other
>> bodies of water. Yet the water permeates the soil.
>> Dig a hole here or there and one is likely to find water.
>> Where did it come from and where does it go?
>
>watch it flow
ALL:
Come down from the mountain top and jump in and flow with it until you
die and become all that the flow is.
Omnivore
IAMYHWH wrote in message
snip
>If the assertion is made that TAOISM contains Satori, and yet no aspect of
>Satori is contianed within the definitive specification of TAOISM, then
this
>assertion is FALSE !!!
>
>PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
Did the writer of the book neglect to write of the means he came by his
insight?
What would the first writer have written in the bibliography?
As for your assertions, they are much incoherent noise.
And you demand for explainations that you are much incapable of
understanding through your own resistance.
You seem as one lonely in hell of his own making and would proselytize
for others to share in it.
Omnivore
tjn wrote in message <35D2D288...@worldnet.att.net>...
snip
>
>and in this Christians are not different from anyone else.
>Buddhists and Daoists have done the same among themselves
>and to each other. but the origin of the trouble is not
>noticing the differences in practice or the differences
>in what the book says, it is the reaction to the difference.
>it is the emotional revulsion against difference that leads
>to elimination of the difference as a so called solution.
>
>pretending the difference does not exist merely hides or
>suppresses the problem. it is not a solution.
I was raised quite Christian. Had my own thoughts about the issue in
spite of threats that the god would know them thoughts and damn me for them.
I read some Tao and some things occurred to me of having seen similar
ideas before. I'd got to wondering about Jesus parents going East and if
Jesus might have studied Tao.
Since that time it came to me that it would be likely that "Truths"
would arise in different cultures in different folks whether or not they had
any intercourse with one another. So similarities in philosophies and
religions and myths were not just coincidental but inevetable.
I'm no great scholear of any one thing. I have found that looking to one
and another description of an idea or a concept has afforded some better
insight to the whole affair.
Well, better insight?
Either reinforcement of some truth or delusion. One the other or both?
ld...@pathcom.com
iam...@aol.com (IAMYHWH) wrote:
> >>>Then read another book you moron.
> I have attempted to carry on rational discussion with you before. It come to
> the same end as I have noticed with others that have attempted the same.<<<
>
> Satori is contianed within the definitive specification of TAOISM, then this
> assertion is FALSE !!!
>
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
>
read ttc verse 16,
translate 'insight' as 'satori'.
Are you happy now?
ld...@pathcom.com
Care to buy a vowel?
--l
ld...@pathcom.com
tjn:
> the Chinese schools at Bodhidharma's time were often quite academic,
> too academic to understand Buddhism in some cases...
hmmm, yes, the Chinese didn't understand Buddhism. So what did they
substitute?
> [del]
> > > > > > And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
> > > >
> > > > yes.
> > >
> > > you have failed to show how.
> >
> > non-dualism/unism has no room for two.. simple!
>
> wrong! that is antidualism!
> nondualism is _not_ unism.
> it accepts the sameness and the difference equally
> and reflects it impartially
anti-dualism..?? Never heard that one!
> [del]
>
> > > > in the actual documents of Chan/ Zen in China there
> > > > > is no dependence on Taoist thought. everything is explainable
> > > > > in reference to the Indian tradition.
> >
> > except few Chinese read Sanskrit, and the basic, important ideas were
> > already available, rhyming, already memorized, in the first two verses
> > of the Tao-te-ching.. Reality is reality, enlightenment is
> > enlightenment, the wise are the wise, where is the prob???
>
> there is no problem as long as one respects that wisdoms
> can differ.
>
> > > >
> > > > if all Chinese spoke Sanskrit, and deferred to their 'superiors' in
> > > > metaphysics.
> > >
> > > they did have Chinese translations after all.... so your point?
> >
> > few could read. the Tao-te-ching rhymed, was oral, common..everybody
> > knew it. How many could study dusty translations to learn the same thing
> > in a foreign language? And it is definitely the SAME THING!! The wise
> > agree with each other. Where is the prob???
>
> not relevant. fact is that the early Ch'an documents are chock full
> of Buddhist imagery and explanations that have an unmistakeably Indian
> Buddhist flavor. there is insufficient Taoism to say that Zen Buddhism
> and Taoism did more than mutually interact.
'mutually interact', yes, Buddhism and Taoism 'interact' and Ch'an/Zen is
born.
(...)
--lawrence
Omnivore
ld...@pathcom.com wrote in message <6qt167$lco$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <199808121534...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> iam...@aol.com (IAMYHWH) wrote:
>> It seems that many people did not understand my reply. I will use simpler
>> terms. Zen and Tao are not the same since Tao does not have Satori !!!
>>
>Yes it does. Who are you?
>
I think he intends to have me broiled.
IAMYHWH
Close but no cigar, you can find references nearly as close as this in the Holy
Bible. (Because each is merely a different point of view of the same Truth).
ZEN is merely (Buddhsim + Taoism).
