Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Mayka,

I sense a pureness in you, at least what I can see of you through 
your posts.  What I know of Thich Nhat Hanh is from reading one of 
his books, which I thought was only 'okay', and interacting with you 
on the Zen Forum.  It's my interaction with you on the Zen Forum that 
forms most of the basis for my respect of Thich Nhat Hanh.

I liked everything (again) you wrote in your post about your teacher, 
your aspirations and efforts to join his group, and your continued 
practice outside his monastic sangha.  I sense you are a serious and 
ernest student of zen.  Even the best zen master cannot guide a half-
hearted student to find his Buddha Nature, but a serious and ernest 
student can become enlightened under a poor zen master - even a fraud.

I'm not saying this to suggest in any way that Thich Nhat Hanh is not 
a good zen master.  I'm saying this to you to encourage you to 
continue to practice, even if the conditions are not the best and the 
disctractions you face seem insurmountable at times.  Your zen 
practice depends entirely on you, not Thich Nhat Hanh, although he 
can and obviously does provide encouragement, guidance and is an 
example for you to strive for.

Since you beleive in karma, I'll say the fact that you found Thich 
Nhat Hanh and that he seems to be such a well-suited teacher for you 
is your good karma.  Such good karma as that must have been built up 
over many lifetimes of living a pure life.  You deserve this 
opportunity and it sounds like you're making the best of it.

I wish you continued good luck in your practice.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Mayka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill;
> 
> I was very moved by the kindnest of this post of yours towards my 
> person.  I'm not very used to this kind of treatment from 
practioners 
> in the net.  I was taken aback and blushed in shyness and 
> embarresment while I was reading it. However, I feel my 
> responsability to tell you that I'm just amongst the thousands of 
> anonymous officially direct disciples from Thich Nhat Hanh. It 
> wouldn't be fair on Thich Nhat Hanh saying that I'm representing 
him 
> since my meetings with his monastic sangha have been just very few 
> alone the years. Though it's true that I'm very receptive to his 
> teaching.  When I first met him I told my sangha "That man is like 
me 
> but in enlightened version.  The day my mind will be pure I'll be 
> like him but in a woman version. I must know how he has done to 
> become like this." And they all laugh because of my temper and 
strong 
> emotions
> 
>  Sadly, but enviromental conditiones were not right for me to join 
> the monastic sangha and spend enough time amongst them so that I 
> could  be be trained appropiately. And because of that I can not 
let 
> you or anyone here see me as Thich Nhat Hanh representant.  My 
> training has been most of it by myself alone and just very 
> occassional retreats with them. I love and respect them too much to 
> pretend something I am not. 
> 
> "Just This" and "Just That" didn't intend to give a sense of 
duality 
> but to lead you to the understanding in connection with karma, form 
> and not form that everything interbeing with each other.  The form 
> contains the non form and viceverse.  
> 
> I understand karma as the action and the reaction of that action. 
> Even if you would be very mindful and deeply concentrated in 
> continuos alerteness to everything that is going on in the present 
> moment, still you create karma. Your karma here will be the energy 
> produced by your awareness.  Whatever we do is going to have a 
> reaction.  
> 
> Thanks for being just as you are.  knowing that you are there 
> practicing I feel a little less lonely in the practice.
> 
> Mayka
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart"  wrote:
> >
> > Mayka,
> > 
> > Thank you for your very candid and profound post.  I appreciate 
> your 
> > sharing with the forum your admiration for Thich Nhat Hanh.  You 
> are 
> > representing him and his teachings very, very well.
> > 
> > Please remember that I don't get your posts in my email, and I 
> don't 
> > always check the website.  So, if you have a post you want to 
> direct 
> > specifically to me or to assure my awareness of the post, please 
> > email it to me directly as you have in the past.
> > 
> > My comments are embedded in your post below:
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Mayka"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill;
> > > 
> > > I have no idea if Thich Nhat Hanh is a self proclai

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

My last post was difficult for you to understand because it was an 
attempt at a joke, and evidently a pretty poor attempt at that.

What it was meant to convey was that I agree with you that it is 
difficult to talk about zen with words, but also necessary.

Sorry for the confusion...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Bill.  This kind of wording is difficult for me to 
understand...  JM
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > Oh! Now I get it...NOT!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bill,
> > >
> > > "just this" connotes some kind of insistence. "as is" connotes
> > > acceptance. In our world of forms and delusional minds, 
acceptance
> > > connotes results in less resistance. It is apparent by now that
> > zen may
> > > have some Buddhist roots. Words are what we called "convenient
> > dharma"
> > > or "æâ€"¹ä¾¿æ³•â€. :-)
> > >
> > > Since zen is the naked core of all religion and faith, it can 
and
> > it
> > > must be able to explain all religion and faith, as well as
> > reversely,
> > > utilize all terms from other faith to explain itself. Therefore
> > > categorize some of the terms into zen and not zen is not zen. In
> > the
> > > world of forms, all is partial, relative and incomplete.
> > >
> > > Just for your reference as is. :-)
> > > JM
> > >
> > > Bill Smart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JMJM,
> > > >
> > > > I really like 'As Is'. It might be better than 'Just THIS!' to
> > > > communicate what I'm trying to describe. As Mayka has recently
> > > > pointed out 'Just THIS!' has the dualistic connotation that 
there
> > is
> > > > a 'THAT! somewhere. Of course 'As Is' could also be thought to
> > have
> > > > a dualistic connotation that there is a 'Not As Is', but 
that's
> > the
> > > > endemic danger of language. Whenever you open you mouth and 
spread
> > > > words around there's always the danger someone will come 
along and
> > > > trip over them.
> > > >
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Zen_Forum%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙
ç²¾æËÅ"Ž
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > My Dear Bill,
> > > > >
> > > > > Since there is no YOU, there is truly no one to pick on. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > In words, everything that you have said is the same as our
> > > > school. :-)
> > > > > We use "As Is" instead of "Just This". "As Is" in Chinese
> > > > is "如來â€Å"ï¼Å'
> > > > > which is the name of Buddha. Every form has its causes to be
> > > > > manifested, therefore, every form is "As Is", meaning 
complete
> > > > > synchronization. The difference between zen and Chan, is in 
the
> > > > > invisible and the unwritten. We emphasize the importance of 
the
> > > > energy
> > > > > of "As Is", which zen could mean just on the form. When we 
say
> > > > be "As
> > > > > Is", we mean the energy which manifest the form and not the
> > > > transient
> > > > > form. Only when there is energy, there is life. And 
therefore
> > > > there is
> > > > > spirit.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand fully why you take so much time to answer each
> > post.
> > > > You
> > > > > Do have my deepest respect. Yet, awakening must come from 
within
> > > > and
> > > > > quite difficult to be taught.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please practice with chi, you shall enter into a different
> > realm.
> > > > > Everything in this universe is As Is. There is no maya, if 
we
> > > > don't
> > > > > think. No matter what teachers or books say. Everything we 
can
> > > > > experienc

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Oh!  Now I get it...NOT!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> "just this" connotes some kind of insistence.  "as is" connotes 
> acceptance.  In our world of forms and delusional minds, acceptance 
> connotes results in less resistance.  It is apparent by now that 
zen may 
> have some Buddhist roots.  Words are what we called "convenient 
dharma" 
> or "方便法”.  :-)
> 
> Since zen is the naked core of all religion and faith, it can and 
it 
> must be able to explain all religion and faith, as well as 
reversely, 
> utilize all terms from other faith to explain itself.  Therefore 
> categorize some of the terms into zen and not zen is not zen.  In 
the 
> world of forms, all is partial, relative and incomplete.
> 
> Just for your reference as is.  :-)
> JM
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> >
> > I really like 'As Is'. It might be better than 'Just THIS!' to
> > communicate what I'm trying to describe. As Mayka has recently
> > pointed out 'Just THIS!' has the dualistic connotation that there 
is
> > a 'THAT! somewhere. Of course 'As Is' could also be thought to 
have
> > a dualistic connotation that there is a 'Not As Is', but that's 
the
> > endemic danger of language. Whenever you open you mouth and spread
> > words around there's always the danger someone will come along and
> > trip over them.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > My Dear Bill,
> > >
> > > Since there is no YOU, there is truly no one to pick on. :-)
> > >
> > > In words, everything that you have said is the same as our
> > school. :-)
> > > We use "As Is" instead of "Just This". "As Is" in Chinese
> > is "如來â€Å"ï¼Å'
> > > which is the name of Buddha. Every form has its causes to be
> > > manifested, therefore, every form is "As Is", meaning complete
> > > synchronization. The difference between zen and Chan, is in the
> > > invisible and the unwritten. We emphasize the importance of the
> > energy
> > > of "As Is", which zen could mean just on the form. When we say
> > be "As
> > > Is", we mean the energy which manifest the form and not the
> > transient
> > > form. Only when there is energy, there is life. And therefore
> > there is
> > > spirit.
> > >
> > > I understand fully why you take so much time to answer each 
post.
> > You
> > > Do have my deepest respect. Yet, awakening must come from within
> > and
> > > quite difficult to be taught.
> > >
> > > Please practice with chi, you shall enter into a different 
realm.
> > > Everything in this universe is As Is. There is no maya, if we
> > don't
> > > think. No matter what teachers or books say. Everything we can
> > > experience, we must not ignore. When one's heart is open, he 
meets
> > > Buddha, meaning universal truth.
> > >
> > > There is nothing to pick or choose. Everything is As Is.
> > > JM
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill Smart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JMJM,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your post. I really never thought you 
were 'picking on'
> > > > me. Many times I thought you were challenging my postings 
which is
> > > > good for me and good for the forum.
> > > >
> > > > I was so in-tune with a couple of your paragraphs below that I
> > will
> > > > copy them here:
> > > >
> > > > >Chan/zen is the core of all spirituality, because of
> > > > > its simplicity. It is just a naked connectivity of one's 
spirit
> > > > with
> > > > > that of the universe. It is just a formless, formality less,
> > > > wordless
> > > > > spirituality. There is no robe, no shaving head, no bible. 
Any
> > > > > religion can dress it any way they prefer.
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as the practitioner is truly and spiritually in 
touch
> > his
> > > > true
> > > > > self internally and with that of the universe externally,
> > nothing
> > > > else
> 

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Edgar and JMJM,

My first Japanese Zen Buddhist roshi (teacher) was a Soto master.  He 
stressed 'shikan taza' or 'clear mind' zazen.

When he died I moved to the other teacher in the zendo who was also 
Japanese but had dual linage from both Soto and Renzai schools.  He 
mixed shikan taza with koans.

One day he was asked what was the main difference in the technique 
between Soto and Renzai, between shikan taza and koans?  His answer 
was 'Soto is like walking around in a light misting rain.  You are 
contstanly getting wet but don't notice it until one day you realize 
you're thoroughly soaked!  Renzai is like getting pushed in a 
swimming pool.  You're wet and soaked immediately, but aren't quite 
sure just what happened.  I stress koans especially on Americans 
because they want to see results quickly, like the way the Japanese 
martial arts have changed from a traditional white belt, brown belt 
and black belt rankings to adding green, blue, yellow, etc...  
Americans want to see results quickly.  Most of them just don't have 
the patience for Soto techniques.'

Just a little zen anecdote I thought you'd like.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> JM,
> 
> If northern chan was the gradual awakening and Japanese zen comes  
> from that why does most Japanese Zen emphasize sudden, not gradual  
> awakening?
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:33 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote:
> 
> > Hi Bill and Mayka,
> >
> > I love the sincerity, honesty and warmth of your post. Instead of
> > picking on Bill, which I am guilty of, I like to share with you my
> > experience of Chan/zen.
> >
> > Historically, in most of the written words, Chan is a Chinese  
> > invention
> > regarding BodhiDharma as the founder or the First Patriarch. He 
came
> > from the linage of Kasyapa, who were told to teach without words 
and
> > formalities. So yes, Chan has Buddhism DNA.
> >
> > Gradually however, Taoist influenced Chan. Compare the Shin-Shin 
Ming
> > by the Third Patriarch of Chan with that of Tao-Te-Chin by Lao 
Tzu,  
> > the
> > founder of Taoism. They are almost similar in content. In other 
words,
> > words are useless. Essence is in the synchronization of spirit, 
or chi
> > in Chinese.
> >
> > Because the Taoist meditative technique is more effective and 
Buddhist
> > teaching is more popular, gradually Chan meditative practice 
became  
> > more
> > Taoist, such as QiGong, acupuncture, etc., Yet Chan still utilizes
> > Buddhist terms for describing spiritual experience. Chan is quite 
a  
> > hybrid.
> >
> > Since the Sixth Patriarch, Chan split into the sudden awakening 
in the
> > south and the gradual awakening in the north. I have a huge linage
> > book given to me by my Teacher. It listed every patriarch in the  
> > linage
> > with some of the recent records destroyed by the communist. 
Northern
> > Chan was passed to Japan and pronounced zen about 700 years later.
> >
> > Because its 2,000 year history, there are variation in the 
linages.
> > Some are more Buddhist and some are more Taoist and some are 
neutral.
> > The essence and bulk of Chan, however, are actually quite well
> > maintained in the at-home practices. Through out Chinese history, 
most
> > scholars, court officials practices Chan. Because they are the 
most
> > suitable candidates.
> >
> > I agree with Bill, Chan/zen is the core of all spirituality,  
> > because of
> > its simplicity. It is just a naked connectivity of one's spirit 
with
> > that of the universe. It is just a formless, formality less, 
wordless
> > spirituality. There is no robe, no shaving head, no bible. Any
> > religion can dress it any way they prefer.
> >
> > As long as the practitioner is truly and spiritually in touch his 
true
> > self internally and with that of the universe externally, nothing 
else
> > matters.
> >
> > All labels and descriptions existed for a reason. They are all 
forms.
> > Forms are all relative and pertinent to that particular moment  
> > only. We
> > don't have to compare, accept or reject. These actions in the  
> > knowledge
> > domain does not relate to our well being whatsoever.
> >
> > In the end, be liberated from all sufferings, be content with 
every
> > moment is the only thing matters.
> >
> > A bow to all,
> > JM
> >
> > Bill Smart wrote:
> > >
> > > Mayka,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your very candid and profound p

[Zen] [evol-psych] Re: Essay: Without Infinite Regress

[Bill Smart]

Edgar and Mark,

I've always said Buddha Nature is the ultimate WYSIWYG!

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mark,
> 
> I presume by that you mean we can never directly perceive reality 
as  
> it actually is. I agree with that. What we do directly perceive is  
> our cognitive constructs of reality. That is our direct experience.
> 
> That is what Zen means when it says 'seeing illusion as illusion 
is  
> reality'. Illusion (our mental constructs of actual external 
reality)  
> is our only reality. It is all we can directly experience.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 2, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Mark Hubey wrote:
> 
> > It is pointless to create a dichotomy e.g. indirect perception vs
> > direct perception when "direct perception" neither exists, nor
> > can exist, nor does it have any meaning.
> >
> > That is the way to voodoo.
> >
> > it means that the concept of perception or cognition is not even
> > understood.
> >
> > Edgar Owen wrote:
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > I'll let Andy respond since both of your questions refer to 
his  
> > words
> > > and I'd express it somewhat differently. But yes, I have given
> > > extensive thought to this subject for many years in case that  
> > comment
> > > was addressed to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Mark Hubey wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> andy_morleyuk wrote:
> > >> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> , Edgar Owen
> > >>  wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > []
> > >> >
> > >> >> The error is quite simple, it is the false assumption that
> > >> >> consciousness is self-consciousness, which I've debunked a  
> > number of
> > >> >> times on this forum When one falsely assumes that  
> > consciousness
> > >> >> is self consciousness, then one is stuck with infinite 
regress,
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I'll buy that Edgar. In my own terms, just as we don't 
directly
> > >> > experience other people,
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps you can explain to us what "direct experience" 
or "direct
> > >> perception" means.
> > >>
> > >> > We don't interact directly with our own selves any more than
> > >> > we interact directly with other selves.
> > >>
> > >> How would we "directly interact with ourselves"?
> > >>
> > >> Have you given much thought to what your sentences mean?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> H.M. Hubey
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -- 
> > Regards,
> >
> > H.M. Hubey
> >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

I really like 'As Is'.  It might be better than 'Just THIS!' to 
communicate what I'm trying to describe.  As Mayka has recently 
pointed out 'Just THIS!' has the dualistic connotation that there is 
a 'THAT! somewhere.  Of course 'As Is' could also be thought to have 
a dualistic connotation that there is a 'Not As Is', but that's the 
endemic danger of language.  Whenever you open you mouth and spread 
words around there's always the danger someone will come along and 
trip over them.

