Path: Supernews69!supernews.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: nedludd@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd)
Newsgroups: alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,talk.religion.buddhism
Subject: Buddhist professors  (was: Zen, Orientation and Buddhism)
Date: 7 Jul 1997 18:56:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <5pre4j$19m@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3392ee8a.4147089@news.mindspring.com> <5mvbpn$qtc@news.jhu.edu> <33aecc14.16864019@news.mindspring.com> <5nn4nt$ipq@kudo20.kudonet.com> <33a0505f.21768661@news.mindspring.com> <33A18838.ADB@idt.net> <33a62bde.2554423@news.mindspring.com> <5oo4tg$9n0@kudo20.kudonet.com> <5ounh0$3j8@news.jhu.edu> <5pc0rl$8v6@camel3.mindspring.com> <5pdnl8$hk@news.jhu.edu> <5pe9fo$aj4@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <5pgb4e$t6@news.jhu.edu> <5pjom7$5lg@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <5pmejh$996@camel3.mindspring.com> <5pqsvs
$6d0@news.jhu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mil-wi8-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Jul 07 11:56:19 AM PDT 1997
Xref: Supernews69 alt.zen:66590 alt.philosophy.zen:15883 talk.religion.buddhism:38101

In <5pqsvs$6d0@news.jhu.edu> Joe <hark@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> writes: 

Ned wrote:
>>> In our culture, a person can be a Christian without belonging
>>> to any Christian sect.  Too bad that doesn't apply to your
>>> conception of Buddhism, Joe.

Joe:
>>> Nice point, Ned.

Ned:
>> I doubt it.

Foot:
> Good doubt Ned!

Joe:
> Yes, it is.  I thought I might toss in that faux acknowledgement
> of Ned's point because I didn't have time to reply in full.
> Obviously, it's a stupid objection, because I was very clearly
> speaking of those who (for some inexplicable reason or another)
> *profess* to be Buddhists.  Clearly, one could point to a 
> friendly neighborhood rock as embodying the qualities of a
> Buddhist better than most Buddhists.  Extrapolating, the entire
> universe becomes Buddhist, so the term "Buddhist" becomes
> utterly meaningless.  And then cats are dogs, green is white,
> purple trees sleep profoundly during football games, and nothing
> means everything and yin is yang and the absolute is the relative
> and samsara is nirvana and death is life etc etc etc, as well.
>
> Is *that* why the Buddha walked the earth?
>

  Whoa, Kimosabi!  Lets take these one at a time:  (Ha.)

> Yes, it is.  I thought I might toss in that faux acknowledgement
> of Ned's point because I didn't have time to reply in full.
> Obviously, it's a stupid objection, because I was very clearly
> speaking of those who (for some inexplicable reason or another)
> *profess* to be Buddhists.

  You must be leaving something out of your indictment, because
  they ALL *profess* to be Buddhists.  You just have standards
  that preclude your ACCEPTING some as Buddhists.

> Clearly, one could point to a friendly neighborhood rock as 
> embodying the qualities of a Buddhist better than most Buddhists.

  Well, they sure have zazen down cold.

> Extrapolating, the entire universe becomes Buddhist, so the term
> "Buddhist" becomes utterly meaningless.

  No, not meaningless.  It simply becomes impossible to differentiate
  and discriminate.  You can no longer tell your baby from any other
  baby - you will have to love them all equally.  Scary stuff, huh?

> And then cats are dogs, green is white, purple trees sleep profoundly
> during football games, and nothing means everything and yin is yang 
> and the absolute is the relative and samsara is nirvana and death is
> life etc etc etc, as well.

  I think you've got it.  Cats being dogs, green being white, and yin
  being yang shouldn't be a problem for a Buddhist.  Is it for you?

> Is *that* why the Buddha walked the earth?

  Yes.  All things are in nirvana from the beginning.  The only thing
  that separates them is a fevered brain.

                                                  Ned


(P.S. Purple trees and I sleep profoundly during football games.)