XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Tang wrote about:   
      
   > ... ... ...   
   >Terminology aside, this passage is a spectacular summary   
   >of the topic of the whole and its parts, and their relations,   
   >in Stoicism, Daoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. However I   
   >know of no such identification amongst white scholars,   
   >who almost universally take it as pure Hegelian creation,   
   >i. e., western creation, but not even borrowed from   
   >Stoicism.   
      
   I have no idea what constitutes white scholars in your view.   
      
   Does being a white scholar exclude being a mystic?   
      
   Most all forms of mysticism can be lumped into New Age   
   or New Thought or some other all-encompassing category,   
   going back to gnosticism and before then.   
      
   Maybe all the white mystics were banned as heretics   
   no matter how much scholarship went into their writings,   
   and, hence, they are not considered white scholars   
   in your view of what white scholars are.   
      
   Is there a date in time   
   at which these white scholars of yours appear?   
   And before which did not exist?   
      
   Can a white poet be a scholar?   
   Or does poetry exclude one from being one?   
      
   I'm thinking about the likes of James, Emerson, Dickinson,   
   and others who  might have been white, but I don't know.   
   Nor if they'd be considered to be scholars who identify   
   with some sort of mystical or religious experience.   
      
   Are Middle Easterners and Muslims white?   
   Or are all white scholars European Christians?   
      
   Why carve people into white and non-white?   
   Are all non-white people Asians in your view?   
      
   What's up with that?   
      
   - just curious   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)