...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My Dear Bill,
> 
> Since there is no YOU, there is truly no one to pick on.  :-)
> 
> In words, everything that you have said is the same as our 
school.  :-)  
> We use "As Is" instead of "Just This".  "As Is" in Chinese 
is "如來“， 
> which is the name of Buddha.  Every form has its causes to be 
> manifested, therefore, every form is "As Is", meaning complete 
> synchronization.  The difference between zen and Chan, is in the 
> invisible and the unwritten.  We emphasize the importance of the 
energy 
> of "As Is", which zen could mean just on the form.  When we say 
be "As 
> Is", we mean the energy which manifest the form and not the 
transient 
> form.  Only when there is energy, there is life.  And therefore 
there is 
> spirit. 
> 
> I understand fully why you take so much time to answer each post.  
You 
> Do have my deepest respect.  Yet, awakening must come from within 
and 
> quite difficult to be taught. 
> 
> Please practice with chi, you shall enter into a different realm.  
> Everything in this universe is As Is.  There is no maya, if we 
don't 
> think.  No matter what teachers or books say.  Everything we can 
> experience, we must not ignore.  When one's heart is open, he meets 
> Buddha, meaning universal truth. 
> 
> There is nothing to pick or choose.  Everything is As Is. 
> JM
> 
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> >
> > Thanks for your post. I really never thought you were 'picking on'
> > me. Many times I thought you were challenging my postings which is
> > good for me and good for the forum.
> >
> > I was so in-tune with a couple of your paragraphs below that I 
will
> > copy them here:
> >
> > >Chan/zen is the core of all spirituality, because of
> > > its simplicity. It is just a naked connectivity of one's spirit
> > with
> > > that of the universe. It is just a formless, formality less,
> > wordless
> > > spirituality. There is no robe, no shaving head, no bible. Any
> > > religion can dress it any way they prefer.
> > >
> > > As long as the practitioner is truly and spiritually in touch 
his
> > true
> > > self internally and with that of the universe externally, 
nothing
> > else
> > > matters.
> > >
> > > All labels and descriptions existed for a reason. They are all
> > forms.
> > > Forms are all relative and pertinent to that particular moment
> > only. We
> > > don't have to compare, accept or reject. These actions in the
> > knowledge
> > > domain does not relate to our well being whatsoever.
> > >
> > > In the end, be liberated from all sufferings, be content with 
every
> > > moment is the only thing matters.
> >
> > This is exactly what I've been trying to say.
> >
> > I'll admit that I may be hung up on the rejections of forms. I 
know
> > that forms are relative and transitory as you point out, but when 
I
> > see them posted I feel like I just have to respond: 'That's just a
> > form! That's not important! That's just the finger! That's not the
> > moon...the moon is Just THIS!
> >
> > Thanks again for your post...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bill and Mayka,
> > >
> > > I love the sincerity, honesty and warmth of your post. Instead 
of
> > > picking on Bill, which I am guilty of, I like to share with you 
my
> > > experience of Chan/zen.
> > >
> > > Historically, in most of the written words, Chan is a Chinese
> > invention
> > > regarding BodhiDharma as the founder or the First Patriarch. He
> > came
> > > from the linage of Kasyapa, who were told to teach without words
> > and
&

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

I really like the expression 'As Is'.  It might be a better way to 
express what I want to express than 'Just THIS!'

As Mayka recently pointed out 'Just THIS' carries the dualistic 
connotation that there could be a 'THAT', and that's now what I 
mean.  But I guess 'As Is' could be said to carry the smame type of 
dualistic connotation that there is a 'Not As Is'.  

I just don't know.  Words are very clumsy.  Its hard to spread them 
round without creating the danger of tripping over them.

Thanks for your post,

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My Dear Bill,
> 
> Since there is no YOU, there is truly no one to pick on.  :-)
> 
> In words, everything that you have said is the same as our 
school.  :-)  
> We use "As Is" instead of "Just This".  "As Is" in Chinese 
is "如來“， 
> which is the name of Buddha.  Every form has its causes to be 
> manifested, therefore, every form is "As Is", meaning complete 
> synchronization.  The difference between zen and Chan, is in the 
> invisible and the unwritten.  We emphasize the importance of the 
energy 
> of "As Is", which zen could mean just on the form.  When we say 
be "As 
> Is", we mean the energy which manifest the form and not the 
transient 
> form.  Only when there is energy, there is life.  And therefore 
there is 
> spirit. 
> 
> I understand fully why you take so much time to answer each post.  
You 
> Do have my deepest respect.  Yet, awakening must come from within 
and 
> quite difficult to be taught. 
> 
> Please practice with chi, you shall enter into a different realm.  
> Everything in this universe is As Is.  There is no maya, if we 
don't 
> think.  No matter what teachers or books say.  Everything we can 
> experience, we must not ignore.  When one's heart is open, he meets 
> Buddha, meaning universal truth. 
> 
> There is nothing to pick or choose.  Everything is As Is. 
> JM
> 
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> >
> > Thanks for your post. I really never thought you were 'picking on'
> > me. Many times I thought you were challenging my postings which is
> > good for me and good for the forum.
> >
> > I was so in-tune with a couple of your paragraphs below that I 
will
> > copy them here:
> >
> > >Chan/zen is the core of all spirituality, because of
> > > its simplicity. It is just a naked connectivity of one's spirit
> > with
> > > that of the universe. It is just a formless, formality less,
> > wordless
> > > spirituality. There is no robe, no shaving head, no bible. Any
> > > religion can dress it any way they prefer.
> > >
> > > As long as the practitioner is truly and spiritually in touch 
his
> > true
> > > self internally and with that of the universe externally, 
nothing
> > else
> > > matters.
> > >
> > > All labels and descriptions existed for a reason. They are all
> > forms.
> > > Forms are all relative and pertinent to that particular moment
> > only. We
> > > don't have to compare, accept or reject. These actions in the
> > knowledge
> > > domain does not relate to our well being whatsoever.
> > >
> > > In the end, be liberated from all sufferings, be content with 
every
> > > moment is the only thing matters.
> >
> > This is exactly what I've been trying to say.
> >
> > I'll admit that I may be hung up on the rejections of forms. I 
know
> > that forms are relative and transitory as you point out, but when 
I
> > see them posted I feel like I just have to respond: 'That's just a
> > form! That's not important! That's just the finger! That's not the
> > moon...the moon is Just THIS!
> >
> > Thanks again for your post...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bill and Mayka,
> > >
> > > I love the sincerity, honesty and warmth of your post. Instead 
of
> > > picking on Bill, which I am guilty of, I like to share with you 
my
> > > experience of Chan/zen.
> > >
> > > Historically, in most of the written words, Chan is a Chinese
> > invention
> > > regarding BodhiDharma as the founder or the First Patriarch. He
> > came
> > > from the linage of Kasyapa, who were told to teach

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

Thanks for your post.  I really never thought you were 'picking on' 
me.  Many times I thought you were challenging my postings which is 
good for me and good for the forum.

I was so in-tune with a couple of your paragraphs below that I will 
copy them here:

>Chan/zen is the core of all spirituality, because of 
> its simplicity.  It is just a naked connectivity of one's spirit 
with 
> that of the universe.  It is just a formless, formality less, 
wordless 
> spirituality.  There is no robe, no shaving head, no bible.  Any 
> religion can dress it any way they prefer. 
> 
> As long as the practitioner is truly and spiritually in touch his 
true 
> self internally and with that of the universe externally, nothing 
else 
> matters.
> 
> All labels and descriptions existed for a reason.  They are all 
forms.  
> Forms are all relative and pertinent to that particular moment 
only.  We 
> don't have to compare, accept or reject.  These actions in the 
knowledge 
> domain does not relate to our well being whatsoever.
> 
> In the end, be liberated from all sufferings, be content with every 
> moment is the only thing matters.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

I'll admit that I may be hung up on the rejections of forms.  I know 
that forms are relative and transitory as you point out, but when I 
see them posted I feel like I just have to respond: 'That's just a 
form!  That's not important!  That's just the finger!  That's not the 
moon...the moon is Just THIS!

Thanks again for your post...Bill!


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill and Mayka,
> 
> I love the sincerity, honesty and warmth of your post.  Instead of 
> picking on Bill, which I am guilty of, I like to share with you my 
> experience of Chan/zen.
> 
> Historically, in most of the written words, Chan is a Chinese 
invention 
> regarding BodhiDharma as the founder or the First Patriarch.  He 
came 
> from the linage of Kasyapa, who were told to teach without words 
and 
> formalities.  So yes, Chan has Buddhism DNA.
> 
> Gradually however, Taoist influenced Chan.  Compare the Shin-Shin 
Ming 
> by the Third Patriarch of Chan with that of Tao-Te-Chin by Lao Tzu, 
the 
> founder of Taoism.  They are almost similar in content.  In other 
words, 
> words are useless.  Essence is in the synchronization of spirit, or 
chi 
> in Chinese.
> 
> Because the Taoist meditative technique is more effective and 
Buddhist 
> teaching is more popular, gradually Chan meditative practice became 
more 
> Taoist, such as QiGong, acupuncture, etc.,  Yet Chan still utilizes 
> Buddhist terms for describing spiritual experience.  Chan is quite 
a hybrid.
> 
> Since the Sixth Patriarch, Chan split into the sudden awakening in 
the 
> south and the gradual awakening in the north.   I have a huge 
linage 
> book given to me by my Teacher.  It listed every patriarch in the 
linage 
> with some of the recent records destroyed by the communist.  
Northern 
> Chan was passed to Japan and pronounced zen about 700 years later. 
> 
> Because its 2,000 year history, there are variation in the 
linages.  
> Some are more Buddhist and some are more Taoist and some are 
neutral.  
> The essence and bulk of Chan, however, are actually quite well 
> maintained in the at-home practices.  Through out Chinese history, 
most 
> scholars, court officials practices Chan.  Because they are the 
most 
> suitable candidates. 
> 
> I agree with Bill, Chan/zen is the core of all spirituality, 
because of 
> its simplicity.  It is just a naked connectivity of one's spirit 
with 
> that of the universe.  It is just a formless, formality less, 
wordless 
> spirituality.  There is no robe, no shaving head, no bible.  Any 
> religion can dress it any way they prefer. 
> 
> As long as the practitioner is truly and spiritually in touch his 
true 
> self internally and with that of the universe externally, nothing 
else 
> matters.
> 
> All labels and descriptions existed for a reason.  They are all 
forms.  
> Forms are all relative and pertinent to that particular moment 
only.  We 
> don't have to compare, accept or reject.  These actions in the 
knowledge 
> domain does not relate to our well being whatsoever.
> 
> In the end, be liberated from all sufferings, be content with every 
> moment is the only thing matters.
> 
> A bow to all,
> JM
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > Mayka,
> >
> > Thank you for your very candid and profound post. I appreciate 
your
> > sharing with the forum your admiration for Thich Nhat Hanh. You 
are
> > representing him and his t

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Mayka,

Thank you for your very candid and profound post.  I appreciate your 
sharing with the forum your admiration for Thich Nhat Hanh.  You are 
representing him and his teachings very, very well.

Please remember that I don't get your posts in my email, and I don't 
always check the website.  So, if you have a post you want to direct 
specifically to me or to assure my awareness of the post, please 
email it to me directly as you have in the past.

My comments are embedded in your post below:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Mayka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill;
> 
> I have no idea if Thich Nhat Hanh is a self proclaimed Buddhist or 
> not.  Knowing him a little bit I can not see him doing any 
> proclamation about anything for he's a very wise, sweet, humble 
> profoundly peaceful man.  I know about him that he has turn round 
the 
> dharma wheel and created a new way slightly different way tradition 
> from the tradition he comes from.  This is natural, the dharma is 
> something alive which comes first from guiding books and education 
> and becames through daily direct experience practice a living 
dharma. 
> I can say for sure about him that whatever he teaches is something 
> that he has experienced first by himself. He won't ever talk about 
> something that he has not experienced first.  In fact one amongst 
his 
> multi remarkable skills is to reduce to the minimum the use of 
words 
> that can create distraction in the mind and using words that are 
very 
> simple but a smack to the intelectual mind, individualism and ego. 
A 
> person who is looking for sophisticated discourses and candy words 
> would find Thic Nhat Hanh tedious and boring.   Or on the other 
hand, 
> a perosn who can also be intelectual but has reached to conclusion 
> that intelectuality can be a boundary when this is not used in the 
> appropiate way, then that person, if receptive enough, would find 
> Thich Nhat Hanh a very enlightened person. 
>
> My direct experience about him is that he is a living Buddha.  I 
can 
> sense, touch and see that in all his body language, his living 
> dharma, his energy, in each action he does When he pass on his 
> dharma he doesn't pass on just words but also pass on his direct 
> experience about it!.  So the words become like something very 
lively 
> and real in him.  He never talks about something that he has not 
> experiencing first by himself.
>
 
Thank you again for your vivid description of Thich Nhat Hanh and 
your impression of him.  He is honored to have you as a student.

One of the things you've said above rings especially true for this 
forum: living dharma cannot be expressed by words alone - especially 
in only written text.  It's only from face-to-face contact with some  
as you describe that you can fully appreciate their total absorption 
in the dharma.

> The tradition he teaches I'm not sure but I'm under the impresion 
> that has its roots in Mahayana Buddhism.  
>

Zen Buddhism does have it's roots in Mahayana Buddhism.  Some beleive 
Zen is a type of Mahayana Buddhism, and some beleive Zen is the 
evolution (culmination) of Mahayana Buddhim and is a branch of its 
own.  I assum Thich Nhat Hanh being Vietnamese would have grown up 
under the influence of Theravada Buddhism, but anyway Theravada is 
not mutually exclusive from Mahayana Buddhsim.

As you and I both know and have said repeatedly, none of these names 
or terms are really important.  I usually only bring these up in 
response to someone else's post referring to some specific type of 
Buddhism.  I'm not really overly concerned with Buddhism.  All you 
Buddhists can give it what ever names, and divide it up into whatever 
categories you want.

> I have never hear before zen without the influence of buddhism or 
> having as buddhism in its root. Interesting also the simplicity you 
> seem to follow your own practice.
>

I know what you say is true.  Most people (99.9%?) inextricably 
assocaiate zen and Buddhism.  Some think it is just one of the many 
branches of Buddhism.  Some, like the Vispassana Buddhists here in 
Thailand, think Zen is not a part of Buddhism at all - more like a 
cult, a derranged and impure psuedo-Buddhism.  Some think of Zen as 
the culmination of all Buddhism - the most pure form.

I think of zen as pre-dating Buddhism, Hinduism, Judiasm, 
Christianity and all other religions.  I think of zen as the core of 
most other religions, and these other religions, including Buddhism, 
are zen with a lot of extra crap stuck all over it.  In a lot of the 
religions the extra crap is so thick that the zen core is totally 
obsucured.  I do think that in Zen Buddhism, even with all the crap 
attached, at least the zen core is recognizable and accessible. 

>I like from it [Bill's zen practice] how direct is and 
> its simplicity.  I also like from it how open is to criticism, and 
> the fact that one can talk  about positve things and negative 
things 
> happening to one in a 

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Anthony,

My remarks are embedded in your post below:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>  
> Don't lurk.
> 
I have to lurk, and I have to return to it more faithfully.  I'm 
extremely busy attending to affairs that have could have a very 
profound affect on my mother's wellbeing.  That is my only priority 
right now.

> How do you know your 'self' is 'annihilated' or somehow disappear, 
so that karma will no longer work?
> 
Loosing your attachment to the concept of self for the first time is 
called 'kensho' in Japanese.  Incorporating that entirely into your 
life is called 'satori' in Japanese.  The dropping of self and all of 
its clutter is what Joshu tried to communicate when he answered his 
student's question about Buddha Nature with "Mu", dropping of self is 
experiencing a dried shit stick, dropping of self leaves Just THIS!  
Buddha Nature is Just THIS!
  
> Does that mean nihilism? Or nirvana?
> 
Experiencing Buddha Nature is quite different from nilhism.  Nilhism, 
as I understand it, denies all existence; Buddha Nature confrims and 
embraces all existence.  Nilhism holds that nothing can be known or 
communicated; Just THIS! is everything and although Just THIS! cannot 
itself be directly communicted, it can be experienced.  There are 
some similarities in nihilism's rejection of religious values, but 
Buddha Nature doesn't actually reject them, they are just rendered 
moot.

Nirvana is a religious concept in Buddhism (and probably other 
religions).  It's maya.  It's a carrot at the end of a sutra-stick.  
It's embellishment.  Just THIS! is not nirvana.  Just THIS! is Just 
THIS!  Nothing more, nothing less.

Back to lurking mode...Bill!  






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Mayka,

With no disrespect to Thich Nhat Hanh, he is a self-proclaimed 
Buddhist so presumbably practices and teaches zen from a Buddhist 
perspective.  Buddhism recognizes karma so what else would you expect 
from him?

The reason I post a lot about the the relationship between zen and 
Buddhism is because most people believe they are one in the same, or 
at least believe that zen is a sub-set of Buddhism, like Vipassana 
Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism and Zen Buddhism.  In 
fact there are many flavors of Zen Buddhism: Japanese, Korean, 
Chinese (Chan) and Vietnamese, the type of Zen Buddhism that Thich 
Nhat Hanh teaches (I assume)is based on Theravada Buddhism.  

I did mis-speak in one of my recent posts.  Zen is not BIGGER than 
Buddhsim or other religions.  Zen is much, much SMALLER than these.  
In my opinion zen is the essence of all of these.  Buddhism, for 
example, is the covering, the adornment, the presentation - and this 
presentation can change from person to person and place to place.

I practice zen from only the perpective of Just THIS!  There is no 
karma in Just THIS!  There is no like or not like in Just THIS!  
There is no adornment or anything extra in Just THIS!

Apparently Lurking No More...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Mayka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With all my respect to you Bill but;
> 
> Thich Nhat Hanh is a Venerable Zen Buddhist Master who was borne 
with 
> the zen spoon in his mouth.  He is also one of the greates scholars 
> of our time.  But most important he is a person who have gained a 
> very impresive profound understanding of zen practice.  Yet,  I 
have 
> never heard him the kind of comparations you often make between 
> buddhism and zen. The fact that you need to compare this so often 
> rings a bell of a kind of insecurity there.
> 
> True that we don't like to talk about karma but there is no denial 
> that Karma actually exists.  
> 
> It is a fact that OUR ACTIONS ARE OUR ONLY TRUE BELONGINGS. It is 
not 
> a matter that you believe this or not but a matter that you 
> experience it.  If you can't experience this it only means that 
> instead of being engage in the self you went to the other opposite 
> extreme and got dangerously engage with the non self.  However if 
you 
> would go beyond of these pair of opposites then you'll see that 
both 
> interbeing with each other and therefore karma exists whether you 
> like it or not.
> 
> Mayka 
> 





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

JMJM, QUIT LURING ME OUT OF LURKING!  It's hard enough without such 
challenging posts as yours.

