Kristy/ED, I can live with 'my way is the right way'. But I am amused at 'my way is the only right one'. Buddha was mortal, but his idea is immortal. Immortality does not mean it lasts forever. Buddha gave his teachings a life of 500 years. After that would come another 500 years of something similar to Buddhism. Following that would be corrupt and chaotic forms of the teachings. Please note the expiry of the first 500 years roughly corresponds to the appearance of mahayana. This idea is similar to Buddhism, either for the better or for the worse. Then is zen the worse way of Buddhism? I believe not. The smart approach is to forget Buddhism. That is where Bill got his last name.
Anthony --- On Fri, 14/1/11, Kristy McClain <[email protected]> wrote: From: Kristy McClain <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Differences Tao/Chan, which older To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 14 January, 2011, 11:01 PM --- On Fri, 1/14/11, ED <[email protected]> wrote: From: ED <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Differences Tao/Chan, which older To: [email protected] Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 7:28 AM Ed, Good point. I recently listened to a discussion about the greatest danger facing those on a spiritual path, to include those who are practicing any contemplative models. That "danger" is in a belief that "This" way, or" my" way, or "this lineage", or practice is somehow "The" way. The only true way. The idea that "my" practice is the right practice. I agree with this premise. In my view, there is no one single correct way , beit for one or all beings. Asserting that "my" way is the "right" way seems to be the source of so much of the contentiousness we witness all around us. Mel pondered if my suggestion that Buddha's enlightment was impermanent, when I offered that even Buddha likely had "bad hair days". I believe everything is impermanent. I believe the Buddha was mortal. I believe centuries of mixed oral and written transmissions are imperfect records, and while there is great wisdom in the bible, sutras, and many spiritual and philosophical texts, I don't make the mistake of taking them so seriously that I become a prisoner of them. As I have said before, what works for others , is completely fine with me. I learn from other's experience and welcome the opportunity to do so. A good day to all. Kristy Bill and All, All systems, whether philosophical, psychological scientific, religious, etc. or mixed rest on basic beliefs, principles, postulates and assumptions. In Zen, for instance, some of these premises might be: o Buddha Nature is a reality o Non-rational experiencing is of the essence, and the rational mind is a delusion o Realizing Buddha Nature should be the primary goal of one's life o Experiencing kensho-satori is the mark of one's having commenced the process of experiencing Buddha Nature o A more ongoing experience of "Just THIS" facilitates the occurrence of kensho-satori o Regular and intense Shikantaza practice facilitates the ongoing state of "Just THIS" o No blind reliance on religious texts, but blind dependence on the guidance of Zen teachers is acceptable o An accredited Roshi is necessary to ascertain one's experience of kensho-satori o etc. Chan has a few more premises like the existence of Chi, etc. --ED --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Kristy, > > Just THIS is my attempt to communicate direct experience. > > Whether you believe that or not is up to you. > > ...Bill! > --- In [email protected], Kristy McClain healthyplay1@ wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > I disagree. It is your belief about your experience. > > > > Kristy > > Just THIS is not a belief, it is experience...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Kristy McClain <healthyplay1@> wrote: > > > > > > So is "just this". k ;) > > > Science is a belief system...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], JMJM wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello TMSO, > > > > > > > > I would say both are NOT believe systems. > > > > > > > > From my limited understanding, Tao is a system, or school well > > > > documented. It primarily focuses on attaining immortality. I mean with > > > > herbs, exercises, etc. etc. > > > > > > > > Chan is just a nick name for the entire universe for thousands of > > > > years. I was curious to its origin many years ago. I dug here and > > > > there and could not find an answer. Even Wikipedia stated, if I > > > > remember correctly, "the original of Chan can not be traced." > > > > > > > > Chan did not have an official teaching order until BodhiDharma showed > > > > up. But my teacher often pointed out how incomplete are some of the > > > > Buddhist interpretation. > > > > > > > > Our school is really about direct, really is direct, experience. That's > > > > all. > > > > > > > > Sorry, these are my best answers. JM > > > > On 1/12/2011 2:57 PM, taomtnsage1 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > To Jue Miao Jing Ming- Could you please tell me some of the > > > > > differences between Tao and Chan. Also, which belief system developed > > > > > first. Thanks for your help
