One of the Zen koans is "Show me your original face before you were born."
Edgar On Jul 30, 2012, at 12:50 AM, Bill! wrote: > Anthony, > > To paraphrase a bastard Jew...'Before Siddhartha was born, I am.' > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > > > 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! <BillSmart@...> > > 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, > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > 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. > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Monday, 23 July 2012, 9:32 > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