My comments/respones are embedded in your post below:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Having Trouble Lurking Bill,
>
Yes!  I plead guilty to the charge!
 
> I love strong statement...  I always enjoyed your posting.
>
What other type of posting about zen could you expect?  A wishy-washy 
posting?  Haven't you heard the zen saying:  When sitting, sit.  
When walking, walk.  Above all, don't wobble!
 
> I don't "know" whether karma has a position in zen or not. I don't 
> "know" where it belongs.  Do you?  :-)
>
Just THIS!
 
> I also don't "know" what zen is.   You have stated many times about 
> "true zen" as "True zen".  Is there one?  Or is zen just one, the 
ONE, 
> which includes everything - form, formless, all right and 
wrong..?
>
I'm not sure I ever used the term 'true zen', but in one of my weaker 
moments I may have.  If I did use that term, and what I do continue 
to assert is, that zen is not dependent on or a sub-set of Buddhism 
or any other religion or belief systems.  I personally THEORIZE (not 
assert) that zen may the the BASIS for Buddhism and most other 
religions, but zen is larger than all these - a superset if you want 
to call it that.
 
> That said however, I do like your statement that when there is no 
you, 
> nothing sticks.  Spiritually I agree.  However, Edgar may argue in 
the 
> physical world, if I am hit by a car, it was not me?
>
Edgar does argue that, and very well.

If YOU are hit by a car, or YOU are hungry, or YOU get 
annoyed at someone's posting - where is that YOU that experiences all 
this?  Show me!
 
> Is there cause and effect in zen?  small cap zen? I love your 
> categorization and care in "your" dictionary.
>
Edgar and I have already contributed too much to global warming with 
all the bit flipping we've done to contruct a plethera of posts 
addressing this subject.  My position is zen (lower case 'z') is not 
concerned with karma or its de-spiritalized foundation, cause-and-
effect.  They're both moot vis-a-vis zen.  Just more maya to clear 
out of the way, more bullship to wade through.

In Zen Buddhism (upper case 'Z'), karma has a very important role, or 
so I assume.
 
> Happy Thanks Giving,
> JM
> 
Happy Now,
...Bill!

> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > I'm having trouble lurking...
> >
> > Karma does not have a position in zen.
> >
> > Karma is a belief in a lot of religions, like Buddhism, Hinduism 
and
> > even Christianity - 'as you sow, so shall you reap', 'if 
you're 'bad'
> > you'll go to hell but if you're 'good' you'll go to heaven', 
etc...
> >
> > Maintain a clear mind and karma is not relevant. How can YOU 
generate,
> > accumulate and/or be affected by KARMA if there is no YOU?
> >
> > If however a clear mind is not maintained and there is a big fat 
YOU
> > waddling around out there like a big wad of spiritual Velcro, 
then who
> > knows what could stick to it? Maybe even karma!
> >
> > Clear Mind. Just THIS!
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

I'm having trouble lurking...

Karma does not have a position in zen.

Karma is a belief in a lot of religions, like Buddhism, Hinduism and 
even Christianity - 'as you sow, so shall you reap', 'if you're 'bad' 
you'll go to hell but if you're 'good' you'll go to heaven', etc...

Maintain a clear mind and karma is not relevant.  How can YOU generate, 
accumulate and/or be affected by KARMA if there is no YOU?

If however a clear mind is not maintained and there is a big fat YOU 
waddling around out there like a big wad of spiritual Velcro, then who 
knows what could stick to it?  Maybe even karma!  

Clear Mind.  Just THIS!

...Bill!




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] To The Moderator in the Zen_Forum Group

[Bill Smart]

I'm not the administrator, I'm the lurkerlator.

The official moderator fo this site goes by many names, the most 
common of which is Al([EMAIL PROTECTED]).  I think he's also 
the site's founder.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mayka,
>  
> I believe Bill Smart is the moderator. I don't know if there is 
an 'administrator'. Maybe it is also Bill. Please confirm.
>  
> Anthony
> 
> --- On Sun, 30/11/08, Mayka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> From: Mayka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Zen] To The Moderator in the Zen_Forum Group
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 30 November, 2008, 2:47 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three last postings inserted on the board by Edgar and JM have not 
> been received yet to my email.
> 
> Whoever is the Administrator on this website, would you please be 
so 
> kind to check the problems some of us are experiencing with the 
post?.
> 
> Thank you
> Mayka
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and 
@rocketmail. 
> Hurry before someone else does!
> http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Lesbian Zen Roshis

[Bill Smart]

Camila,

I'm supposed to be 'just lurking' and not actively posting right now, 
but I couldn't resist responding to your post.

You are incorrect in your belief that "...there is a concept of moral 
living which underlies the basic concepts of Zen."

The concept of morality is based on the belief of good and evil, 
which is a classic example of dualistic thought.  Zen specifically 
encourages the abandonment of dualistic thought even so far as to 
abandon the concept of 'self' as opposed to 'others'.

If you do encounter any morality issues (or issues about sexuality) 
associated with people or organizations that claim to represent zen, 
these are probably associated with Buddhism or are just cultural 
overlays.  They have nothing to do with zen.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Camila Diehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I have been visiting some Zen websites and I see that there are 
some women Roshis and they appear to be lesbians. I wonder how Zen 
can promote homosexuals when there is a concept of moral living which 
underlies the basic concepts of Zen.
> 
> I do not think that this kind of thing is common in Japan or China, 
and I wonder if it is another example of the West perverting a pure 
philosophy by the sheer force of money and power having an influence 
on the main roots of Zen in Japan, Korea, and China?
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

Whichever personality I'm posting with now thinks you've just 
restated in a more physically-orented way what I posted before.

First there is a mountain,
(Illusions are seen as reality)
Then there is no mountain,
(Illusions are seen as illusions)
There there is.
(Illusions are accomodated and treated as reality, but are known to 
be illusions)

Now that the postings have begun again I'm going back to lurking.

...Bill!



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> Your conclusion sounds more like multiple personality disorder to  
> me! :-)
> 
> 
> One needs to understand the meaning of the word 'illusion'. 
Illusion  
> in the Zen sense doesn't mean what is experienced isn't really 
there,  
> it means that what is experienced is not actually as it is 
experienced.
> 
> Illusion consists of many many veils of illusion each covering  
> another. E.g. we experience the world of matter as solid. That  
> apparent solidity is an illusion since we know that atoms are  
> actually almost entirely areas of empty space containing 
vibrational  
> energies. That is one veil of illusion drawn back. We also know 
that  
> the actual visual world looks nothing at all like we see it, and 
we  
> see only the model of the world that our mind constructs. Another  
> veil. Even worse, we know that the whole idea of ourself as  
> experiencer and the world as what is experienced is entirely a  
> construction of the mind of that very mental construction! Another  
> couple of veils. There are innumerable other veils which I won't 
go  
> into now, but each understood reveals one more reason to 
understand  
> that the world is not at all as we experience it.
> 
> So that is the sense that the world is illusion, not that it 
doesn't  
> exist, but that it is not actually as we experience it.
> 
> But where does that leave us? Well, some illusions can be 
understood  
> and dropped, mainly the top level veils associated with desires 
and  
> attachments and ignorance of what science tells us about the 
nature  
> of reality. But most of the veils cannot be dropped because they 
are  
> part of who we are as human beings, part of our biological and  
> physical nature. E.g. we can intellectually understand the quantum  
> world but we can never experience it because we are classical 
world  
> macroscopic beings.
> 
> Thus the third stage. All that exists, what experience is, is the  
> same old world we started out with, the world we now know is  
> illusory. So the best we can do is to accept the world of forms as 
it  
> is, but to realize it is illusion. The mountain is a mountain 
again,  
> an illusory mountain, but the illusory mountain is what is real
> 
> Thus the causal rules which appear to govern the world of illusion  
> are what is real. We live only in the world of forms so we are  
> subject to those rules. That is daily life
> 
> Except in deep meditation when thoughts about such things 
vanish  
> Then, Just this!
> 
> Knowing the true nature of things, that the only reality is 
illusion.
> 
> Edgar





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

I think we're getting dangerously close to agreement, or something 
very similar.

I do think Buddha's words supported my interpretation of my previous 
post, but even if they didn't I don't need to lean on Buddha or the 
Sutras to explain to my own experience of Just THIS!

First there is a mountain,
Then there is no mountain,
Then there is.

In the context of our discussions I'll use an analogy to try to 
communicate what this means to me:


First there is a mountian.
It's like you're in a play, but at first don't know you're in a 
play.  You've been assigned, or created, your role as a 'nice guy who 
loves horses' or something like that.  You BELIEVE you are a nice guy 
who loves horses, and there is an evil guy who likes to hurt horses 
when he trains them, and a nice young woman who rides horses, and a 
dumb stable guy who cleans up after the horses, etc... and you 
interact with everyone else in the play accordingly.

Then there is no mountain.
Then you realize it's all just a play, and all of these characters 
are you.  You're creating them all and all the interplay of these 
characters.  In fact if you want you can exit stage left and go out 
into the front of the stage and just watch all these characters 
interact, including 'your' character.  And even futher than that when 
you want to you can just close the curtin and the play ceases.

Then there is.
You decide that instead of stopping the play entirely, or just being 
a spectator, you want to return to the stage and actively play 
different parts when that part is called for.  Buddhists would say do 
what's called for to save all sentient beings.  Sometimes you're the 
nice guy, sometmes you're the trainer, sometimes you're the stable 
guy, but you ALWAYS KNOW it's just a play - an illusion.

How close is that to your understanding/experience?

...Bill! 




--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Several comments. I'm sympathetic and in general agreement with 
your  
> statement but disappointed Buddha doesn't agree with it! :-)
> 
> Buddha specifically speaks to Subhuti by name thus acknowledging 
his  
> individual selfness. Not only that he speaks of the conditioned 
(that  
> is the caused) as well as the unconditioned as things that both  
> exist. At the end Buddha goes on to speak of the natures of all 
sorts  
> of different individual human selves as selves.
> 
> Of course you (and I) also make the same 'mistake' by referring to 
me  
> by my name, which denotes my self.
> 
> I don't however agree that when you recognize and are free from 
the  
> illusion of self there is no longer any cause and effect. Cause 
and  
> effect is the nature of illusion, and illusion seen as illusion is  
> reality. So cause and effect are illusory, but that's what is 
real.  
> In a fundamental sense we are never 'free' from illusion, we  
> recognize illusion as illusion, but it still exists, and we 
continue  
> to live in the world of illusion - we just now know it is illusory.
> 
> Originally there are mountains - illusion is taken as reality.
> Then mountains are not mountains - all forms are realized as 
illusory.
> Finally mountains are mountains again - illusion seen as illusion 
is  
> recognized as what is real, the true nature of things.
> 
> By denying cause and effect you affirm stage 2, not stage 3.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Bill Smart wrote:
> 
> > Okay, lurking or not I couldn't resist this one. I especially want
> > to respond since I think it also addresses the APPARENT ongoing
> > diagreement bewtween Edgar and me about cause-and-effect, which is
> > the basis of karma.
> >
> > Although not active on the site I've done a little reading and 
found
> > this quote from the Prajnaparamita Sutra:
> >
> > Subhuti said: "If I understand correctly, one who wishes to reach
> > perfect wisdom should study the way things are in the world and
> > should practice the perfections fully and in depth but should not
> > believe them to be ultimately real, nor should he make concepts 
and
> > doctrines out of them."
> >
> > The Buddha replied: "Just so, Subhuti. The one who contemplates
> > existence in this way knows the nature of the conditioned and of 
the
> > unconditioned and makes himself an expert in pointing out the 
truth
> > to others, both with words and without words."
> >
> > This quote, I beleive, addresss your challenge about karma and 
Edgar
> > and my recent postings about cause-and-effect. I would
> > explain it tha

[Zen] Re: Position of Karma in Zen

[Bill Smart]

Okay, lurking or not I couldn't resist this one.  I especially want 
to respond since I think it also addresses the APPARENT ongoing 
diagreement bewtween Edgar and me about cause-and-effect, which is 
the basis of karma.

Although not active on the site I've done a little reading and found 
this quote from the Prajnaparamita Sutra:

Subhuti said: "If I understand correctly, one who wishes to reach 
perfect wisdom should study the way things are in the world and 
should practice the perfections fully and in depth but should not 
believe them to be ultimately real, nor should he make concepts and 
doctrines out of them."

The Buddha replied: "Just so, Subhuti. The one who contemplates 
existence in this way knows the nature of the conditioned and of the 
unconditioned and makes himself an expert in pointing out the truth 
to others, both with words and without words."

This quote, I beleive, addresss your challenge about karma and Edgar 
and my recent postings about cause-and-effect.  I would 
explain it that as long as you are under the illusion of having 
a 'self' there is a 'you' acting or being acted upon.  And as long 
there is a 'you' 'acting', you will have illusions of 'past' 
and 'future', and 'you' will be subject to cause-and-effect, or karma.
  
But, when are no longer under the illusion of 'self', there is 
no 'you' acting or being acted upon, in fact no 'actions'.  That 
means there is only the present.  There is no past or future.  If 
there are no actions or past or future, then there can be no cause-
and-effect or karma.  So when you are free fom the illusion of 'self' 
you are no longer subject to cause-and-effect or karma.  Not being 
subject to does not mean you are not aware of these illusions and can 
choose to act in accordance with them if you wish.

The quote goes on to say: 

Subhuti asked: "But is this just for the wise and the intelligent?"

"No, indeed," replied the Buddha. "This is open to all, even to the 
dull witted and to those who can't pay attention. The door is open to 
anyone who wants to tread this path--but not to the person who is 
lazy and indifferent."

This part of the quote to me, especially at this time in my life, 
addresses my experiences with my Mom and the other Alhzheimer 
patients with which I have daily contact and from whom I learned so 
much.

...Bill!  (Going back to Lurking-Mode now...)




--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>  
> Since everybody is lurking waiting to be excited. Here is a 
multiple choice to think about. The samurai code quoted by Edgar is 
a perfect example of the 'present' moment. How about the past and the 
future? What is the position of karma in zen? 
>  
> A.  Karma is a universal law nobody can escape from. It is the 
essence of Buddhism and also of some schools of zen.
>  
> B.  Karma relates to the past and the future, so it is nothing to 
do with zen. Whether or not it represents the truth we don't care.
>  
> C.  Karma is a fairy tale. You need something to scare kids, so 
they behave themselves.
>  
> Regards,
> Anthony
> 
> --- On Sun, 23/11/08, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: TEST
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 23 November, 2008, 11:48 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The samurai code especially emphasizes that Zen is living our lives 
in the moment in the constant presence of death. Thus do we gain an 
immense appreciation for every transient moment of life and live it 
to the fullest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 23, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Bill Smart wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, Edgar Owen  
wrote:
> >
> > ANYONE STILL HERE?
> > 
> > Edgar
> >
> Edgar et al,
> 
> I'm stll here lurking only. My father was very ill and I had to 
fly 
> to the US to be with him. Unfortnutaely he died when I was 
somewhere 
> over the Pacific Ocean flying out of Tokyo. I was informed of his 
> death when I turned on my mobile phone upon arriving in Detroit.
> 
> I was a good death for him. He had been fighting lymphoma (cancer 
of 
> the lymph nodes) for 4 or 5 years and has been in severe 
discomfort 
> for at least the last serveral months. He died on 05 Nov, just 3 
> days short of what would have been his 91st birthday.
> 
> I am now residing in my father's apartment in a retirement home 
which 
> is connected to the nursing home which houses my mother who is 89 
and 
> has Alhzheime

[Zen] Re: TEST

[Bill Smart]

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ANYONE STILL HERE?
> 
> Edgar
>
Edgar et al,

I'm stll here lurking only.  My father was very ill and I had to fly 
to the US to be with him.  Unfortnutaely he died when I was somewhere 
over the Pacific Ocean flying out of Tokyo.  I was informed of his 
death when I turned on my mobile phone upon arriving in Detroit.

I was a good death for him.  He had been fighting lymphoma (cancer of 
the lymph nodes) for 4 or 5 years and has been in severe discomfort 
for at least the last serveral months.  He died on 05 Nov, just 3 
days short of what would have been his 91st birthday.

I am now residing in my father's apartment in a retirement home which 
is connected to the nursing home which houses my mother who is 89 and 
has Alhzheimer's.  I have the opportunity to bring my mom up to the 
apartment every day,and to interact not only with her but with all 
the other Alhzheimer patients.  It you want to see Buddha Nature 
unfettered and unadulterated you should spend time with some elderly 
people such as these.  They are such an inspiration!  No clever games 
or silly posturing.  It is true WYSIWYG (what you see is what you 
get), and that is what I call Buddha Nature - Just THIS!

I have been and will continue to be very busy trying to sort out all 
the financial arrangements with will allow my mother to receive all 
the benefits to which she is entitled and allow her to live the rest 
of her life in comfort and with secutity.  Much of that is dealing 
with truts and lawyers and brokers and bankers.  Also there was the 
mountain of mail which accumulated over the past several months full 
of bills and medical insurance jargon that I still haven't been able 
to fully penetrate.  ALso there is of course the arrangements with 
Social Secutiy, my dad's pension and health insurance and hopfully 
some VA surviving spouse benefits.  The last part of this is planning 
and accompanying her on a to northern California to a facility near 
two of my daughters - Castro Valley or Santa Rosa areas.

I will continue to lurk, but don't expect much in the way of postings 
for probably through the first of the year.

With deep appreciationBill!
 




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Where's Bill?

[Bill Smart]

Zen Forum,

I'll be participating in this group on very sporadically for an 
extended period of time - maybe as much as a month or more.

I am in the USA now.  I arrived just in time to be with my father 
before he passed away.  He finally succumbed after a 5-year bout with 
lymphoma and the crippling side-effects of the chemotherapy he was 
taking to control the cancer.  He died on 05Feb.  He would have been 
91 on 08Feb.

My mother is almost 90 herself.  She's had Alhzheimer's for 3 or 4 
years now.  About a year ago it had progressed enough to require 
putting her into a full-care facility (nursing home) in the same 
assisted living community where my dad lived.

Right now I'm staying in their old apartment in the assisted living 
area.  I'll be here for at least the balance of Nov and maybe longer 
taking care of all the legal, financial, personal propery issues, and 
arranging a move for my Mom out to a full-care facility in the North 
Bay area of San Francisco so she can be near two of my daughters and 
their families who live in Castro Valley and Sonoma.

Keep up all the great discussions!  During the next month or so I 
will probably monitor the Zen Forum but will seldom participate.

If necessary you can continue to reach me at my personal email 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Gassho...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm going to be away from my computer for about 2 while I fly from 
Thailand
> to the USA.
> 
>  
> 
> I've not lost interest in these posting and will try to catch up 
after I've
> arrived at my destination.
> 
>  
> 
> .Bill!
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Question?

[Bill Smart]

Mayka,

I'm not able to get your posts as email - nor Mike Brown's.  I don't 
know why.  I'm in the website now so I did see this one.

TNH's meditation guide/koan 'Present moment.  Wonderful moment.' is 
saying EXACTLY what I said in my previous post: "...there is no 'you' 
doing anything,  there is only ever one thing happening - Just THIS! 
and it is only ever happening NOW.

There is only this PRESENT MOMENT - no you, no other things going on, 
and there is only now.

Personally I think THN's 'Wonderful' qualifer on the second part is 
unnecessary and actually misleading.  I'd appreciate if you would ask 
him (or your teacher) about that:  Why does he describe the Present 
Moment as 'wonderful'.  This is a dualistic qualifier which should 
not be applied to Present Moment.  There is only one eternal Present 
Moment, and it is neither wonderful nor unpleasant.  It is Just 
THIS!  Present Moment!

...Bill!



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Mayka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill;
> 
> I'm sorry to say that I was unable to figure out or understand much 
> about the conversation between Edgar and yourself. I understand 
> better words with simplicity.  I actually believe that the greater 
is 
> the simplicity the greater is also its depth and beauty.  For 
> instance, There is this step in one of the guide meditations from 
TNH 
> which says "Present moment, Wonderful moment".  Initially I used to 
> think that it was nice but not a very realistic way since the 
present 
> moments varies.  But slowly, slowly I started to penetrate into 
> this "koan" finding with surprise that indeed present moment is a 
> wonderful moment.  I found that indeed we can choose the mental 
state 
> we want to be!.  Just an exemle to show how words with simplicity 
> works much better, at the very least on me. 
> 
> You keep talking about illusion.  Illusion is also part of 
reality.  
> Without illusion there wouldn't be reality.  My Teacher says that 
> enlightenment, nirvana is made with no elements of nirvana.  I 
think 
> that what he means by that is that both relate to each other and 
both 
> are one.
> 
> Mayka   
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
> >
> > Mayka,
> > 
> > I disagree with Edgar on this.  Actually this is the same 
> disagreement on
> > which Edgar and I posted on previously concerning causation and 
> eventually
> > abandoned our efforts.
> > - Edgar thinks reality is made up of many distinct (but sometimes 
> related)
> > things happening at either the same or different times. (At least 
> that is my
> > understanding of Edgar's general position.  He can correct me if 
> I'm wrong
> > in my assessment or if I'm not expressing it well.)
> > - I think reality is only one thing (Just THIS!), and there is 
only 
> one time
> > (now).
> > 
> > So, my responses to you are that there is no 'you' doing 
anything, 
> there is
> > only ever one thing happening - Just THIS! and it is only ever 
> happening
> > NOW.  All the other concepts discussed in this post are illusions.
> > 
> > If you're walking, there is only walking.  The entire universe is 
> walking -
> > now.  If you're chewing gum, there is only chewing gum.  The 
entire 
> universe
> > is chewing gum - now.
> > 
> > In Zen Buddhism this is referred to as expressing your Buddha 
> Nature.  I
> > refer to this as Just THIS!
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> On Behalf
> > Of Edgar Owen
> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:37 AM
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Question?
> > 
> > Mayka,
> > 
> > You are missing my point. One's body is always doing many many 
> things at
> > once. One could not exist otherwise. Scores of muscles have to 
move 
> together
> > to make even the simplest motion. To speak tongue and lips and 
> breath must
> > all move at the same time. No one ever is doing just one thing. 
> That is an
> > illusion.
> > 
> > Edgar
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Is SATORI just a fairy tale?

[Bill Smart]

Zatoichi63,

To answer your question, yes 'satori' is just 'a fairly tale' - an 
illusion.

My other responses are embedded below:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "zatoichi63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  'With complete awareness' would have been better.
> > 
> > 
> 
> With x-ray vision and telekinesis would have been even better. Have 
> you ever considered that this goal you have dedicated your life too 
is 
> as much a sack of bullshit as Heaven, Angels, and Leprechauns?
 
To what goal do you think I have dedicated my life?  Certainly 
not 'satori' or 'enlightnement', or Heaven, Angels or Leprechauns.

> Chemical scientific analysis of brain functions keeps unlocking the 
> doors to the "white light" and other mystical experiences that have 
> been proven to be hallucinations caused by the chemicals that are 
> manufactured by your brain.
 
How do you define 'hallucinations'?  Are they a 'false' awareness of 
things that aren't 'really' there?  If so, how does 'real' awareness 
of things that are 'really' there happen?  Aren't they also caused by 
chemical reactions in the brain?  What's the difference?
 
> Meditate endlessly, and your brain creates a chemical whose effects 
> people have come to know as SATORI. It is not an advanced state of 
> enlightenment, it is just chemicals in your brain. Get with the 
> program. There is no enlightenment. It is all just chemically 
induced 
> fantasies on the journey to death.

Satori is an illusion.  Enlightenment and especially the belief in 
different states of enlighenment are illusions.  So, I guess I would 
have to agree with this last paragraph.

Zatoichi63 or Mac A. Roni or Al or whatever you want to call yourself 
today, just sit!  Quit drinking so much expresso and just sit!

No satori, no enlighenment, no Zatoichi63 - Just THIS!

...Bill!


  




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Black Zen Masters?

[Bill Smart]

Lotus Flower,

You wrote:

I was actually just making a little joke by adpating a well known 
koan to specifically address Mac A. Roni.  The original koan 
is: 'What your original face before your mother was born?' or 'Show 
me your face before your mother was born.'  Since Mac A. Roni 
(macaroni) is just a fake name from own of our usual contributors, I 
chose to adapt it to a noodle theme.

Lo siento, yo no puedo reciber su 'postings' en mi email.  Porque?  
Yo no se.

I also am not getting posts from Mike Brown.  Several months ago I 
used to get them from both of you.

I have checked all the SPAM and other filters I have.  Everyone 
else's postings come through okay.

By the way, do you post your postings via email or via the website?

Mike Brown, do you post your postings via email or via the website?

Hasta luego...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Mayka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
> > 
> > Mac. A. Roni: Show us your noodle before you the water was 
brought 
> to a
> > boil!
> > 
> 
> 
> Hi Bill;
> 
> This say sounds a contradition.  How can one show oneself noodle 
> before the water was brought to the boil?. I'm comparing the noodle 
> with the internal knots and the boiling water as a non tranquil 
mind. 
> When the water is brought to the boil, the noodle shakes and can't 
> coordinate with reason. Imposible to see and therefore show the 
> noodle!!!.  The noodle will need to be taken away from the boiling 
> water, won't it?
> 
> As soon as I see your post I open it with curiosity.  It's really 
> great having someone like you in this group.
> 
> Hope you can receive all emails now.  Hope the problem of the post 
> has been sort it out. I haven't had any problems with this website 
> yet.  I did in the past experiencing alike problems as yourself.  
But 
> now post goes into the group in seconds. 
> 
>  Have you checked the spam and trash post?.  Check also the 
antivirus 
> and Firewall, antispy...
> 
>  May I call the attention of the Administrator of this website and 
> check what is going wrong with the post to some members?
> 
> A Scottish automn leaf to you
> Mayka
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Black Zen Masters?

[Bill Smart]

Chris,  No, I'm talking about buddha nature...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart"  wrote:
> 
> ...> Show us your face before your mother was born.<
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Are you talking about his mother? 
> 
> 
> Chris
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Black Zen Masters?

[Bill Smart]

Jackson,

There are no Black zen masters.

What color is your buddha nature?  Show us your face before your mother 
was born.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Jackson Masters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Are there any? Is Zen the last bastion of racism? Now that Obama is 
> going to become President, the Zen temples need to start approving 
> more blacks as Roshis! 
> 
> The Black Man has arrived!! Move over whitey!
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori you can do without being bored

[Bill Smart]

Yes...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>  
> Do you mean to say, 'zen does NOT try to convince you...'?
>  
> Regards,
> Anthony
> 
> --- On Sat, 20/9/08, Bill Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> From: Bill Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Zen] Re: What's after Satori you can do without being 
bored
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, 20 September, 2008, 9:15 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> I forgot to address the 'boring' issue you raised...
> 
> You wrote:
> > > One of the reasons why zen fails to attract ordinary people is 
> that 
> > after satori you just eat when you are hungry, sleep when you are 
> > sleepy etc. That seems boring. In Christianity and Islam, you go 
to 
> > heaven to enjoy yourselves permanently. What is your explanation?
> 
> I addressed your remark about zen failing to attract people, but 
did 
> not address the 'boring' part.
> 
> If you perform an action with your whole being, such as eating or 
> sleeping or having sex, you will not be bored. You are bored when 
> you are half-doing one thing and thinking about something else. 
When 
> you're mowing the grass you should just mow the grass. You should 
> not be mowing the grass while thinking about what you're going to 
do 
> when your finished, like play golf or go swimming. If you do that 
> while mowing the grass you'll be bored.
> 
> Zen does try to convince you to be good or bad for fear of 
punishment 
> or promise of reward. Zen does not promise you a future heaven. If 
> you're interested in that you can have it right here, right now. In 
> fact even Jesus was reported to have said as much when he said '... 
> the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.' Luke 17:21. Buddha Nature is 
> within you. You just have to look for it. The search and your life 
> after finding it is definitely not boring.
> 
> Bill!
> 
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, "Bill Smart"  
wrote:
> >
> > Anthony,
> > 
> > My remarks/responses are embedded below:
> > 
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, Anthony Wu  wrote:
> > >
> > > The koan you quoted, "show me your face before your mother was 
> > born" should read, "show me your face before your mother gave 
birth 
> > to you." That is more relevant, as there is no direct connection 
> > between 'your mother' and your self.
> > 
> > I quoted the koan correctly: 'before your mother was born'. Koans 
> > have nothing whatsoever to do with relevance.
> > 
> > > The Chinese meaning of 'satori' is 'awakening' or 'awakened'. 
> > And 'kensho' is 'seeing your nature'. But meanings can changed, 
> > dictated by usage.
> > 
> > Thanks for these translations. They are compatible with my 
> > understanding of the way they are used in Japanese Zen Buddhism.
> > 
> > > One of the reasons why zen fails to attract ordinary people is 
> that 
> > after satori you just eat when you are hungry, sleep when you are 
> > sleepy etc. That seems boring. In Christianity and Islam, you go 
to 
> > heaven to enjoy yourselves permanently. What is your explanation?
> > 
> > I know of no zen schools that prosyletise, so attracting people 
is 
> > not high on their agenda. The general attitude I've heard 
> concerning 
> > this is that 'people will come when they're ready'.
> >  
> > > The other aspect that is seldom mentioned is whether I can 
add 'I 
> > have sex when I feel lust' to '... eat... sleep'? Sex is one of 
the 
> > common activities human beings do. You cannot ignore it.
> > 
> > There are a lot of other aspects you could add. Sex is certainly 
> one 
> > of them. I don't ignore it, but I'm not obsessed with it either. 
> > When horny, I have sex, if my partner is willing. Okay?
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Anthony
> > > 
> > > --- On Fri, 19/9/08, Bill Smart  wrote:
> > > 
> > > From: Bill Smart 
> > > Subject: [Zen] Re: What's after Satori
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com
> > > Date: Friday, 19 September, 2008, 9:30 AM
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > JMJM,
> > > 
> > > 1. Yes, I believe the term 'satori' and the 
term 'enlightnement' 
> > 

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori you can do without being bored

[Bill Smart]

Anthony,

I forgot to address the 'boring' issue you raised...

You wrote:
> > One of the reasons why zen fails to attract ordinary people is 
that 
> after satori you just eat when you are hungry, sleep when you are 
> sleepy etc. That seems boring. In Christianity and Islam, you go to 
> heaven to enjoy yourselves permanently. What is your explanation?

I addressed your remark about zen failing to attract people, but did 
not address the 'boring' part.

If you perform an action with your whole being, such as eating or 
sleeping or having sex, you will not be bored.  You are bored when 
you are half-doing one thing and thinking about something else.  When 
you're mowing the grass you should just mow the grass.  You should 
not be mowing the grass while thinking about what you're going to do 
when your finished, like play golf or go swimming.  If you do that 
while mowing the grass you'll be bored.

Zen does try to convince you to be good or bad for fear of punishment 
or promise of reward.  Zen does not promise you a future heaven.  If 
you're interested in that you can have it right here, right now.  In 
fact even Jesus was reported to have said as much when he said '... 
the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.'  Luke 17:21.  Buddha Nature is 
within you.  You just have to look for it.  The search and your life 
after finding it is definitely not boring.

...Bill!



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anthony,
> 
> My remarks/responses are embedded below:
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu  wrote:
> >
> > The koan you quoted, "show me your face before your mother was 
> born" should read, "show me your face before your mother gave birth 
> to you." That is more relevant, as there is no direct connection 
> between 'your mother' and your self.
> 
> I quoted the koan correctly: 'before your mother was born'.  Koans 
> have nothing whatsoever to do with relevance.
> 
> > The Chinese meaning of 'satori' is 'awakening' or 'awakened'. 
> And 'kensho' is 'seeing your nature'. But meanings can changed, 
> dictated by usage.
> 
> Thanks for these translations.  They are compatible with my 
> understanding of the way they are used in Japanese Zen Buddhism.
> 
> > One of the reasons why zen fails to attract ordinary people is 
that 
> after satori you just eat when you are hungry, sleep when you are 
> sleepy etc. That seems boring. In Christianity and Islam, you go to 
> heaven to enjoy yourselves permanently. What is your explanation?
> 
> I know of no zen schools that prosyletise, so attracting people is 
> not high on their agenda.  The general attitude I've heard 
concerning 
> this is that 'people will come when they're ready'.
>  
> > The other aspect that is seldom mentioned is whether I can add 'I 
> have sex when I feel lust' to '... eat... sleep'? Sex is one of the 
> common activities human beings do. You cannot ignore it.
> 
> There are a lot of other aspects you could add.  Sex is certainly 
one 
> of them.  I don't ignore it, but I'm not obsessed with it either.  
> When horny, I have sex, if my partner is willing.  Okay?
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> > Regards,
> > Anthony
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 19/9/08, Bill Smart  wrote:
> > 
> > From: Bill Smart 
> > Subject: [Zen] Re: What's after Satori
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Friday, 19 September, 2008, 9:30 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > JMJM,
> > 
> > 1. Yes, I believe the term 'satori' and the term 'enlightnement' 
> > mean the same thing.
> > 2. Satori could indeed be called as you suggest 'witness the 
> > Original Self'. One of the 'breakthrough' koans used to 
> > induce 'kensho' (first experience of satori) is 'Show me your 
face 
> > before your mother was born.' The certainly refers to 
> your 'Original 
> > Self', or your Buddha Nature.
> > 
> > Bill!
> > 
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
> 覺妙精明 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you guys for trying. Two more questions:
> > > 
> > > 1. Is satori enlightenment?
> > > 2. If you agree that Satori is an irreversible transition. Then 
> > it 
> > > could be what we called, "witness the Original Self." I don't 
> know 
> > > whether zen has similar term?
> > > 
> > > Thanks, JM
> &g

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori you can do without being bored

[Bill Smart]

Anthony,

My remarks/responses are embedded below:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The koan you quoted, "show me your face before your mother was 
born" should read, "show me your face before your mother gave birth 
to you." That is more relevant, as there is no direct connection 
between 'your mother' and your self.

I quoted the koan correctly: 'before your mother was born'.  Koans 
have nothing whatsoever to do with relevance.

> The Chinese meaning of 'satori' is 'awakening' or 'awakened'. 
And 'kensho' is 'seeing your nature'. But meanings can changed, 
dictated by usage.

Thanks for these translations.  They are compatible with my 
understanding of the way they are used in Japanese Zen Buddhism.

> One of the reasons why zen fails to attract ordinary people is that 
after satori you just eat when you are hungry, sleep when you are 
sleepy etc. That seems boring. In Christianity and Islam, you go to 
heaven to enjoy yourselves permanently. What is your explanation?

