The worst kind of bullshit is that which comes dressed up to look very nearly like insight and happens to include a ‘if you don’t agree you are naive/unsophiscated/unenlighted/possibly heretical’.
You have much to learn. The Zen that can be accurately criticized is not the true Zen.
The source of existence does not itself exist. The necessary precondition for a property can never possess that property itself.
This would be clearer if you could explicitly state what you mean when you assert that something exists, but I very strongly suspect you can’t do so. (You’re hardly alone in this, so it’s no particular shame if it’s the case.) I could of course be mistaken.
You have much to learn. The Zen that can be accurately criticized is not the true Zen.
Just like a Westerner to paraphrase Taoism when commenting on Zen.
I’m a Zen Taoist—I worship an unspeakable shapeless void that doesn’t exist.
That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me.
The source of existence does not itself exist. The necessary precondition for a property can never possess that property itself.
This would be clearer if you could explicitly state what you mean when you assert that something exists, but I very strongly suspect you can’t do so. (You’re hardly alone in this, so it’s no particular shame if it’s the case.) I could of course be mistaken.