Bill, If jumping from a high building will get oneself killed is not real, I don't know what is real. Do you want to try it to find whether it is real? 'Only just this is real is another of your belief system. Anthony
________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 9:00 AM Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Anthony, You're partially correct. That is part of my belief system, but it's not real - it's just a belief system. Only Just THIS! is real. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, >  > So that is your belief system, and it is real. >  > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, 30 October 2011 4:52 PM > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > >  > Anthony, > > If you're asking would I jump off a 9-story building, the answer is no, and > the reason is because I would be afraid of getting hurt or killed. And yes, > this is because of my belief in cause-and-effect. > > If you're asking about the raw experience of jumping off a 9-story building > I'd say the experience when you landed would be pretty severe and your > discriminating mind probably wouldn't have much of a chance to create such > determinations as 'gee, this hurts', or 'this is bad', or 'I don't think I'll > do that again!'. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > While I can see that your statement regarding Buddha Nature experience > > makes (zen) sense. You have to explain the cause and effect of a person > > jumping from a nine story building. Does it have a determinant effect? Is > > it 'raw'? > >  > > Anthony > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: Zen_Forum@ > > Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 10:29 AM > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > >  > > Anthony, > > > > Quarks, dinosaurs, etc..., can only stand up to 'proof' if you have faith > > in the 'proof', have faith in the scientific method, have faith in logic > > and human concept of cause-and-effect. > > > > All belief systems are built on faith, and science is such a system. > > > > Only raw, un-filtered, un-censored, un-interpreted, un-categorized, > > un-valuated sensory experience (Buddha Nature) can be accpeted without > > faith. It is the only real thing you have. All else are concepts and > > beliefs - and are based on faith, not immediate, raw experience. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > 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! <BillSmart@> > > > 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. > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Grasshopper > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 4:13 PM > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > 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, > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > 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'. > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011 4:56 PM > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
