Bill, The story of turtles cannot stand proof, but quarks, dinosaurs, supernova... can. Science and history are as much a belief system as the knowledge that jumping from a nine story building without your psychic guru will get killed. They are less of that than Yehowa asking you to kill the people you conquered, and Buddha presenting a flower at the Vulture Peak. Anthony
________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 9:27 AM Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Anthony, ...and is the endless series of turtles any less of a belief system than our theory of matter, molecules, atoms, atomic particles, hadrons, quarks, etc..ad infinitum? ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Historical facts and science are NOT based on a belief system. Many times > they run counter each other. For instance, a scientist was lecturing on our > solar system of the earth rotating around the sun. A woman rose from seat and > declared it nonsense. She said, 'the earth is flat, supported by a huge > turtle.' 'Who supports the turtle?', she was asked. 'Oh, you stupid. It is > supported by another turtle. And still anothor turtle. It is turtles all the > way down.' That is a belief system. >  > Grasshopper > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 4:13 PM > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > >  > Anthony, > > And so, little grasshopper, are you saying that 'historical facts' and > 'science' aren't based on a belief system? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > Belief systems and historical facts are different things. It is OK to deify > > Buddha in sutras or any scriptures compiled in the name of Buddha, as long > > as you bear that in mind. However, historical facts such as the real life > > of Buddha and that of the sixth Patriarch had better be maintained in as > > close to history as possible. I consider the latter a 'science'. > >  > > Anthony > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011 4:56 PM > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > >  > > Anthony and ED, > > > > I don't take any of the Sutras or the story of the Flower Sermon as > > absolute fact. I just assume they are mythic to a greater or lessor extent. > > Whether or not any of these things written about in the Sutras, the Bible > > or any other Holy Books actually happened is not important to me. > > > > I still believe the 'seeds' of Buddhism are containted in the Sutras; the > > 'seed' of Zen is revealed in the Flower Sermon; and the 'seed' of zen > > (Buddha Nature) already exists in every sentient being. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > All teachings are continually evolving. See: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature> > > > > > > I find the Flower Sutra to be magnificent. Anyway, what matter to me is > > > that the Flower Sutra edifies and inspires me - and that's all that > > > matters to me. > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ED, > > > > > > > > If the Flower Sermon appeared in the 14th century, while the Buddha > > > lived in the 6th Century BC, what happened in the 2,000 year gap? Did > > > the physical Buddha returned from the grave to transmit the dharma? Or > > > the 'dharmakaya' of the Buddha showed up to spread the untold teaching? > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > >
