Well said. It is exactly the stuff that i was arguing with these buddhists and some of them even got mad at me. LOL. I was really surprised at that time because like what you said buddhists being wise and reasonable, practice some form of detachment but yet they displayed the same behavior as would believers of abrahamic religions, taunting and cursing.

Buddhism is a religion and it has supernatural elements. While it's philosophical views of life may be enlightening, you need to have faith to believe.

So what does zen buddhism have?

So zen is nothing more than living your life the way you want to?

I am really living my life as it is. Is that zen then? Or is there something I miss in my life?

How does something supernatural for the uninitiated is natural for the initiated?

Faith in driving is very different from faith in the supernatural. I can and do drive and I can demonstrate to you that I can drive eventually (after some training). My faith in something natural is very different from faith in something supernatural. Or to put that in an extreme example, how do you know your faith is not about something that does not exist?

---

Added on August 15, 2010, 10:41 amSo what is zen then, if there is nothing more than living?

This post has been edited by SpikeMarlene: Aug 15 2010, 10:45 AM

Can you give some examples?

That is not the meaning of living to the fullest. That is being aware of every single action in one's life, which I think is pretty stressful. Being aware is a good thing but being forcefully aware of every single action is hard and stressful. But why would I want to do that since living to the fullest means I enjoy my life to the fullest, of course within certain limits?

What would a blind person see? By saying something unknown and that explains supernatural (another unknown), what are you trying to explain?
The important point here is I can demonstrate my driving to you. Why? Because driving is a natural thing. How would that apply for a supernatural experience?

In other words you cannot explain what it is you are talking about. It is true because I said so, right?
Here again you claim supernatural experiences are natural only to those who know them, so your argument is basically this. I cannot explain or describe it to you but it's true. Believe me. That line of reasoning has been used ad nausem. You are not spiritually attuned, you would not be able to see the invisible unicorn.

---

Added on August 16, 2010, 11:42 amI disagree. I enjoy my coffee while having a light conversation with my friend. Or reading the newspaper. Or casually looking into the distance while taking nice slow sips. To me by not being fully aware at that spilt second moment is joyful. I am not sure if you are conflating the issue of not being aware at all, like a person lost in a fantasy, to that of casual awareness which to me is sufficient to enjoy life to the fullest. Since this is quite subjective, I think it will be hard for everyone to agree that being fully aware at every moment is joyful. Again that is subjective what is meant by full and complete awareness.

But here I feel that somehow, there is a necessity for zen practitioner to be fully aware. Why is that? What is the benefit to be fully aware when I can enjoy my life by being casually aware. Well I can raise my awareness depends on the circumstances, like when I feel there is a thief in the house and I am creeping towards the source of the noise.
I have been to many meditation camps and I know (and also from talking to other practitioners at that time) it was quite stressful to silent one's mind and focus it to what is now.

This post has been edited by SpikeMarlene: Aug 16 2010, 11:42 AM

I would somewhat disagree with carl sagan. Why? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you are expecting it. If you would apply this quote on something that is completely unknown, which you cannot anticipate the outcome from absence of evidence, then it is reasonable to say we do not know what this means, hence we cannot rule out it's existence.

However for example, a suspect was found bleeding with cut wound on his finger and he was accused of fighting with the victim which he denied. You expect to find traces of the suspect's blood at the crime scene and on the victim's bloodied clothing but you found none that belongs to the suspect. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you are expecting it.

Yes, but how do you know? What do you expect to find to prove your suspicion is valid? If you cannot find it what should you conclude?

So what would the CSI conclude? That he is still guilty because they suspect he is hiding some evidence? If you expect the evidence to be there but you cannot find, what can you conclude? On top of that how do you know your suspicion is correct, that he is hiding evidence. You don't know, so as far as we are concern, as long as there is an absence of evidence, it is the evidence of absence when you expect it. Of course this is an example in principle of how investigation of reality proceeds and science does it a lot better because science can take it's time to grill the suspect to death and test it hundreds of times to make sure it is correct.