I know of no zen schools that prosyletise, so attracting people is 
not high on their agenda.  The general attitude I've heard concerning 
this is that 'people will come when they're ready'.
 
> The other aspect that is seldom mentioned is whether I can add 'I 
have sex when I feel lust' to '... eat... sleep'? Sex is one of the 
common activities human beings do. You cannot ignore it.

There are a lot of other aspects you could add.  Sex is certainly one 
of them.  I don't ignore it, but I'm not obsessed with it either.  
When horny, I have sex, if my partner is willing.  Okay?

...Bill!

> Regards,
> Anthony
> 
> --- On Fri, 19/9/08, Bill Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> From: Bill Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Zen] Re: What's after Satori
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, 19 September, 2008, 9:30 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JMJM,
> 
> 1. Yes, I believe the term 'satori' and the term 'enlightnement' 
> mean the same thing.
> 2. Satori could indeed be called as you suggest 'witness the 
> Original Self'. One of the 'breakthrough' koans used to 
> induce 'kensho' (first experience of satori) is 'Show me your face 
> before your mother was born.' The certainly refers to 
your 'Original 
> Self', or your Buddha Nature.
> 
> Bill!
> 
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
覺妙精明 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thank you guys for trying. Two more questions:
> > 
> > 1. Is satori enlightenment?
> > 2. If you agree that Satori is an irreversible transition. Then 
> it 
> > could be what we called, "witness the Original Self." I don't 
know 
> > whether zen has similar term?
> > 
> > Thanks, JM
> > 
> > Bill Smart wrote:
> > >
> > > Edgar,
> > >
> > > You are right. I corrected this post in a subsequent post. I
> > > wrote 'satori' but meant 'kensho'.
> > >
> > > ...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com <mailto:Zen_ Forum%
> 40yahoogroups. com>, 
> > > Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think satori is a term used just for a first awakening
> > > > implying there may be others. There is some disagreement, but 
in
> > > > almost all of the Zen enlightenment stories satori is 
described 
> as
> > > if
> > > > it is a permanent and irreversible transition. Frankly I doubt
> > > that
> > > > is true in all cases. If so each would still be a satori.
> > > >
> > > > Edgar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sep 18, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Bill Smart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > JMJM,
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Satori' is a term used in Japanese Zen Buddhism to 
describe 
> the
> > > > > first awakening. It is thought to come suddenly (even 
though 
> there
> > > > > might have been a lot of preparation) , and is thought to be
> > > temporary
> > > > > (does not last a long time - maybe just minutes with a 
strong
> > > memory
> > > > > or sense of what it was like lasting for days and months). 
> There
> > > is
> > > > > thought to be a difference in 'satori' and 'enlightenment' 
> only in
> > > > > deg

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Al,

You can't walk REALLY WELL if you're doing anything else.  You can't 
chew gum REALLY WELL if you're doing anything else.

If you're walking REALLY WELL, that's all you're doing.  In fact that's 
all that's being done in the whole universe.  The entire universe 
is 'Just WALKING!'

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Bill Smart" <> Praying or chanting while doing cardio would not 
> count.  If you're praying, you're Only PRAYING!  If you're chanting, 
> you're Only CHANTING!  If you're 'doing cardio' (walking/running on a 
> treadmill?), then you're Only DOING CARDIO!
> > 
> 
> So you can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Sounds a bit??
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

There are many links which show these pictures.  You can google 'zen 
oxherding' or go to http://www.shambhala.org/dharma/ctr/oxherding/.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If that is the case in Ox Herding, (I don't know what that is, 
please 
> provide link), then it coincide with our school's teaching.  After 
> Satori, then one liberates every sentient being.   In other words, 
enter 
> the mud and grow the lotus.  Or cultivate the merit, on the way to 
> Buddhahood.  Or the stage of consummation/resolutions.  JM
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > Mike and Edgar,
> >
> > First there is a mountain,
> > Then there is no mountain,
> > Then there is.
> >
> > The last picture in the Ox Herding series is the enlignented being
> > returning to the market place (everyday life), not ascending to
> > heaven in a blaze of glory.
> >
> > What is after satori? When hungy, I eat. When tired, I sleep. Oh
> > yeah, and then there's the laundry.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > >
> > > I certainly agree that zazen can have the benefits that you 
state,
> > > having done quite a bit of sitting myself. However my point is
> > that
> > > there are other ways which in my case at least are now more
> > effective
> > > in keeping me on the path. Basically just constantly remembering
> > to
> > > look at reality
> > >
> > > Now please pardon me, I have to do my laundry!
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:19 AM, mike brown wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Edgar,
> > > >
> > > > In terms of talking about what happens after satori, I like 
the
> > > > title of the book 'After the Ecstasy - the Laundry' (forgot 
the
> > > > author). To my mind, this does kind of imply the ordinariness 
of
> > > > our true, natural state. I think that people here are getting 
to
> > > > hung up about what satori is and once experienced is
> > enlightenment
> > > > forever. As you know, enlightenment is a moment to moment
> > > > experience and one can slip from one ox-herding stage to 
another
> > in
> > > > an instance. I think this is the main difference between our 
way
> > of
> > > > thinking. I believe that Zen and the practice of zazen helps 
to
> > > > keep a person mindful of their emotions day to day and moment 
to
> > > > moment and so helps them recognise the desires and aversions
> > that
> > > > lead towards unhappiness. A person who has a spontaneous 
kensho
> > or
> > > > who loses their sense of self in a sporting activity/nature/
> > > > listening to music etc. will rarely achieve this a second time
> > and
> > > > will almost certainly never intergrate this into a daily
> > practice
> > > > designed to 'bring the ox home'. Mike.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori

[Bill Smart]

Mike and Edgar,

First there is a mountain,
Then there is no mountain,
Then there is.

The last picture in the Ox Herding series is the enlignented being 
returning to the market place (everyday life), not ascending to 
heaven in a blaze of glory.

What is after satori?  When hungy, I eat.  When tired, I sleep.  Oh 
yeah, and then there's the laundry.

...Bill!


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike,
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that zazen can have the benefits that you state,  
> having done quite a bit of sitting myself. However my point is 
that  
> there are other ways which in my case at least are now more 
effective  
> in keeping me on the path. Basically just constantly remembering 
to  
> look at reality
> 
> Now please pardon me, I have to do my laundry!
> 
> Best,
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:19 AM, mike brown wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi Edgar,
> >
> > In terms of talking about what happens after satori, I like the  
> > title of the book 'After the Ecstasy - the Laundry' (forgot the  
> > author). To my mind, this does kind of imply the ordinariness of  
> > our true, natural state. I think that people here are getting to  
> > hung up about what satori is and once experienced is 
enlightenment  
> > forever. As you know, enlightenment is a moment to moment  
> > experience and one can slip from one ox-herding stage to another 
in  
> > an instance. I think this is the main difference between our way 
of  
> > thinking. I believe that Zen and the practice of zazen helps to  
> > keep a person mindful of their emotions day to day and moment to  
> > moment and so helps them recognise the desires and aversions 
that  
> > lead towards unhappiness. A person who has a spontaneous kensho 
or  
> > who loses their sense of self in a sporting activity/nature/ 
> > listening to music etc. will rarely achieve this a second time 
and  
> > will almost certainly never intergrate this into a daily 
practice  
> > designed to 'bring the ox home'. Mike.
> >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

1.  Yes, I believe the term 'satori' and the term 'enlightnement' 
mean the same thing.
2.  Satori could indeed be called as you suggest 'witness the 
Original Self'.  One of the 'breakthrough' koans used to 
induce 'kensho' (first experience of satori) is 'Show me your face 
before your mother was born.'  The certainly refers to your 'Original 
Self', or your Buddha Nature.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you guys for trying.  Two more questions:
> 
> 1.  Is satori enlightenment?
> 2.  If you agree that Satori is an irreversible transition.  Then 
it 
> could be what we called, "witness the Original Self."  I don't know 
> whether zen has similar term?
> 
> Thanks, JM
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > Edgar,
> >
> > You are right. I corrected this post in a subsequent post. I
> > wrote 'satori' but meant 'kensho'.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > I don't think satori is a term used just for a first awakening
> > > implying there may be others. There is some disagreement, but in
> > > almost all of the Zen enlightenment stories satori is described 
as
> > if
> > > it is a permanent and irreversible transition. Frankly I doubt
> > that
> > > is true in all cases. If so each would still be a satori.
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 18, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Bill Smart wrote:
> > >
> > > > JMJM,
> > > >
> > > > 'Satori' is a term used in Japanese Zen Buddhism to describe 
the
> > > > first awakening. It is thought to come suddenly (even though 
there
> > > > might have been a lot of preparation), and is thought to be
> > temporary
> > > > (does not last a long time - maybe just minutes with a strong
> > memory
> > > > or sense of what it was like lasting for days and months). 
There
> > is
> > > > thought to be a difference in 'satori' and 'enlightenment' 
only in
> > > > degree of awareness and durability (how long it lasts) of the
> > > > experience. Fundamentally awakening is awakening. There is no
> > > > difference.
> > > >
> > > > In Japanese Zen Buddhism teachings, after satori, would come a
> > > > regimine of either continued zazen (shikantaza) or koan 
study - or
> > > > both. Both of these would be done under the tutelege of a zen
> > roshi
> > > > who would direct the students teaching during dokusans 
(private
> > > > interviews). Dokusans are usually daily, but depending on the
> > number
> > > > of students could be more or less than that. During this 
period
> > the
> > > > roshi helps the student refine his/her awakening experience so
> > that
> > > > it can be gradually incorporated into the everyday activies 
of the
> > > > student.
> > > >
> > > > This is the way I was taught in a Japanese Zen Buddhist zendo 
many
> > > > years ago. All of this does not now represent my current
> > > > understanding of 'enlightenment' (Just THIS!).
> > > >
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Jue Miao Jing Ming -
> > 覺妙精明
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, What I meant was, Edgar mentioned enlightenment comes 
after
> > > > Satori.
> > > > > Is there anything else we could to do to realize that? How 
about
> > > > to be
> > > > > Buddha? Do you talk about any of these? Do you talk about 
merit?
> > > > Or
> > > > > just slap on your face? Thanks, Donald ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Smart wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After satori some lose the ability to write complete
> > sentences and
> > > > > > respond to everything in loosely connected phrases...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just kidding! ;>)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Siminotes, Welcome! I haven't seen you on the forum 
before. I
> > hope
> > > > 

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

You are right.  I corrected this post in a subsequent post.  I 
wrote 'satori' but meant 'kensho'.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> I don't think satori is a term used just for a first awakening  
> implying there may be others. There is some disagreement, but in  
> almost all of the Zen enlightenment stories satori is described as 
if  
> it is a permanent and irreversible transition. Frankly I doubt 
that  
> is true in all cases. If so each would still be a satori.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 18, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Bill Smart wrote:
> 
> > JMJM,
> >
> > 'Satori' is a term used in Japanese Zen Buddhism to describe the
> > first awakening. It is thought to come suddenly (even though there
> > might have been a lot of preparation), and is thought to be 
temporary
> > (does not last a long time - maybe just minutes with a strong 
memory
> > or sense of what it was like lasting for days and months). There 
is
> > thought to be a difference in 'satori' and 'enlightenment' only in
> > degree of awareness and durability (how long it lasts) of the
> > experience. Fundamentally awakening is awakening. There is no
> > difference.
> >
> > In Japanese Zen Buddhism teachings, after satori, would come a
> > regimine of either continued zazen (shikantaza) or koan study - or
> > both. Both of these would be done under the tutelege of a zen 
roshi
> > who would direct the students teaching during dokusans (private
> > interviews). Dokusans are usually daily, but depending on the 
number
> > of students could be more or less than that. During this period 
the
> > roshi helps the student refine his/her awakening experience so 
that
> > it can be gradually incorporated into the everyday activies of the
> > student.
> >
> > This is the way I was taught in a Japanese Zen Buddhist zendo many
> > years ago. All of this does not now represent my current
> > understanding of 'enlightenment' (Just THIS!).
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
覺妙精明
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, What I meant was, Edgar mentioned enlightenment comes after
> > Satori.
> > > Is there anything else we could to do to realize that? How about
> > to be
> > > Buddha? Do you talk about any of these? Do you talk about merit?
> > Or
> > > just slap on your face? Thanks, Donald ?
> > >
> > > Bill Smart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > After satori some lose the ability to write complete 
sentences and
> > > > respond to everything in loosely connected phrases...
> > > >
> > > > Just kidding! ;>)
> > > >
> > > > Siminotes, Welcome! I haven't seen you on the forum before. I 
hope
> > > > you will continue to participate. I enjoy your posts. I 
especially
> > > > enjoyed one a few posts ago in which you posted:
> > > >
> > > > "Self arises and dissapears with interaction."
> > > >
> > > > "The Self is a by product, not a permanent thing."
> > > >
> > > > I liked this description a lotBill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > "siminotes"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > peace and serenity...
> > > > >
> > > > > and nothing special.living our lives and learning to be 
more
> > > > > skillful.
> > > > >
> > > > > no difference, satori no satori
> > > > >
> > > > > just more aware...
> > > > >
> > > > > nothing special
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Jue Miao Jing Ming -
> > 覺妙精明
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What does your teaching say, if any, what to do after 
Satori?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, all teaching by itself is maya. But the 
teacher may
> > > > > have
> > > > > > said something
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > JM
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

I screwed up.  'Satori' is a full awakening or enlightenment.  As far 
as I'm concerned there is nothing more to realize after satori.  As 
far as being 'buddha', we are all buddha right now.  I've never heard 
anyone talk about 'merit' in relationship to satori or 
enlightenment.  Maybe you think about that in the sense of karma and 
the building up of 'good' karma.  This sounds more like the Christian 
concept of 'good works'.

After satori, at least in my opinion, karma is seen as maya and is no 
longer applicable.

'Kensho' is what I was thinking about when I wrote the posting 
below.  Just substitute 'kensho' for 'satori' and you'll see what I 
meant to say...I've corrected the posting below...

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> JMJM,
> 
> 'Kensho' is a term used in Japanese Zen Buddhism to describe the 
> first awakening.  It is thought to come suddenly (even though there 
> might have been a lot of preparation), and is thought to be 
temporary 
> (does not last a long time - maybe just minutes with a strong 
memory 
> or sense of what it was like lasting for days and months).  There 
is 
> thought to be a difference in 'kensho' and 'enlightenment' only in 
> degree of awareness and durability (how long it lasts) of the 
> experience.  Fundamentally awakening is awakening.  There is no 
> difference.
> 
> In Japanese Zen Buddhism teachings, after kensho, would come a 
> regimine of either continued zazen (shikantaza) or koan study - or 
> both.  Both of these would be done under the tutelege of a zen 
roshi 
> who would direct the students teaching during dokusans (private 
> interviews).  Dokusans are usually daily, but depending on the 
number 
> of students could be more or less than that.  During this period 
the 
> roshi helps the student refine his/her awakening experience so that 
> it can be gradually incorporated into the everyday activies of the 
> student.
> 
> This is the way I was taught in a Japanese Zen Buddhist zendo many 
> years ago.  All of this does not now represent my current 
> understanding of 'enlightenment' (Just THIS!).
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi, What I meant was, Edgar mentioned enlightenment comes after 
> Satori.  
> > Is there anything else we could to do to realize that?  How about 
> to be 
> > Buddha? Do you talk about any of these?  Do you talk about 
merit?  
> Or 
> > just slap on your face?  Thanks, Donald  ?
> > 
> > Bill Smart wrote:
> > >
> > > After satori some lose the ability to write complete sentences 
and
> > > respond to everything in loosely connected phrases...
> > >
> > > Just kidding! ;>)
> > >
> > > Siminotes, Welcome! I haven't seen you on the forum before. I 
hope
> > > you will continue to participate. I enjoy your posts. I 
especially
> > > enjoyed one a few posts ago in which you posted:
> > >
> > > "Self arises and dissapears with interaction."
> > >
> > > "The Self is a by product, not a permanent thing."
> > >
> > > I liked this description a lotBill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > > "siminotes"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > peace and serenity...
> > > >
> > > > and nothing special.living our lives and learning to be 
more
> > > > skillful.
> > > >
> > > > no difference, satori no satori
> > > >
> > > > just more aware...
> > > >
> > > > nothing special
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
> 覺妙精明
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > What does your teaching say, if any, what to do after 
Satori?
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, all teaching by itself is maya. But the teacher 
may
> > > > have
> > > > > said something
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > JM
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

'Satori' is a term used in Japanese Zen Buddhism to describe the 
first awakening.  It is thought to come suddenly (even though there 
might have been a lot of preparation), and is thought to be temporary 
(does not last a long time - maybe just minutes with a strong memory 
or sense of what it was like lasting for days and months).  There is 
thought to be a difference in 'satori' and 'enlightenment' only in 
degree of awareness and durability (how long it lasts) of the 
experience.  Fundamentally awakening is awakening.  There is no 
difference.

In Japanese Zen Buddhism teachings, after satori, would come a 
regimine of either continued zazen (shikantaza) or koan study - or 
both.  Both of these would be done under the tutelege of a zen roshi 
who would direct the students teaching during dokusans (private 
interviews).  Dokusans are usually daily, but depending on the number 
of students could be more or less than that.  During this period the 
roshi helps the student refine his/her awakening experience so that 
it can be gradually incorporated into the everyday activies of the 
student.

This is the way I was taught in a Japanese Zen Buddhist zendo many 
years ago.  All of this does not now represent my current 
understanding of 'enlightenment' (Just THIS!).

