trost@reed.UUCP (Bill Trost) (09/10/86)
Ok, enough of this playing around. Let's start discussing some philosophy. I propose a discussion on Oriental philosophies/religions. What makes them philosophical or religious? What are their tenants? How did they develop? (What time is it? :-) Disclaimer: Don't ask me, I don't even work here. Bill Trost student, Rude -- oops, Reed -- College trost@reed.UUCP
visosky@micomvax.UUCP (John Visosky) (09/12/86)
In article <4071@reed.UUCP> trost@reed.UUCP (Bill Trost) writes: > >Ok, enough of this playing around. Let's start discussing some philosophy. > >I propose a discussion on Oriental philosophies/religions. What makes them >philosophical or religious? What are their tenants? How did they develop? >(What time is it? :-) > >Disclaimer: Don't ask me, I don't even work here. > >Bill Trost >student, Rude -- oops, Reed -- College >trost@reed.UUCP Inquiring about the "tenants" of a religion may give a whole new meaning to the term "landLORD". I believe you meant "tenets". (tenet: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true, especially one held in common by members of an organization, group, movement, or profession.) In answer to your proposal, I'll suggest leaving Zen Buddhism out of the discussion. I recently picked up a book about the subject, and in browsing through it before reading it I came to the last page where it was admitted "There is nothing in it" (i.e. Zen Buddhism). It's amazing that a religion/philosophy survives which candidly admits its own uselessness. JV
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (09/12/86)
In article <4071@reed.UUCP> trost@reed.UUCP (Bill Trost) writes: > >Ok, enough of this playing around. Let's start discussing some philosophy. > And while we're at it, let's do so philosophically! ;^) -bob.
dpw@rayssd.UUCP (Darryl P. Wagoner) (09/15/86)
> > In answer to your proposal, I'll suggest leaving Zen Buddhism out of > the discussion. I recently picked up a book about the subject, and > in browsing through it before reading it I came to the last page where > it was admitted "There is nothing in it" (i.e. Zen Buddhism). It's > amazing that a religion/philosophy survives which candidly admits > its own uselessness. > It sounds like to me that this paragraph is a clever way of starting a discussion about Zen Buddhism. At one point in time I called myself a Zen Buddhist and some times I still do (Depending on the company I am with). I feed that "There is nothing in it" has been taken out of context. Of course to define Zen is to define it wrong. Because of this, I think to "leave out Zen because some book said that 'There is nothing in it'" is kinda oneside. -- Darryl Wagoner Raytheon Co.; Portsmouth RI; (401)-847-8000 x4089 best path {allegra|gatech|mirror|raybed2} ---------\ next best {linus|ihnp4|pyrbos} ---------------------->!rayssd!dpw if all else fails {brunix|cci632} -------------------------/