Re: Horses beaten, not stirred.

Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:

> "John Harshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>
>>Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Harshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>There's a difference between chemistry and biology even though it may
>>>>>
> be
> 
>>>>>difficult to identify the dividing line. I'm happy to think of biology
>>>>>(life) as just a complicated form of chemistry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Sort of sensible if you like Zen.
>>>>
>>>curiosity question, how is it zen?
>>>
>>
>>Well, it doesn appear to be a contradiction, doesn't it? The first
>>sentence says that there's a difference, and the second says they're the
>>same. If you meditate upon both at once you may achieve enlightenment. Mu.
>>
> 
> yeh, but does a dog have buddha-nature.


You mean, "Does a dead dog have buddha-nature?"

>  i find
> zen totally inaccessible.  i don't know why it is
> so popular among westerners (compared with
> other forms.  altho there seem to be also a good
> number of vahajaranists).
> 
> no, i didn't see the contradiction.  if you draw the
> venn diagram of what (s)he said, you have biology
> as a subset of chemistry.  it doesn't say they are the
> same.  the part about it being different doesn't really
> make sense, though. biology will be different than the
> parts of chemistry that are not involved in the study of
> biology, i guess.


Which is why I see it as a contradiction.