Iain,

In Taoist cosmology, I only care to go back as far as the One.

Old Lao himself warns us NOT to speak of the "Tao".  So I won't.  Speaking of 
the Tao reveals an embarrassing fact about the speaker.  ;-)

(he tells that those who speak of it, themselves don't know it from Shine-ola).

You may be right that there is a difference between no-mind and the experience 
of no-mind.  But I don't think you can prove it (i.e., I don't think the 
difference can be shown).

To me it seems a metaphysical statement, ...the kind of thing about which the 
Buddha maintained a Noble Silence.

(as toward the famous Fourteen Questions the Buddha refused to answer, "the" 
so-called Avyakrita).

These are/were things that the Buddha said, "Do not conduce toward 
Enlightenment".  

Maybe so... but here, anything goes.  ;-)

Best,

--Joe


> "iain"  wrote:
>
> Hi Joe, thanks for the reply, I've made a few comments below.
> 
> --- In [email protected], "Joe"  wrote:
> > 
> > As Buddhists, where no God is postulated, we nonetheless speak of the 
> > Absolute and the Relative; or, as these ideas from Taoism are called, the 
> > One, and the 10000 Things.
> >
> 
> I thought the absolute in Taoism would be the eternal Tao not the one.
> 
>  First there was the eternal Tao
>  from the Tao came the one
>  from the one came the two
>  from the two came the three
>  from the three came the ten thousand other things.
> 
> Isn't the one, two and the three, the observer, the act of observation and 
> the object observed and from this comes the ten thousand things. Isn't the 
> one the first act of seperation from the Tao?
> 
> 
>  --- In [email protected], "Joe"  wrote:
> 
> > In Zen practice, we can awaken, and indeed experience and live from 
> > Emptiness, which may otherwise be called no-mind.  That is rather a boring 
> > state, although it is wonderful.  Some prefer the busy, active, 
> > manufactured, illusory mind, full of illusions and playful things, and a 
> > "self", all of which are, however, also painful, due to Impermanence and 
> > Dukha.
> >
> 
>  Yes, but the rub is, is that the experiencer, the experience and the act of 
> experiencing are merged in the full state of no-mind and this state cannot be 
> experienced, the experience comes when you have actually seperated from 
> no-mind.It cannot be boring or wonderful, this is simply a judgement of the 
> state of no-mind in retrospect once one has seperated from the non experience 
> of no-mind. There is a difference between no-mind and the experience of 
> no-mind.
> 
>                               Iain.



------------------------------------

Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to