Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!micomvax!visosky
From: visosky@micomvax.UUCP (John Visosky)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: first *real* message in talk.philosophy.misc
Message-ID: <611@micomvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 18:22:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: micomvax.611
Posted: Thu Sep 11 18:22:24 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Sep-86 07:15:02 EDT
References: <2526@cbosgd.UUCP> <4069@reed.UUCP> <4071@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: visosky@micomvax.UUCP (John Visosky)
Organization: Philips Information Systems - St. Laurent  P.Q., Canada
Lines: 30

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