They burn people don't they

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"I have very likely read more books on/of Taoism and Buddhism than anyone on these forums."

Quite an un-Zen like attitude this, but if you say so.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way is guesstimating probabilities "un Zen-like"?


[ QUOTE ]
By the way , what is a book of Buddhism? (A book that's been blessed by you, perhaps?..)

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple books of Buddhism would be the Heart Sutra and the Diamond (or Diamond Cutter) Sutra. (A couple books of Taoism would be Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu.)


[ QUOTE ]
"It is erroneous to claim that Taoism and Buddhism are not religions but philosophies only."

Zeno did not once mention the word "Buddhism" in his post explaining things to you! You are trying to shift again, but, as always, Zen master, you fall down with a thud.

(Get up quickly and pretend it's part of the routine.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say Zeno mentioned the word 'Buddhism'. I didn't say Zeno said Buddhism or Taoism was 'only' a philosophy (although at times,others have said or implied such on these forums). I was not trying to refute a claim by you or Zeno by mentioning what I mentioned. I was merely offering relevant information.

Again: please strive to learn the art of reading precisely, dear Cyrus. I was not trying to shift anything (nor do I feel I am anywhere near being a Zen Master).

[Cyrus]

"In what way is guesstimating probabilities "un Zen-like"?"

Guesstimating (!) is not what's un-Zen like, master. Arrogance and presumptuousness is. (As in "I have very likely done XYZ more than anyone on these forums". How the fuck do you know jack shit about the majority of the people posting here? Not to mention those just lurking - and laughing at your Grasshopper whoppers.)

"A couple books of Buddhism would be the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra."

You didn't get it. No big deal. Life's too short.

"I didn't say Zeno mentioned the word 'Buddhism'. I was merely offering relevant information."

Did you learn all that weaselling by reading yer Tao, Grasshopper? Because that sure is some prime time weaselling!

Let me refresh your synapses: I wrote that most religions are guilty of hideous crimes. You questioned that claim by saying that Taoism was never guilty of any crime. Zeno corrected your half-learned ass by pointing out (politely, I'd day) that, ahem, well, Taoism is NOT a religion.

Alright so far? (Or do you enjoy replays of it?)

To which you responded that Taoism "and Buddhism" ("And Buddhism" - where the hell that came from??) are "not religions but also philosophies". Wow. Really? And what's that got to do with your dispute of my original claim?

Which was this, for yer pleasure: Almost all religions, and especially the monotheistic ones, are guilty of hideous crimes against humanity, including the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children.

Read the above until penetration to the brain is achieved and then practice your mantras in the lotus position. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] And stop disputing the above statement.

[MMMMMM]

"Guesstimating (!) is not what's un-Zen like, master. Arrogance and presumptuousness is. (As in "I have very likely done XYZ more than anyone on these forums". How the [censored] do you know jack [censored] about the majority of the people posting here? Not to mention those just lurking - and laughing at your Grasshopper whoppers.)"

Which is precisely why I qualified my statement with the word "likely. Of course, there may be some others on these forums who have read upwards of 40 books on/of Buddhism and Taoism, also. It has long been a hobby of mine, starting in early high school (which was over 25 years ago).


"Let me refresh your synapses: I wrote that most religions are guilty of hideous crimes. You questioned that claim by saying that Taoism was never guilty of any crime. Zeno corrected your half-learned ass by pointing out (politely, I'd day) that, ahem, well, Taoism is NOT a religion."

I think Zeno pointed out that Taoism more resembles a philosophy than a religion. Others have said the same about Buddhism. While this is in part true ideologically, it is not so when it comes to practice, organization, or ritual. Both abovementioned religions are rich in ritual, tradition, and so forth--even in worship. Hence, even though they are not theistic religions, they are indeed religions--not merely philosophies.


"Alright so far? (Or do you enjoy replays of it?)

To which you responded that Taoism "and Buddhism" ("And Buddhism" - where the hell that came from??) are "not religions but also philosophies". Wow. Really? And what's that got to do with your dispute of my original claim?

Which was this, for yer pleasure: Almost all religions, and especially the monotheistic ones, are guilty of hideous crimes against humanity, including the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children."

I would agree that followers of monotheistic (and some pantheistic) religions have done the most slaughter in the names of their religions. I am not aware of any slaughter done by or for Taoism, however, and I would suspect slaughter by Buddhists to have been rare in historical terms.

As for Islam and Christianity, the injunctions of the prophet Mohammed (which are purported to be the Word of Allah) frequently advocate slaughter or the use of force, whereas the injunctions of Jesus do not. That however has not stopped vast numbers of Christians from engaging in slaughter under the guise of religion.