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, What I meant was, Edgar mentioned enlightenment comes after 
Satori.  
> Is there anything else we could to do to realize that?  How about 
to be 
> Buddha? Do you talk about any of these?  Do you talk about merit?  
Or 
> just slap on your face?  Thanks, Donald  ?
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > After satori some lose the ability to write complete sentences and
> > respond to everything in loosely connected phrases...
> >
> > Just kidding! ;>)
> >
> > Siminotes, Welcome! I haven't seen you on the forum before. I hope
> > you will continue to participate. I enjoy your posts. I especially
> > enjoyed one a few posts ago in which you posted:
> >
> > "Self arises and dissapears with interaction."
> >
> > "The Self is a by product, not a permanent thing."
> >
> > I liked this description a lotBill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > "siminotes"  wrote:
> > >
> > > peace and serenity...
> > >
> > > and nothing special.living our lives and learning to be more
> > > skillful.
> > >
> > > no difference, satori no satori
> > >
> > > just more aware...
> > >
> > > nothing special
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
覺妙精明
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > >
> > > > What does your teaching say, if any, what to do after Satori?
> > > >
> > > > Of course, all teaching by itself is maya. But the teacher may
> > > have
> > > > said something
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > JM
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: What's after Satori

[Bill Smart]

After satori some lose the ability to write complete sentences and 
respond to everything in loosely connected phrases...

Just kidding! ;>)

Siminotes, Welcome!  I haven't seen you on the forum before.  I hope 
you will continue to participate.  I enjoy your posts.  I especially 
enjoyed one a few posts ago in which you posted:

"Self arises and dissapears with interaction."

"The Self is a by product, not a permanent thing."

I liked this description a lotBill!


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "siminotes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> peace and serenity...
> 
> and nothing special.living  our lives and learning to be more 
> skillful.
> 
> no difference, satori no satori
> 
> just more aware...
> 
> nothing special
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> > 
> > What does your teaching say, if any, what to do after Satori? 
> > 
> > Of course, all teaching by itself is maya.  But the teacher may 
> have 
> > said something
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > JM
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] satori

[Bill Smart]

I agree...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Chris,
> 
> Depends on your perspective. If you aren't in satori then the 
concept  
> of satori makes sense as one concept among others, but if you are 
in  
> satori then no concepts, including that of satori, make sense.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:51 PM, cid830 wrote:
> 
> > Thank you Bill. I was merely stating that I agree with your
> > definition of satori. My other remarks were referencing Edgar's
> > post about satori, no satori. I felt he was stating that there is
> > no such thing as satori, it is all an illusion, and I know where 
he
> > is coming from... but how can you say there is no such thing if it
> > can be defined and experienced?
> >
> > Also, I agree, how can one be a 'little' enlightened? But maybe
> > one can experience a glimpse of this awakening, without being 
fully
> > awake!
> >
> > I still have a hard time separating Zen and Buddhism, even though 
I
> > have always believed 100% in the Zen philosophy, while not fully
> > encompassing the Buddhist religion.
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris, et al,
> > >
> > > I'm not saying that I beleive 'satori' is real - it is maya. 
Your
> > > self is maya and all those things that occlude your Buddha 
Nature
> > > (Just THIS!) are maya. I was merely answering some questions
> > about
> > > what the Japanese term 'satori' means, and how it is used in
> > Japanese
> > > Zen Buddhist practice.
> > >
> > > The idea that there is a 'little enlightenment' and a 'medium
> > > enlightenment' and a 'big enlightenment', etc..., has always
> > bothered
> > > me a little bit, but in practice it doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > The truth of it is that you do seem to awaken to your Buddha
> > > Nature 'suddenly' (after maybe a lot of preparation), and the
> > first
> > > time that happens it is not 'full' and is not 'permanent'. That
> > has
> > > been my experience and the experience of many others I know, and
> > is
> > > also the premise on which Japanese Zen Buddhism structures it's
> > > teachings. There are even 'breakthrough' koans (like Mu or One
> > Hand
> > > Clapping), and more 'refining' koans (like Dried Shit on a Stick
> > and
> > > Mouse Bowl is Broken).
> > >
> > > As I hope most of you who read this forum know I do not promot
> > > Japanese Zen Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Chan Buddhism or even
> > Buddhism.
> > > I testify to what I call 'zen' (lower case 'z') which is a much
> > more
> > > generic practice leading to the realization of Just THIS! 
(Buddha
> > > Nature), and the continual integration of that perspective into
> > daily
> > > life. I do use a lot of Buddhist and Japanese terms because that
> > is
> > > how I was first introduced to and was taught zen.
> > >
> > > ...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm with Bill on this one; I was taught to believe that satori
> > was
> > > > an initial breakthrough or awakening. But that it is not
> > > necessarily
> > > > Enlightenment or the complete loss of self. Although, i think 
it
> > is
> > > > possible to experience it all at once. Satori is a concept but
> > it
> > > > is real as defined in one's practice. And if one believes
> > satori
> > > is
> > > > real, then it is real. Especially if they experience it! We 
can
> > say
> > > > everything is an illusion, but we still need to define
> > parameters
> > > > for the sake of discussion, as well as for noting progress in
> > our
> > > > practice.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming -
> > 覺妙精明
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for all of your input about satori. I used google
> > > > translator
> > > > > and I found the Japanese equivalent, 悟り
> > > > >
> > &

Re: [Zen] satori

[Bill Smart]

Chris, et al,

I'm not saying that I beleive 'satori' is real - it is maya.  Your 
self is maya and all those things that occlude your Buddha Nature 
(Just THIS!) are maya.  I was merely answering some questions about 
what the Japanese term 'satori' means, and how it is used in Japanese 
Zen Buddhist practice.

The idea that there is a 'little enlightenment' and a 'medium 
enlightenment' and a 'big enlightenment', etc..., has always bothered 
me a little bit, but in practice it doesn't matter.

The truth of it is that you do seem to awaken to your Buddha 
Nature 'suddenly' (after maybe a lot of preparation), and the first 
time that happens it is not 'full' and is not 'permanent'.  That has 
been my experience and the experience of many others I know, and is 
also the premise on which Japanese Zen Buddhism structures it's 
teachings.  There are even 'breakthrough' koans (like Mu or One Hand 
Clapping), and more 'refining' koans (like Dried Shit on a Stick and 
Mouse Bowl is Broken).

As I hope most of you who read this forum know I do not promot 
Japanese Zen Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Chan Buddhism or even Buddhism.  
I testify to what I call 'zen' (lower case 'z') which is a much more 
generic practice leading to the realization of Just THIS! (Buddha 
Nature), and the continual integration of that perspective into daily 
life.  I do use a lot of Buddhist and Japanese terms because that is 
how I was first introduced to and was taught zen.

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm with Bill on this one; I was taught to believe that satori was 
> an initial breakthrough or awakening. But that it is not 
necessarily 
> Enlightenment or the complete loss of self. Although, i think it is 
> possible to experience it all at once.  Satori is a concept but it 
> is real as defined in one's practice.  And if one believes satori 
is 
> real, then it is real. Especially if they experience it! We can say 
> everything is an illusion, but we still need to define parameters 
> for the sake of discussion, as well as for noting progress in our 
> practice. 
> 
> Thanks,
>Chris
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for all of your input about satori.  I used google 
> translator 
> > and I found the Japanese equivalent, 悟り
> > 
> > If that is the correct Kanji, then it means literally Awakening.  
> > Awakening is defined by our school a realization/experience that 
> we are 
> > enslaved by our mind.  Just a mental realization as well as an 
> > experience separating us from our mind.
> > 
> > Is this correct? 
> > 
> > If satori means a state of being, then we can live our daily life 
> in the 
> > state of Satori, then there is no self.  Therefore no suffering, 
> no 
> > judgment, etc.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > JM
> > PS. Our school uses the term of "practice with our heart", 
because 
> heart 
> > has no memory.  It is incapable to think.  :-)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > siminotes wrote:
> > >
> > > realizing Awareness.
> > >
> > > Sudden or gradual.
> > >
> > > Neither
> > >
> > > Both
> > >
> > > It is when the ego no longer covers the personality and you are 
> just
> > > yourself.
> > >
> > > Neither sudden nor gradual.
> > >
> > > siminotes
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com  40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > > Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JM,
> > > >
> > > > Satori is actually a misleading illusion. It refers to the
> > > > realization of the true nature of things by direct 
experience. 
> But
> > > > since the nature of things is ever present and actually is our
> > > direct
> > > > experience in that view we are always directly experiencing 
> it. By
> > > > using the term satori, we make an illusory distinction that 
we 
> can
> > > > either realize or not realize the true nature of things. But 
> that
> > > > implies an illusory dualism in the nature of things (the 
> nature of
> > > > things actually being our direct experience) as either one 
way 
> or
> > > the
> > > > other. It imposes a judgment on direct experience, and 
> judgement
> > > is
> > > > the antithesis of satori. So that is incorrect. All that 
> exists is
> > > > direct experience of the true nature of things, there is 
> nothing
> > > > else. Thus satori is and can be nothing, it is meaningless, an
> > > empty
> > > > word, a sound on the wind. All this is just a matter of which
> > > empty
> > > > words are used to describe the one true experience that is
> > > > consciousness.
> > > >
> > > > From the point of view of satori, satori and not satori have 
no
> > > > meaning. ONly from the point of view of non satori, is the 
> concept
> > > of
> > > > satori meaningful, as only in the world of relativity and 
> dualism
> > > can
> > > > there be such a distinction.
> > > >
> > > > Edgar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sep 17, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
> 覺妙精明
> >

Re: [Zen] TAO or NOTAO?

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

Since you mentioned my name I'd like to reply...

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well V,
> 
> Then perhaps, we need to start from the ground floor.  The Chinese 
> teaches that Chan is everything and all inclusive.  Everything both 
> visible and invisible are manifested by a singular, harmonious, 
> intelligent force. ( I am not sure zen agrees with this.  Bill's 
zen 
> seems wanting to have its own identity)

I wouldn't put it this way, but Buddha Nature (Just THIS!) is 
everything and all-inclusive, so it goes without saying that includes 
all things visable and invisable (invisable not implying spritual).

I agree with the 'singular', but not the 'harmonious' (if there is 
only one thing, what could it be in harmony with?) or 'intelligent' 
(no intelligence as in having a purpose, especially rationality)and 
not 'force' (as in engergy).
 
> That said, then all manifestations, both visible and invisible, are 
> categorized, analyzed, experimented in order for our brain to 
understand 
> Nature, or One, or God, so that anyone can live a healthier, 
happier and 
> harmonious life.

I don't disagree that this is what your rational mind does, that it 
creates a self and no-self, then all the rest of duality such as 
different categories of things, and analysis as to how these created 
categories relate to each other, and then 'understands' these things 
from a rational perspective; but all of this is MAYA.  THIS IS WHAT 
MAYA IS!  What do you think is meant by maya?

So the statement above and all the following statements are very, 
very interesting, but all maya - and not relevant, and the knowledge 
of, belief in or praticing these are certainly not prerequisites to 
enlightenment.

...Bill!

Thus, there is I-Ching, Wu-Xing, Herbal medicine, 
> acupuncture, Ying-Yang, feng-shui etc. etc for centuries. 
> 
> In our school, these "knowledge" or "human studies" belongs to the 
> "Three Realms - Desire, Form, Formless."  A dedicated Chan 
practitioner 
> can surpass the Three Reams - equates to blockage/karma to our 
Body, 
> Mind and Spirit.  We called it Three Karma Purification - a 
Buddhist term.
> 
> Therefore our school do not discuss these "knowledge", because they 
are 
> forms created by our mind.  It could be effective within the Three 
> Realms,  but may mess up the Realms beyond.
> 
> On the other hand, in all the "knowledge", there is a common 
> denominator, balance or harmony.  Everything about Chinese 
medicine, 
> acunpuncture, fengshui, is based on this philosophy, after all, all 
are 
> stemmed from one common  root,  mother nature, or God.
> 
> Similarly in Chan, we teach that life is a constant flow of 
> manifestations powered by an universal life force.  When we take a 
> picture trying to study it, it is no longer relevant.  Too many of 
us 
> even use it to judge everything else.  Worse, if we hang on to that 
> picture thought it was real, or we lost our focus and thus missed 
the 
> next big fish or bumped into a rock.  Sync to it is the only way.
> 
> Universal life force contains the power to manifest as well as the 
> wisdom it carries.  To get to the wisdom, like a radio signal, 
we've got 
> to have some power to sync to it.
>  
> JM





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] satori

[Bill Smart]

JMJM, that definition fits my understanding of the concept 
of 'satori'...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for all of your input about satori.  I used google 
translator 
> and I found the Japanese equivalent, 悟り
> 
> If that is the correct Kanji, then it means literally Awakening.  
> Awakening is defined by our school a realization/experience that we 
are 
> enslaved by our mind.  Just a mental realization as well as an 
> experience separating us from our mind.
> 
> Is this correct? 
> 
> If satori means a state of being, then we can live our daily life 
in the 
> state of Satori, then there is no self.  Therefore no suffering, no 
> judgment, etc.
> 
> Thanks,
> JM
> PS. Our school uses the term of "practice with our heart", because 
heart 
> has no memory.  It is incapable to think.  :-)
> 
> 
> 
> siminotes wrote:
> >
> > realizing Awareness.
> >
> > Sudden or gradual.
> >
> > Neither
> >
> > Both
> >
> > It is when the ego no longer covers the personality and you are 
just
> > yourself.
> >
> > Neither sudden nor gradual.
> >
> > siminotes
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com , 
> > Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > JM,
> > >
> > > Satori is actually a misleading illusion. It refers to the
> > > realization of the true nature of things by direct experience. 
But
> > > since the nature of things is ever present and actually is our
> > direct
> > > experience in that view we are always directly experiencing it. 
By
> > > using the term satori, we make an illusory distinction that we 
can
> > > either realize or not realize the true nature of things. But 
that
> > > implies an illusory dualism in the nature of things (the nature 
of
> > > things actually being our direct experience) as either one way 
or
> > the
> > > other. It imposes a judgment on direct experience, and judgement
> > is
> > > the antithesis of satori. So that is incorrect. All that exists 
is
> > > direct experience of the true nature of things, there is nothing
> > > else. Thus satori is and can be nothing, it is meaningless, an
> > empty
> > > word, a sound on the wind. All this is just a matter of which
> > empty
> > > words are used to describe the one true experience that is
> > > consciousness.
> > >
> > > From the point of view of satori, satori and not satori have no
> > > meaning. ONly from the point of view of non satori, is the 
concept
> > of
> > > satori meaningful, as only in the world of relativity and 
dualism
> > can
> > > there be such a distinction.
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 17, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙
精明
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi guys, What is satori? Is it sudden or gradual? Is it 
permanent
> > or
> > > > on and off? If you have any Buddhist term to refer to, it 
would
> > help.
> > > > Much obliged, JM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

I agree...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "v" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> mike brown wrote:without something tangible like zazen practice to 
> underpin their experience they might miss the meaning of what just 
> happened to them and put it down to something mystical/imaginative/a 
> gift from God etc.>
> 
> I think that lots of other religions have similar states of 
> enlightenment or divine illumination. In sports, there is "In the 
> Zone" which is commonly referred to as when people who are 
> participating in sports perform at their highest personal levels due 
> to a unity of mental and physical concentration. 
> 
> I think that satori is a lot more common than people think, and it is 
> experienced by many people at many different activities that have 
> nothing to do with zazen.
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Walking while listening to music or watching TV would not count as 
kinhin in my book.  Just WALKING! would be kinhin.

'In the zone' might be closer to it.  If you are playing a sport and 
loose your sense of self and are just flowing with the game, then that 
could be said to be a 'moment of illumination'.  It's close.

Praying or chanting while doing cardio would not count.  If you're 
praying, you're Only PRAYING!  If you're chanting, you're Only 
CHANTING!  If you're 'doing cardio' (walking/running on a treadmill?), 
then you're Only DOING CARDIO!

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "v" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Bill Smart" wrote:I do remember reading Thoreau where he sat 
> comtemplating in front of his cabin all day.  That was something  
> probably very close to zazen, but he certainly didn't call it zazen.
> > 
> 
> OK, I go to the gym, do cardio for 30 minutes, listen to music, watch 
> the TV monitors. Is that walking zazen (kinhin)? Does that count? 
What 
> if I get in the zone? what if I have a moment of illumination? What 
if 
> I prayed or chanted during cardio?
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: satori

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

>From my training I believe 'satori' is a Japanese term meaning 'sudden 
breakthrough' or 'initial breakthrough'.

To address your questions directly, my understanding of satori is that 
it is sudden and it is not permanent.

Japanese Zen Buddhism teaches growing degrees of enlightenment that 
starts with 'satori' and ends with 'full enlightenment'.

If you refer to the Ox Herding Pictures, and in my opinion:
- pictures 1 and 2 depict becoming interested in and starting to pursue 
enlightenment.
- picture 3: First Glimpse - would problably be 'satori'
- the rest of the pictures depict an integration of enlightenment into 
your everyday life.

What's everyone else's idea of 'satori'?

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys, What is satori?  Is it sudden or gradual?  Is it permanent 
or 
> on and off?   If you have any Buddhist term to refer to, it would 
help.  
> Much obliged, JM
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Even within Japanese Zen Buddhism there are references to 
the 'sudden' and 'gradual' schools.  Soto emphasises shikantaza 
(clear mind) and Renzai empahsises koans.  (Both schools by the way 
use both techniques.)

My teacher, whose lineage was from both Soto and Renzai schools, told 
me that realizing kensho in Soto was like walking around in a gentle 
rain for days and days, and then suddenly realizing you were wet, 
soaked through and through.  Renzai kensho was like being 
unexpectedly pushed into a swimming pool.  You come up sputtering and 
flailing around wondering what just happened!

