Bill, I will continue to challenge you to fly, even if you have the help of the giant hand of God.
Anthony --- On Sat, 15/1/11, Bill! <billsm...@hhs1963.org> wrote: From: Bill! <billsm...@hhs1963.org> Subject: Re: [Zen] Differences Tao/Chan, which older To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 15 January, 2011, 8:10 AM ED. I agree. What I was trying to impress upon Kristy and Anthony, especially Anthony, is that beliefs are not something to diparage. Beliefs are good. They're all you have. I think the problem is when you mix up beliefs and explanations. Anthony keeps bringing up gravity and challenges me to fly. I believe I walk on the earth and cannot soar up into the sky. An explanation of that obervation/experience is gravity, but there could be other explanations - like a giant invisable hand of God keeps me earthbound. Different explanations are more or less useful in different circumstancews. Gravity is just the one that is in vogue right now. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote: > > > > 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain <healthyplay1@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > So is "just this". k ;) > > > > > > Science is a belief system...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com> , 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 >