IAMYHWH
read ttc verse 16,
translate 'insight' as 'satori'.
Are you happy now?
--lawrence<<<
YES, but if you are getting that generic, then the Christian {Filled with the
Holy Spirit} is also Satori. (From the Holy Bible).
IAMYHWH
to have me broiled.<<<
Or possibly Forgiven...
Omnivore
IAMYHWH wrote in message
<199808132309...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Well, you have said something that made sense.
Good insight.
Maybe there is hope for you yet.
Now, does Christianity=Taoism?
Omnivore
IAMYHWH wrote in message
<199808132335...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
I dunno.
He didn't seem very forgiving inclined when he announced it.
I lean toward an idea that all that judgment stuff amounts to much of
the judge and the judged being much of one in the same.
I'd considered that there is a breakdown in the standards that one
thinks to judge other by and what one will come to judge self by - or it is
much of an ongoing process.
I may hate someone for something the person has done. I might find that
I have not done the exact same thing, but I have done similar enough that
the difference might amount to degree.
I think it all turns back on the self and Jesus admonition about, "Judge
not lest ye be...." was not so much of a command or a law or rule as it was
a warning or a suggestion of how things work. - Just a teaching tool and not
an order.
Omnivore
IAMYHWH wrote in message
<199808132307...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Goodness.
Sometimes I think you might be close to realizing something.
Maybe you ought stay off of ladders lest you have one of them profound
revelations and fall and break your neck.
Maybe you ought to write 10K times on the blackboard that, "Nothing is
merely a bit less than anything."
Omnivore
David Oller wrote in message
snip
>
>|the answer is obvious.
>|every individual follows an individual path.
>|zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
>|complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
>|shi'a islam yet another collective,
>
Ought not confuse the map with the path.
snip
: "We don't give a damn what you believe!" You bring beliefs here and you
are
>going to have them bashed against the rocks--simple as that!
>
Brings to mind that someone said, "That which doesn't destroy us makes
us stronger."
Which brought to mind a thought of that which we don't destroy gets
stronger.
But that brings to mind some thought a character I write about thought.
He sought to learn the nature of evil and found himself. discovering
evil to be mainly manefestation of fear and ignorance.
So in seeking to know fear he sought to embrace it and it fled.
He sought knowledge of ignorance and it faded
IAMYHWH
hope for you yet. Now, does Christianity=Taoism?<<<
Certainly not in any mathematical sense of the "=" equal symbol. Even identical
twins are not identical in every slight detail, thus (the term) {identical}
forming somewhat of a misnomer.
IAMYHWH
not lest ye be...." was not so much of a command or a law or rule as it was
a warning or a suggestion of how things work. - Just a teaching tool and not
an order.
<<<
Yep, now you're catching on...
ld...@pathcom.com
iam...@aol.com (IAMYHWH) wrote:
> >>>read ttc 16, consider 'insight', what is it? Care to buy a vowel?<<<
>
> Close but no cigar, you can find references nearly as close as this in the
Holy
> Bible. (Because each is merely a different point of view of the same Truth).
> ZEN is merely (Buddhsim + Taoism).
>
--lawrence the converted!
ld...@pathcom.com
iam...@aol.com (IAMYHWH) wrote:
> >>>Ok dude with no vowels,
> read ttc verse 16,
> translate 'insight' as 'satori'.
> Are you happy now?
> --lawrence<<<
>
> YES, but if you are getting that generic, then the Christian {Filled with the
> Holy Spirit} is also Satori. (From the Holy Bible).
>
I'll take St. John of the Cross, first pick!
Who's yer goalie?
lawren-tzu der bemused
Ned Ludd
tjn:
> the Chinese schools at Bodhidharma's time were often quite academic,
> too academic to understand Buddhism in some cases...
Lawrence:
> hmmm, yes, the Chinese didn't understand Buddhism. So what did they
> substitute?
>
Snort.
Ned
ALL
ALL:
I gave you no choice, you don't want to think you are an idiot. <g>
tjn
>
> In article <35D25D32...@worldnet.att.net>,
> ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > lawrence day wrote:
> (...)
> > the Chinese schools at Bodhidharma's time were often quite academic,
> > too academic to understand Buddhism in some cases...
>
> substitute?
nothing. eventually they understood. after Bodhidharma and the Zen
Buddhist
patriarchs, after Shandao and the Pure Land patriarchs they understood
that you cannot understand through intellect, you understand through a
body and mind practice.... just like in India...
> > [del]
> > > > > > > And in these likenesses, are not Zen and Tao the same?
> > > > >
> > > > > yes.
> > > >
> > > > you have failed to show how.
> > >
> > > non-dualism/unism has no room for two.. simple!
> >
> > wrong! that is antidualism!
> > nondualism is _not_ unism.