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Chris,
> 
> Yes, you are referring to the 'sudden' versus the 'gradual' 
schools,  
> which was a major source of argument and bickering among the 
Chinese  
> Chan sects with each claiming their way was best.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:39 PM, cid830 wrote:
> 
> > Here! Here! Mike. I had the same reaction when I read his post.  
> > Many of
> > these people had worked a disciplined practice for years b4 
reaching a
> > breakthrough. And some will never experience it at all (in this
> > lifetime). And I understand your perspective of how through 
these  
> > years
> > of dedication and training that when they experience this satori
> > breakthrough they will be able to live in that state. There are
> > different schools of thought on that though, as far as living in a
> > constant state of awareness, or experiencing mini-
"breakthroughs"  
> > along
> > the way.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Edgar,
> > > Again, in an ultimate sense I agree with you. Most satori  
> > experiences
> > occur off the mat (we cannot determine when they happen so they 
are a
> > kind of 'Grace', if you like), but for most people these 
experiences
> > are usually preceded by many years of zazen and rarely occur
> > independently from it (especially in relation to the past Zen  
> > masters).
> > In fact, I would add that to receive a satori like experience 
without
> > already practicing zazen could be detrimental to one's spiritual  
> > growth
> > because you would probably not have the 'tools' to be able to  
> > integrate
> > the experience into your daily life. I don't completely advocate
> > the 'aching legs' school of Zen Buddhism (see Alan Watts), but as 
Bill
> > says, I don't see any better way to recognising our inherent
> > enlightenment. Mike.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

I think you're right that this seems like a typical experience to me, 
because the only experiences I've ever had with a group of people who 
have had satori are in a Japanese Zen Buddhist sangha setting, so 
oviously zazen played a big part.

Like you I beleive satori can be experienced in a non-zen, non-
Buddhist setting; so it would be reasonable to assume that would also 
be in the absence of zazen.  I do remember reading Thoreau where he 
sat comtemplating in front of his cabin all day.  That was something 
probably very close to zazen, but he certainly didn't call it zazen.

I wouldn't agree with your statement that 'treading your own path is 
much preferable'.  That of course depends on what you mean 
by 'preferable'.  If you mean most effective, then I'd think it would 
be hard to beat a tried and true method such as zazen.  If you mean 
something more innovative and personal, then you're of course right.

...Bill!  (Text YES!  HTML NO!)  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> That seems like the typical circumstance. I do agree that usually  
> satori experiences come unexpectedly after plenty of 'work' trying 
to  
> figure out the universe. My point is that work doesn't have to be  
> zazen, it can just as well be intellectual effort trying to figure  
> out the nature of reality which is a really big koan. Or it can be  
> directly interacting with reality until one suddenly gets it right.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that zazen is like a standard 
methodology  
> for the average person while really treading your own path is much  
> preferable - if you are up to it
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Bill Smart wrote:
> 
> > I agree with both of you, satori (first glimpse/initial 
breakthrough)
> > in most cases does not occur during zazen itself. But, as Mike has
> > observed, usually occurs in direct assocation with zazen. I think
> > this is because before satori while sitting zazen you are trying 
very
> > hard to breakthrough. Usually that's with a koan like Mu. When you
> > take a break and are working in the garden or the kitchen, or just
> > taking a walk your mind relaxes and then the breakthrough occurs.
> > That's just a guess.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Edgar,
> > > Again, in an ultimate sense I agree with you. Most satori
> > experiences occur off the mat (we cannot determine when they 
happen
> > so they are a kind of 'Grace', if you like), but for most people
> > these experiences are usually preceded by many years of zazen and
> > rarely occur independently from it (especially in relation to the
> > past Zen masters). In fact, I would add that to receive a satori 
like
> > experience without already practicing zazen could be detrimental 
to
> > one's spiritual growth because you would probably not have
> > the 'tools' to be able to integrate the experience into your daily
> > life. I don't completely advocate the 'aching legs' school of Zen
> > Buddhism (see Alan Watts), but as Bill says, I don't see any 
better
> > way to recognising our inherent enlightenment. Mike.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message 
> > > From: Edgar Owen 
> > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 16 September, 2008 6:16:26
> > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > When you read the accounts of enlightenment in Zen stories, the
> > enlightenment or satori experience almost never occurs during 
zazen,
> > but almost always in daily life doing something ordinary, though
> > often in response to some event or words that suddenly enables 
them
> > to see beyond the ordinary to the ordinary.
> > >
> > > Only difference between zazen and daily life is you are 
(hopefully)
> > dealing with fewer forms so might be easier to see the formless
> > beyond the forms, but the formless is always present whether you 
are
> > sitting in zazen or not. Just a matter of experiencing it.
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 14, 2008, at 4:12 PM, mike brown wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Edgar,
> > >
> > > I agree with you in one sense - we're already 'there'. But
> > sometimes you have to go on a journey just to realise you never
> > really had t

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

I agree with both of you, satori (first glimpse/initial breakthrough) 
in most cases does not occur during zazen itself.  But, as Mike has 
observed, usually occurs in direct assocation with zazen.  I think 
this is because before satori while sitting zazen you are trying very 
hard to breakthrough.  Usually that's with a koan like Mu.  When you 
take a break and are working in the garden or the kitchen, or just 
taking a walk your mind relaxes and then the breakthrough occurs.  
That's just a guess.

...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Edgar,
> Again, in an ultimate sense I agree with you. Most satori 
experiences occur off the mat (we cannot determine when they happen 
so they are a kind of 'Grace', if you like), but for most people 
these experiences are usually preceded by many years of zazen and 
rarely occur independently from it (especially in relation to the 
past Zen masters). In fact, I would add that to receive a satori like 
experience without already practicing zazen could be detrimental to 
one's spiritual growth because you would probably not have 
the 'tools' to be able to integrate the experience into your daily 
life. I don't completely advocate the 'aching legs' school of Zen 
Buddhism (see Alan Watts), but as Bill says, I don't see any better 
way to recognising our inherent enlightenment. Mike.
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 September, 2008 6:16:26
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Antwort:  JUDO
> 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> When you read the accounts of enlightenment in Zen stories, the 
enlightenment or satori experience almost never occurs during zazen, 
but almost always in daily life doing something ordinary, though 
often in response to some event or words that suddenly enables them 
to see beyond the ordinary to the ordinary.
> 
> Only difference between zazen and daily life is you are (hopefully) 
dealing with fewer forms so might be easier to see the formless 
beyond the forms, but the formless is always present whether you are 
sitting in zazen or not. Just a matter of experiencing it.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2008, at 4:12 PM, mike brown wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Edgar,
> 
> I agree with you in one sense - we're already 'there'. But 
sometimes you have to go on a journey just to realise you never 
really had to go in the first place. Same with zazen, Do you really 
believe all those past Zen masters would have realised 
their 'already' enlightened state without zazen? Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com
> Sent: Monday, 15 September, 2008 3:33:53
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO
> 
> 
> Mike and Bill and Al,
> 
> Zazen has nothing to do with Zen whatsoever. And I suspect Bill at 
least would agree with me. There is no requirement to do zazen or 
anything else whatever. Zazen may be an exercise that helps some 
people, others it may just stand in the way. Same about anything else 
one could possibly think of.
> 
> True zen is just finally admitting to yourself that you are already 
enlightened and have always been, that is just finally realizing what 
always existed that you just didn't notice before.
> 
> True Zen takes no 'work' of any kind whatsoever. You are already 
there, you just need to realize it.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2008, at 12:33 PM, mike brown wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  Al,
> I think the tricky thing about zen is that it often feels 
that 'getting it' is always just around the corner or that if I just 
read the right book/passage/ haiku/manga comic etc it'll all become 
clear to me. Unfortunately, this just takes us further than ever away 
from any kind of 'breakthru' into a zen life. As Bill says, we need 
to have faith that this thing actually works, but this alone is not 
enough (as opposed to most theistic belief systems). You have to do 
the hard work. That means plonking your arse down on a mat and doing 
zazen. There is no escape (for most of us) from this requirement. 
Just believing in zen is useless. However, even if you just get a 
tiny sniff of a breakthru' then a kind of 'knowing' (read - 'not 
knowing') occurs which surpasses mere faith/belief. True, this can't 
be measured objectively, but so what? You know the truth of the taste 
of a cup of tea, and even tho' it can't be measured objectively, you 
just know - it doesn't
>  matter what anyone else thinks. Same with zen. You just live your 
life fully and hopefully your actions/words will indicate the tru

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Al,

Thanks so much for your private email.  I'm glad you didn't post it 
to the forum so we didn't have to air my dirty laundry online.

You may not have been reading my posts lately, by that I mean the 
past several months, and I don't blame you if you haven't been 
reading them, but if you had you'd have noticed that I have been 
posting in text and not HTML for some time.

You might send another one of your private emails to JMJM and remind 
him of the HTML problems.

Happy chi!  ...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Billy,
> 
> You seem to have many issues with your internet experience. YAHOO 
changed its formatting about a year ago, and now it is not possible 
to copy and cut parts of HTML messages. So you must convert to plain 
text when you reply in order to be able to take out parts of the 
message. 
> 
> If you have Microsoft Outlook it is the FORMAT button that you 
click and then click "plain text." 
> 
> You can now reply like any normal person and nobody will be the 
wiser. I did not want to embarrass you so I sent this email 
privately. 
> 
> Best wishes, 
> 
> Al 
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Bill Smart 
>   To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:38 PM
>   Subject: [Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO
> 
> 
>   JMJM,
> 
>   For some reason when I try to REPLY to your postings using the 
website 
>   the text isn't copied into the REPLY space. I think that is 
because 
>   you are using HTML to write your postings and not text. Anyway, 
I've 
>   reproduced your posting below and my response follows:
> 
>   JMJM wrote:
>   >Hi Bill,
>   >Thank you for your "thoughtful" reply. My question is not on 
this 
>   >Buddha Nature level, but more on a everyday term. For 
instance, 
>   >any witness to your health? Younger looking? Any awareness to 
your 
>   >ego?  Any relationship improvements? Spiritual well being 
such as 
>   >happier, etc. JM
> 
>   That's a hard question to answer. I don't know how I would have 
turned 
>   out if I hadn't got involved in zen, so I don't know what 
attributes I 
>   now have that I could attribute to zen. But, I'll take a guess. 
I'll 
>   list some of my current attributes that I notice are somewhat 
different 
>   than the majority of other people, and that I have a hunch have 
>   something to due to my zen practice:
> 
>   - I enjoy good health for my age (62). I am overweight, but 
remain 
>   fairly active. People guess my age at mid-40's.
>   - I am usually very calm and thoughtful. Not much rattles me. I 
am 
>   aware when my ego starts acting up (like anger, desires, 
disapointment, 
>   etc...) When it does I am usually able to immediately 'step back' 
and 
>   deal with the situation as a disinterested 3rd party.
>   - I have always enoyed good relationships with family, friends, 
working 
>   companions and my spouse. A lot of people consider me a very good 
or 
>   even best friend that I don't consider especially good friends of 
>   mine. Many people come to me for advice. My first marraige lasted 
20 
>   years and ended amicably. I lived alone (as a bachelor) for about 
10 
>   years. My second and current marraige is 5 years old and is a 
strong 
>   and loving relationship.
> 
>   I dont think I have any spirituality. I don't need anything more 
than 
>   I get from shikantaza (zazen - clear mind) to bring me 
contentment. 
>   Sometimes I am very happy and sometimes I am sad, but that all 
occurs 
>   in front of a background of contentment.
> 
>   I am a Capricorn. My favorite color is blue and my lucky number 
is 
>   3. ... Just kidding ;>)...
> 
>   But...as to what all parts of that self-profile above are 
attributible 
>   to zen - I really don't know.
> 
>   ...Bill!
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

For some reason when I try to REPLY to your postings using the website 
the text isn't copied into the REPLY space.  I think that is because 
you are using HTML to write your postings and not text.  Anyway, I've 
reproduced your posting below and my response follows:

JMJM wrote:
>Hi Bill,
>Thank you for your "thoughtful" reply.  My question is not on this 
>Buddha Nature level, but  more on a everyday term.  For instance, 
>any witness to your health?  Younger looking?  Any awareness to your 
>ego?   Any relationship improvements?  Spiritual well being such as 
>happier, etc.  JM

That's a hard question to answer.  I don't know how I would have turned 
out if I hadn't got involved in zen, so I don't know what attributes I 
now have that I could attribute to zen.  But, I'll take a guess.  I'll 
list some of my current attributes that I notice are somewhat different 
than the majority of other people, and that I have a hunch have 
something to due to my zen practice:

- I enjoy good health for my age (62).  I am overweight, but remain 
fairly active.  People guess my age at mid-40's.
- I am usually very calm and thoughtful.  Not much rattles me.  I am 
aware when my ego starts acting up (like anger, desires, disapointment, 
etc...)  When it does I am usually able to immediately 'step back' and 
deal with the situation as a disinterested 3rd party.
- I have always enoyed good relationships with family, friends, working 
companions and my spouse.  A lot of people consider me a very good or 
even best friend that I don't consider especially good friends of 
mine.  Many people come to me for advice.  My first marraige lasted 20 
years and ended amicably.  I lived alone (as a bachelor) for about 10 
years.  My second and current marraige is 5 years old and is a strong 
and loving relationship.

I dont think I have any spirituality.  I don't need anything more than 
I get from shikantaza (zazen - clear mind) to bring me contentment.  
Sometimes I am very happy and sometimes I am sad, but that all occurs 
in front of a background of contentment.

I am a Capricorn.  My favorite color is blue and my lucky number is 
3.  ... Just kidding ;>)...

But...as to what all parts of that self-profile above are attributible 
to zen - I really don't know.

...Bill! 




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Christian Question

[Bill Smart]

Jackson,

Wow!  What luck!  You're in the perfect situation to write a TV sit-
com that exposes and ridicules these kind of peoples.

You should stay where you are, take lots of notes, write a 'pilot' 
and send it out to some of the networks.  (Don't bother with Fox.)  
By doing this each day instead of being such a drag, will be just 
another day full of gems for your sit-com.

Let us know how this works and when your pilot comes out we'll all 
write in to the network and tell them how much we enjoyed the show!

You're on your way!  ...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Jackson Masters" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I need help.
> 
> I have been working for this ultra-Christian, ultra-right wing 
> asshole who is the epitomie of hypocrisy. 
> 
> He hardly ever comes to work. He claims his step-daughter is a 25 
> year old virgin and yet she lives with her boyfriend and regularly 
> goes on trips with him. She also works here and basically does 
> nothing except spend all day talking to the secretary, who also 
does 
> nothing except expose her cleavage and shove her tits in the boss's 
> face whenever he is around. 
> 
> One step-son is a drug-dealer. 
> 
> He left his previous wife to marry his secretary. He also left his 
> two young sons. 
> 
> His new wife works with him and also never comes to work. When she 
> does show up for work she spends all day goofing off with her 
daugter 
> and the "head secreatary." 
> 
> The husband and wife team are always getting ready for religious 
> retreats and missions, yet he is very verbally abusive to people, 
and 
> is constantly bad-mouthing all of his business competition, 
claiming 
> they are un-Christian or otherwise lacking in morality or 
character. 
> 
> He claims that he disciples others, and I have a hard time NOT 
> LAUGHING when he says that. He claims to be a disciple of a fat 
slob 
> (not Buddha) who claims to be a Christian Minister, but this guy 
has 
> no church and does not work and lives from the donations from his 
> disciples. These folks are not part of any church, but they attend 
> local churches. 
> 
> They seem like some kind of cult to me. They also seem to generally 
> act in a very self-serving and un-christian manner. I have gone to 
a 
> few of their meetings, and they basically run down other church 
> groups, bad-mouth Catholics (they claim Mother Theresa is burning 
in 
> Hell), and seem to think that they are the only ones called to God. 
I 
> stopped being invited to these meetings because apparently I was 
> not "called to God." I think it was because I never offered to give 
> the fat dude any money.  
> 
> The Christian boss also speaks horribly about any of his former 
> employees who he has not parted amicably with. The most recent 
person 
> who left had about 25 hours trimmed from their paycheck, and got 
paid 
> about 6 weeks after leaving. This guy is very vindictive, and he 
> constantly has Jesus on his lips.
> 
> I really want to quit this job, but I am earning a decent income 
and 
> because the economy is down, I do not know that I could earn as 
much 
> somewhere else. What should I do? I do not like this environment of 
> lies and hypocrisy. I do not like seeing so many people standing 
> around doing nothing while I and another employee do most of the 
> work. I have a lot of issues here, and I would appreciate anyone 
and 
> everyone's help in sorting these things out. I do not want to react 
> to these folks, but I am feeling a lot of stress from the job. I 
need 
> to get it under control and understand why they are upsetting me so 
> much. 
> 
> THANKS!
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Mike and Al and everyone else...

I definitely agree with the sentiment of your statement below,  but 
can see where terminology would cause a lot of people to disagree.

I think of zen (lower-case 'z') as any methodology which helps leads 
a person to a direct experience of reality.  The methods of 'zen' 
extend after that to help that person expand and deepen that 
experience, and integrate that experience into their everyday life, 
or you might say fine tune their everyday life to be more in 
synch/harmony with the experience.

Zen Buddhism (upper-case 'Z') is a specifc methodology which is based 
on Buddhism and uses Buddhist terminology, and has been heavily 
influenced by Japanese culture and uses some Japanese terms.

