Bill!, For once I agree with you. It is Siddharta himself who claims that zen existed before him, as he often said he taught an ancient way. Now it is your job to prove who practiced zzzzzen before Siddharta. Which sage or saint did it? Anthony
________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 10:58 Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen Anthony, I've addressed most of your questions a post just prior to this - my 'going out on a limb' post. But there is one thing you wrote I want to clarify - remind you of actually... As you know I draw a distinction between 'Zen' and what I call 'zen'. 'Zen' is 'Zen Buddhism' and 'zen' is what I practice and is the 'awareness of Buddha Nature'. So, you certainly could say 'Zen' (Zen Buddhism) did not exist before Siddhartha Buddha, but I maintain 'zen' (awareness of Buddha Nature) did exist long before Siddhartha Buddha and I've climbed out on a limb to convince you of that. ...Bill! --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, >  > Siddharta did not invent Buddha Nature. Like you say, he discovered an > awereness of Buddha Nature. that is what he means by stressing that he > teaches an ancient way. Zen is not equal to Buddha Nature. It is the way to > be aware of Buddha Nature, like you mean. If you agree to that, are you sure > zen predates Buddhism? then who practiced zen before Buddhism? What was it > like before Buddhism was born? >  > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 18:23 > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > >  > Anthony, > > When I say 'zen' I usually use that term to mean 'an awareness of Buddha > Nature'. So when I say 'zen existed before Buddha or Buddhism' what I mean is > Buddha Nature existed before Buddha and Buddhism. What else do you think? Do > you think Buddha (Siddhartha) INVENTED Buddha Nature? Or did he just > 'discover' it? And if you think he discovered it do you think he was the > first one to discover it? I don't. > > ...Bill! > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > Something zen-like may predate Buddhism. It may have been practised by > > people of the Indus Valley before the 'Arians' came to India. However, > > Sakymuni started Buddhism, followed by many modifications up to mahayana. > > Eventually your techer Mr Frontcorner took it up and taught you. That is > > what I call zen developed from Buddhism, not from Christianity or Islam. It > > does not contradict your statement that zen predates Buddhism and me and > > your good self. Still, how do you prove that something called zen existed > > well before the Buddha? > >  > > Anthony > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2012, 18:06 > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > >  > > Anthony, > > > > No, zen predates Buddhism, Siddhartha Buddha and all the other Buddhas. Zen > > predates everything except perhaps 'sentient-ness'. So maybe the first > > sentient being (Adam?) could be called the first Buddha, but after that all > > sentient beings possessed Buddha Nature. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > >  > > > Your 'zen' also developed from mahayana Buddhism. Otherwise, where did it > > > come from? If you say from Christianity, the devil and angel will both be > > > after you. > > >  > > > anthony > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Monday, 23 July 2012, 9:32 > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > > > >  > > > ED, > > > > > > My response below assumes by 'chan' and 'zen' you mean 'Chinese Chan > > > Buddhism' and 'Japanese Zen Buddhism'. Anyway, my response below is > > > limited to my knowledge of those... > > > > > > I only know of Chan from what I've read and the excellent information > > > JMJM has given us through his posts. From these I do think there is a > > > little difference between Chinese Chan Buddhism and Japanese Zen > > > Buddhism, but most of that I see are due to the different cultural > > > wrappings of each. There are many more parallels and similarities than > > > differences. They are both from the school of Mahayana Buddhism. If I > > > were to grab any one difference to emphasize I would say Chan Buddhism is > > > a little more mystical than Japanese Zen Buddhism but that's about all. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill and JM, > > > > > > > > Do either of you perceive any substantive difference between chan and > > > > zen? > > > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > >
