Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!agate!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: tp0x+@CS.CMU.EDU (Thomas Price)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Are Zen enlightened people superior?
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.013435.14233@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 11 Jan 91 01:34:35 GMT
References: <1991Jan10.012524.17843@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 20
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


Tom Simmonds seems to have demonstrated a better understanding of
Zen than I have in a recent post. (not surprising!)

Can we even say that it is preferable to study Zen? Or was your point that
those who have studied it should not be concerned with concepts of better
or worse? I suppose then that those who have not studied it do well to
conceive of it as "better", and to be spurred on to studying it. If, though,
Zen masters are not concerned with concepts of better or worse, can they 
encourage unenlightened people to study Zen? How then do they manage to 
communicate the benefits of enlightenment to unenlightened people if, being
enlightened themselves, considerations of "benefit" or "loss" are alien to
them? 

Help me, please, I'm wallowing in my inbred dualism here.

Tom Price
tp0x@cs.cmu.edu 			

Disclaimer: All my friends like me.