> > it accepts the sameness and the difference equally
> > and reflects it impartially
>
> anti-dualism..?? Never heard that one!
it is what your position is. your position misunderstands nondualism.
you are anti-dualist not nondualist.
most folks start out clinging to dualism, appreciating only difference
"in the beginning mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers"
then after a little taste of emptiness they become antidualist
"in the middle: mountains are rivers and rivers are mountains"
after maturing in the way they are nondual
"in the end mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers"
and one can aprreciate differences and similarities at once
> > [del]
> >
> > > > > in the actual documents of Chan/ Zen in China there
> > > > > > is no dependence on Taoist thought. everything is explainable
> > > > > > in reference to the Indian tradition.
> > >
> > > except few Chinese read Sanskrit, and the basic, important ideas were
> > > already available, rhyming, already memorized, in the first two verses
> > > of the Tao-te-ching.. Reality is reality, enlightenment is
> > > enlightenment, the wise are the wise, where is the prob???
> >
> > there is no problem as long as one respects that wisdoms
> > can differ.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > if all Chinese spoke Sanskrit, and deferred to their 'superiors' in
> > > > > metaphysics.
> > > >
> > > > they did have Chinese translations after all.... so your point?
> > >
> > > few could read. the Tao-te-ching rhymed, was oral, common..everybody
> > > knew it. How many could study dusty translations to learn the same thing
> > > in a foreign language? And it is definitely the SAME THING!! The wise
> > > agree with each other. Where is the prob???
> >
> > not relevant. fact is that the early Ch'an documents are chock full
> > of Buddhist imagery and explanations that have an unmistakeably Indian
> > Buddhist flavor. there is insufficient Taoism to say that Zen Buddhism
> > and Taoism did more than mutually interact.
>
> 'mutually interact', yes, Buddhism and Taoism 'interact' and Ch'an/Zen is
> born.
nope. Zen was in India before Taoism.
i will not deny the heritage to please you.
tjn
>
> In article <6qtene$m...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
> "David Oller" <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > tjn wrote in message <35D20926...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> > (Snipped a ton)
> >
> > |the answer is obvious.
> > |every individual follows an individual path.
> > |zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
> > |complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
> > |shi'a islam yet another collective,
> >
> soon
> > as things settle down I'll get a better handle on what the hell they are
> talking
> > about.
>
> 'tis sometimes mysterious!
>
> >
> > I've had some pretty good email, and so far it seems the main issues are:
> >
> > 1. Shamanism (including healing powers, divination, etc.)
> >
> > This is considered an obstacle by most Zen teachers I've known or read about.
>
> we dump everybody after 1100 AD! Japan makes Ch'an so strict and
> authoritarian~~somehow goes 'against the grain' if you know what I mean..??
no i don't. the Japanese priests i have met are not authoritarian. now i
understand i may have been lucky but your phrase sets up a
Japanese=authoritarian stereotype that seems to be inconsistent with
your view that not seeing differences is more healthy.
> > 2. How to rule, or not be ruled. Social and political dynamics and anarchy.
>
> yes, true! Taoism is practical and sometimes political. Dumping that part may
> have been what lead Japan to its tyrannical phase perhap.
setting up another difference?
tjn
>
> toshu:
> [I edited out the garbage]
> [...]
> >presbyterianism apart from christianity and no 'complete reality school'
> >apart from taoism.
>
> >zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
> >complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
> >shi'a islam yet another collective,
> >
> >these collectives are all empty labels, generalizations.
> >the individual paths is what counts.
>
> >distinctions.
>
> >precisely
> >to justify the imposition of State Shinto control over Buddhist and
> >Christian
> >institutions in Japan and the consequent militarization of the country
> >in
> >
> >you can just as easily use an ideology of harmony as a justification for
> >war
> >and genocide as an ideology of differentiation.
> >
> >ideas themselves are not sufficient as guarantors of morality or freedom
> >from the horror of gratuitous suffering.
>
> and the fact that such wise words get lost in that long-ass garble.
thanks for editing the essence Diane. this is the main point.
don't worry about my head and the wall, no headache :-)
tjn
>
> David Oller wrote in message
> snip
> >
> >|the answer is obvious.
> >|zen buddhism is merely one collective of individual paths,
> >|complete reality taoism is yet another collective,
> >|shi'a islam yet another collective,
> >
> Ought not confuse the map with the path.
yes. the complete reality school is a denomination of Taoism.
> snip
>
> : "We don't give a damn what you believe!" You bring beliefs here and you
> are
> >going to have them bashed against the rocks--simple as that!
> >
> Brings to mind that someone said, "That which doesn't destroy us makes
> us stronger."
> Which brought to mind a thought of that which we don't destroy gets
> stronger.
>
> But that brings to mind some thought a character I write about thought.
> He sought to learn the nature of evil and found himself. discovering
> evil to be mainly manefestation of fear and ignorance.
> So in seeking to know fear he sought to embrace it and it fled.
> He sought knowledge of ignorance and it faded
being friendly with one's demons ids the only way to stop suffering from
them.
if you repress them, they feed on it.
"flowers wither as we admire them,
weeds grow stronger as we long for their destruction"
tjn
we make choices, distinctions until we die.