Hello, --- In [email protected], "Bill Smart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, I do want to > comment on Tomek's reply above: > > I agree with Tomek that in the context of this discussion about >philosophy > and philosophers that any controversial statements ought to be >able to be > backed up with some 'proof'; be that argument or citing some >sources. That > is the nature of philosophy. > > Discussions about zen are not necessarily the same since zen is >not the same > as philosophy. Zen does not put any value in logical arguments >and very > little value in citing statements by other people.
But I considered the discussion as a discussion about philosophy in relation to Zen. >Zen is more >about what > YOU have to say (or do, or not do) - right NOW - as a response to >THIS > SITUATION; and not what someone else said at some other time in >some other, > even seemingly similar, situation. I wouldn't agree with that. As I understand Zen relies on personal experience but it doesn't really rely on personal opinion. > > Even in discussion about philosophy, if you actually have an >ORIGINAL > thought you wouldn't be able to cite other sources, although you >should be > able to discuss it and present your arguments. Totally agree. That's way I asked Jonathan for prooving his statement. Kind regards, Tomek ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give the gift of hope to an orphaned child this holiday season. Become a sponsor>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ZEPhsD/1RCMAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> 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/
