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. Grasshopper
________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 4:13 PM Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism 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, > Â > 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'. > Â > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011 4:56 PM > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > Â > 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 > > >
