To find out when the BOT will be published, I recommend contacting the top manager at The Dawn Horse Press.

+1

+1

+2

Personally I’m tolerant towards people of any religion as long as they can tolerate my choice of not practicing any religion. People these days seem to be able to overcome personal differences between each other as long as there is not religion/politics involved.

I’m not tolerant towards any form of religious fanatism. I do not tolerate mullah’s who preach about world domination, literally following the hadith and using the prophet as an excuse for causing harm on other people.

As long as people practice religion on a personal, peaceful and non intrusive way I see no problems to not tolerate religious people.

Arts can bring people together showing that regardless of religion it’s still possible to have common passions, common interests and give an opportunity to see other sides of each other besides religion.

People are free to disagree. but it’s still possible to accept each others differences.

+2

+2

I don’t agree that we will reach our fullest potential by indulging in sexual acts and gratification. No doubt most people will indulge to excess and destroy themselves slowly but surely. The mistake that I think we sometimes make, is to think that we are strong, durable, unshakable, beyond the law of cause and effect. If we trample on the creative laws and directive, we will have to face the consequences. We lie to ourselves by believing that we are somehow separate from nature. I mean just because we are destroying and exploiting nature, doesn’t mean we are not part of it. And thus, we think that by ignoring the laws of nature, we can create man made laws that will serve the same purpose and replace it. We kid ourselves. We make the biggest mistake by denying the fact that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And boy have we done enough damage as it is. But we will not stop, we refuse to realize as the human race of planet earth, that overpopulation is the root cause to all the problems we face. WE refuse to accept that we are ourselves to blame for the mess that the planet is in. But by denying the truth, doesn’t mean that the pendulum of cause and effect wont bare the force of its full brunt. Our excessive proliferation if the species have brought us to where we are today. And yet, still there are some scientists and know it alls, who claim that the planet still has much space left over for growth.

So, we have made our bed, now we will have to sleep in it. We will not be saved.

0

+1

I am inspired in the same way you are by this tale, but there is a factual correction to make:

Although it is a common mistake on websites dealing with Wonhyo,
There is no way Wonhyo was a Zen/Seon Monk.

Wonhyo never heard of Zen. Nobody Wonhyo ever met heard of Zen. Nobody Wonhyo met had ever met anyone who had ever heard of Zen.

There is no way Wonhyo was a Zen/Seon Monk.

Let’s ignore the difference between Zen (Japanese) and Seon (Korean), although there are real differences in the ways those traditions deal with koans, teacher-student relationships, etc… But for our purposes, lets pretend Seon and Zen are the same thing.
——————-

Wonhyo lived from 617 to 686.

Doui introdued Seon/Zen to the Korean peninsula in 821.

——————-

Was Wonhyo a proto-Zen monk?
Depending on what you mean, you can make this case. Recognize, though, that much of what Wonhyo said and did, the Zen tradition rejects. And vice versa. So it would not be fair to call Wonhyo a Zen monk. Let’s look at it more closely:

Wonhyo was influenced by the Huayan school.
Huayan is similar in some ways with Zen
Huayan, centuries later, developed a very close relationship with Zen.

The problem is, Wonhyo was not a Huayan Buddhist. He was influenced by them, but he was influenced by many schools.
Take Uisang, who was Wonhyo’s friend. Uisang was a Huayan Buddhist.
Was Uisang a Zen monk?
No, because Huayan at the time of Wonhyo/Uisang was different from the Huayan that merged with Zen centuries later. And, Huayan retains some difference with the dominant Korean Zen practice even today.
So, they are not identical, and although we could say Uisang’s tradition was pretty close to the Zen tradition, it is dishonest to say Uisang was a Zen monk.
——————-
So, Uisang wasn’t quite Zen… how about Wonhyo?

Wonhyo differed greatly from the Huayan Buddhism of his time – that’s why he refused to join them. Instead, Wonhyo’s Buddhism is an ecclectic compilation of many schools, and cannot be simplified into any one of his influences.

So, Wonhyo was not a Zen monk, by any sensible definition.

Some of Wonhyo’s writings were accepted by Zen, and influenced Zen a great deal, so he is not totally distinct of them, but claiming Wonhyo was a Zen monk is anachronistic and unfair to the complexity of that great scholar.

0

Could you expand on this? What evidence did you find to support it?

+1