'Zazen' is a Japanese term that means: 'za' = to sit, 'zen' = 
zen.  'Zen' (Japanese) is term that comes from 'chan' (Chinese) that 
comes from dhyana (Sanskrit) and can be translated as 'meditation' 
(English).  'Zazen' is used to differentiate Japanese Zen Buddhist 
meditation from other forms of meditation - like trancendental 
meditation or contemplation or prayer, etc...  Zazen is used in 
Japanese Zen Buddhism to cut through the  concept of self and all 
other dualistic thinking to a direct experience of reality.  The 
English term for this is 'enlightenment'.

In my experience I would confindently say zazen is the primary method 
used by Japanese Zen Buddhism to 'attain, cultivate and integrate' 
enlightenment.  Other methods are kinhin (walking meditaion), koans, 
dharma combat (testing another's awareness) chanting, fasting and 
doing household/garden chores (or any activities) while keeping a 
clear mind (I forget the Japanese term for this, and actually this is 
just an extended form of kinhin).

So, I agree that zazen or any kind of meditation is not an absolute 
requirement, but I do not know of any other way that is better.

...Bill! 


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike and Bill and Al,
> 
> Zazen has nothing to do with Zen whatsoever. And I suspect Bill at  
> least would agree with me. There is no requirement to do zazen or  
> anything else whatever. Zazen may be an exercise that helps some  
> people, others it may just stand in the way. Same about anything 
else  
> one could possibly think of.
> 
> True zen is just finally admitting to yourself that you are 
already  
> enlightened and have always been, that is just finally realizing 
what  
> always existed that you just didn't notice before.
> 
> True Zen takes no 'work' of any kind whatsoever. You are already  
> there, you just need to realize it.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2008, at 12:33 PM, mike brown wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi  Al,
> > I think the tricky thing about zen is that it often feels that  
> > 'getting it' is always just around the corner or that if I just  
> > read the right book/passage/haiku/manga comic etc it'll all 
become  
> > clear to me. Unfortunately, this just takes us further than ever  
> > away from any kind of 'breakthru' into a zen life. As Bill says, 
we  
> > need to have faith that this thing actually works, but this 
alone  
> > is not enough (as opposed to most theistic belief systems). You  
> > have to do the hard work. That means plonking your arse down on 
a  
> > mat and doing zazen. There is no escape (for most of us) from 
this  
> > requirement. Just believing in zen is useless. However, even if 
you  
> > just get a tiny sniff of a breakthru' then a kind of  
> > 'knowing' (read - 'not knowing') occurs which surpasses mere 
faith/ 
> > belief. True, this can't be measured objectively, but so what? 
You  
> > know the truth of the taste of a cup of tea, and even tho' it 
can't  
> > be measured objectively, you just know - it doesn't matter what  
> > anyone else thinks. Same with zen. You just live your life fully  
> > and hopefully your actions/words will indicate the truth of zen 
and  
> > how deep your zen is. Mike.
> >
> > - Original Message 
> > From: Bill Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 13 September, 2008 9:03:15
> > Subject: [Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO
> >
> > Al,
> >
> > Everthing you know and feel is based on belief and faith. Even
> > science is based on the belief in cause and effect and faith in 
our
> > rational capabilities. The belief in enlightenment and the faith
> > that you can achieve it is what gets you started in zen. It's like
> > dangling a carrot 

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

In your post attached below you asked me to share with you what I 
have "...experienced/witnessed with Only THIS or Just Sit".

If were were sitting face-to-face my immediate RESPONSE would have 
been to slap you (or the floor or table - anything within reach) and 
yell Just THIS!

My first THOUGHT after reading your post was 'nothing is withheld'.

After thinking it over for a little bit I decided I would reply 'no I 
cannot'.

More thinking lead me to cite three reasons of why I cannot:
1.  I don't know how to put this into words, much less text that I 
can post on a site.
2.  If I even tried it would most likely be inadequate and misleading.
3.  Just THIS is something you have to experience for yourself (or 
more properly put 'without your self'), and certainly without me.

In the end I decided to respond by chronicling all-of-the-above 
to 'share' with you the entire process I went through to respond to 
your post.

This question is the kind of question I used to get from my Zen 
Master/Teacher during dokusan (private interviews) especially when I 
was going through koan study.  His 'requests' more like challenges or 
demands, and he was much, much less polite about them than you are.  
He expected ACTION, immediate action.  The action could be verbal, 
even words, but it had to be IMMEDIATE and decisive - evasion or 
indecisevness would spell doom for you (the ringing of his bell which 
means the interview was over and you had to leave the room).

So, JMJM, what's in your wallet?

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Can you share with me what have you experienced/witnessed with Only 
THIS 
> or Just Sit.
> 
> Thanks,
> JM
> 





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Al and JMJM,

I agree with most everything in JMJM's post below with the following 
VERY MINOR personal adaptations:

When I said 'enlightenment is an illusion' in a previous post, I 
meant the CONCEP of enlightenment is an illusion, the concept that 
enlightenment is something special and that only monks or ascetics 
can attain. This is the illusion.

I would use the phrases 'realization of Buddha Nature' 
or 'experiencing Just THIS' instead of 'enlightenment'.

I would use the terms 'Buddha Nature' or 'Just THIS' instead of 'life 
force' or 'energy' or chi.  

I would delete the second-to-the-last paragraph about 'futile effort' 
since both JMJM's post below and this post itself (and in fact all 
response posts) would fall into that category.  I do not judge JMJM's 
post to have been a 'futile effort', and I hope mine is not either.

...Bill!


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Al,
> 
> Enlightenment is not an illusion.  That is a state of 
> connection/transmission can be observed/sensed.  Even just from 
some of 
> the disciples of an enlightened teacher, one with absolutely 
peaceful 
> and open heart, can experience some of the phenomenon.
> 
> Too many people thought that the books they read or the teacher 
they 
> learn from are absolute.  Actually, we got it when we were born.  
If  
> one can feel his inner life force, he is on his way.  That is if he 
is 
> not blocked by his mind.
> 
> The only real world is the world of energy, which is a flow in 
constant 
> flux.  By the time anyone tried to describe it, or take a picture 
to 
> look at it, it is no longer the same.  The only way we can be part 
of 
> it, is to sync to it.  Flow with it.
> 
> Judging, categorizing, commenting anyone's post is a futile effort 
for 
> the ego.
> 
> Fine tune our chi, anyone can connect.
> JM
> 
> 
> 
> Fitness63 wrote:
> >
> > From: cid830> We can only follow their teachings if we choose to 
accept
> > them, regardless of whether or not they actually taught them at 
all. >
> >
> > What we are talking about is the proverbial LEAP OF FAITH that is 
> > required
> > for any belief system, and thus zen, like any other religion or 
> > philosophy
> > requires that the adherent BELIEVE in what may very well be total 
fiction.
> >
> > So is Maya the illusion, or is the actual illusion that 
enlightenment 
> > that
> > so many strive to achieve and which cannot be objectively 
measured. After
> > all, when a Roshi says that he is enlightened, all we have is his 
word on
> > it, and the word of his peers. Can you measure or otherwise prove
> > enlightenment? Is enlightenment itself not an Illusion (Maya)?
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Al,

Everthing you know and feel is based on belief and faith.  Even 
science is based on the belief in cause and effect and faith in our 
rational capabilities.  The belief in enlightenment and the faith 
that you can achieve it is what gets you started in zen.  It's like 
dangling a carrot in front of a horse, or more accurately a picture 
of a carrot.

The concept of enlightenment is indeed an illusion as is testified to 
over and over again in zen literature.

The only thing that is not an illusion is Only THIS (Buddha Nature), 
but the only way you can really know that is to experience it.

And to do that all you need to do is sit (zazen) and allow your 
concept of self to melt away.

...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: cid830> We can only follow their teachings if we choose to 
accept 
> them, regardless of whether or not they actually taught them at 
all. >
> 
> What we are talking about is the proverbial LEAP OF FAITH that is 
required 
> for any belief system, and thus zen, like any other religion or 
philosophy 
> requires that the adherent BELIEVE in what may very well be total 
fiction.
> 
> So is Maya the illusion, or is the actual illusion that 
enlightenment that 
> so many strive to achieve and which cannot be objectively measured. 
After 
> all, when a Roshi says that he is enlightened, all we have is his 
word on 
> it, and the word of his peers. Can you measure or otherwise prove 
> enlightenment? Is enlightenment itself not an Illusion (Maya)?
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Thanks.  Please do.  When I'm told I'm wrong or my posts are challenged 
in some way, I do take a second look at them - believe it or not.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart"  wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> > 
> > I'll always show you all the respect you're due...;>)
> > 
> > Also, whether you ridicule or compliment I'm still Bill!  What else 
> > could I be?<
> 
> 
> Thanks for giving me the respect I deserve. I, in turn, will continue 
> to judge wether or not you are right or wrong in your stated opinions!
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Antwort: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Whatever the case, you can be sure that ALL the statues created of 
whatever Buddha you choose were sculpted a long time after the 
subject individual (if there was one) lived and died.  I believe many 
of these stories are composites of different individuals with 
some 'hype' thrown in.  The statues are someone's idea.  They're a 
stylized version of Buddha:  thin to show acestics, fat to show 
happiness/contentment, etc...

This doesn't mean they're wrong or bad, just that they're stylized 
concepts of Buddha - like Maya in granite.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 
> Edgar,
> 
> I guess the picture you are reproducing belongs to the Hinayana 
tradition
> or early Mahayana, it may be a Gandhara statue.
> 
> When Buddhism spread out in all directions from the north of India, 
the
> teaching arrived also in nowadays' Pakistan and Afghanistan. Since
> Alexander the Great (the Greek military leader who had defeated 
Persia),
> states with Greek culture had been persisting in that area.
> The Greeks had always been good sculptors and they made their 
statues in
> their traditional Greek way. This is why they would start to carve 
Buddha
> statues after they had got in contact with Buddhism. And they 
carved the
> Buddha with a traditional Greek hairstyle -- what seems like a 
helmet to
> you.
> 
> One may speculate that it was the ascetic Buddha before his 
enlightenment
> who made the strongest impression on those believers, so they liked 
this
> ascetic appearance.
> 
> When Buddhism later arrived in China, the Chinese preferred another 
look
> and made what you call the "fat guy" sculptures. Seems the ascetic
> appearance did no impress them so much.
> 
> 
> Gasshoo, Kai
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
   
>  "Fitness63"
   
>  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>  
uth.net>   An 
>  Gesendet von:   
   
>  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Kopie 
>  
oups.com  
> 
 Thema 
>  Re: [Zen] Re: 
JUDO
>  12.09.2008 
14:04  
> 
   
> 
   
>   Bitte 
antworten  
> 
an 
>  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>  
oups.com  
> 
   
> 
   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  (Embedded image moved to file: 
pic18467.jpg)   
> 

> 

>  Did those guys wear helmets? It seems like all those sculpts have 
the same helmet. 
>  BTW, he looks really skinny, did he have to sit during the 
sculpture? Looks like   
>  he should have made friends with Bodhidharma's 
staff.  
> 

>  So who is the fat guy? I thought that was Buddha? Sitting without 
getting exercise 
>  is not good. He was definitely living out of 
balance.  
> 

> 

>
Edgar 
   
> 

> 

>  .  
  

[Zen] Re: SEX CHI

[Bill Smart]

Jeni,

I don't know about achieving enlightenment through sex, but a double 
pepperoni pizza with extra cheese does it for me...

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jeni Jeni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Sometimes it can feel like a union with God and the Universe and 
the other person and nearly black out from the intensity, but that 
has a lot to do with the emotional and physical stimulation that 
preceded the orgasm.>
> 
> Is that enlightenment? I have wondered since the day I had my first 
intense orgasm. It felt like communion with God.
> 
> Nuns say they are married to Jesus, I wonder if they feel that they 
are having sex with Jesus when they masturbate?
> 
> Can you achieve enlightenment via orgasm? Can my enlightenment get 
certified if I have sex with a zen monk or Roshi? Is there such a 
thing as sexual enlightenment?
> 
> Jeni
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Al, of course the story about Buddha is a myth; like the story about 
Jesus's virgin birth and his bodily assent into heaven.  And, of 
course 'Buddha Nature' (or the ability to have a direct experience of 
reality free from corruption by your rational mind)existed before the 
myth; just as the ability to be 'reborn' and take God into your heart 
existed before Jesus.

All the valid points you've made in your post below are part of the 
reason zen discourages the use of words, and encourages you to 
experience this for yourself.  That he only way you can really truly 
know - just as the only way you can know 'chi' is to experience it.

...Bill!   

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think Buddha Nature is a bigger illusion than CHI. I never talk 
about it at all, because I do not think that there is Buddha Nature. 
Buddha was not God, he was just some fat prince that could afford to 
sit in a cave for nine years without starving to death because there 
was some other unknown bastards bringing him food and water and 
busting their respective asses so that one rich fucker could find 
enlightenment. 
> 
> So whatever he found, it existed before he found it, and I don't 
think of it as Buddha Nature anymore than I think of it as "Rich Lazy 
Fat Bastard Nature." 
> 
> So Chi means more to me as a word than Buddha Nature. When you 
think about the whole story of the Buddha it brings up some issues, 
like why wasn't that fat bastard working in the fields helping people 
instead of sitting in a cave. 
> 
> Not to mention that he gives no mentions to the staff of people 
that took care of him for nine years. He wasn't coming out of the 
cave to hunt and fish so someone else was doing that for him, and 
those guys and gals got no credit at all. That seems very selfish. It 
should be called "Dedicated Servants Nature" in honor of the folks 
that actually were working during the nine years that fat boy was 
meditating. 
> 
> Al
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Bill Smart 
>   To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:35 PM
>   Subject: [Zen] Re: JUDO
> 
> 
>   Al,
> 
>   Exactly!
> 
>   IF (and that's a big IF) you realize something is an illusion and 
>   identify it as such, you can qualify it as much as you'd like.
> 
>   BUT (and that's a bodacious booty) if you're saying something is 
not 
>   an illusion you shouldn't use qualifiers. For example, you 
wouldn't 
>   talk about 'my Buddha Nature and your Buddha Nature, or good 
Buddha 
>   Nature and Bad Buddha Nature, etc...; would you?
> 
>   Bill! 
> 
>   --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63"  wrote:
>   >
>   > From: Bill Smart   > dualistic despription of chi, assigning it such qualities as 
>   personal chi, 
>   > universal chi, good chi, bad chi, feminine chi, masuline chi, 
stong 
>   chi, 
>   > weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi, you're 
just 
>   babbling 
>   > about some illusions and attachments you have in regards to the 
>   concept of 
>   > chi.>
>   > 
>   > Chi is an illusion anyway, so why not qualify your illusions. 
After 
>   all, 
>   > they are part of the real world and thus there are all kinds.
>   >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Chris,

I'll always show you all the respect you're due...;>)

Also, whether you ridicule or compliment I'm still Bill!  What else 
could I be?

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Good Bill.  I can always count on you bring back to the path of 
True 
> Zen. Although I do believe in this Universal Life Force and the chi 
> that flows throughout, it is my belief in zen that has gotten me 
> here. Here! Now!  Everything else is just an illusion.  
> 
> Sorry I have been joking with you lately, please take it as a 
> compliment!
> 
> Later, 
>   Chris
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart"  wrote:
> >
> > Edgar,
> > 
> > Thanks for trying to clargy this.
> > 
> > I accept your explanation of how you use the word 'chi' or 'OE', 
> and 
> > have never disagreed with it.  I have first encountered it as 
being 
> > called Buddha Nature and now refer to it as Just THIS! becasue I 
> > don't want it to be tied to tightly to Buddhism.
> > 
> > BUT, my point has always been that as soon as you enter into a 
> > dualistic despription of chi, assigning it such qualities as 
> personal 
> > chi, universal chi, good chi, bad chi, feminine chi, masuline 
chi, 
> > stong chi, weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi, 
> > you're just babbling about some illusions and attachments you 
have 
> in 
> > regards to the concept of chi.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mike, and Bill too,
> > > 
> > > I think the problem you and Bill are having is in thinking of 
chi 
> > as  
> > > something in particular rather than of the very stuff or 
> substance 
> > of  
> > > everything which is what it is in the sense I (and at least to 
> > some  
> > > extent JM) are using it. Chi is not something that martial 
> artists  
> > > 'generate' and that other people don't have. Everything is 
> > composed  
> > > of chi. It is the only substance of the universe. There is 
> nothing  
> > > else except the particular forms that arise within it which 
have 
> > no  
> > > substance of their own. In this view the universe consists only 
> of  
> > > chi and the empty forms chi takes on which have no reality 
> > substance  
> > > of their own. I generally use the term OE (ontological energy) 
> for  
> > > chi. It is what gives otherwise empty forms actual real being 
in 
> > the  
> > > present moment.
> > > 
> > > So Mike and Bill's emptiness is simply chi that isn't moving, 
> that 
> > is  
> > > devoid of form. Calling chi chi is just terminology. One could 
> > call  
> > > it Mu, Tao, OE, emptiness or anything else just so long as we 
> know  
> > > what we are talking about. It is the definition we are using 
> that  
> > > counts. Don't go by some huff and puffing guy who thinks only 
he 
> > has  
> > > chi. All of us ARE chi, simply forms in the sea of chi, forms 
in 
> > the  
> > > universal sea of OE.
> > > 
> > > So in the stillness of Zen meditation perhaps chi is hardly 
> > moving,  
> > > but in daily life chi moves constantly, and Zen is being in 
tune 
> > with  
> > > that movement. That's the same as saying what MIke and Bill 
are  
> > > saying since chi is intrinsically empty, Mu, void, Tao. It is 
> only  
> > > the forms within chi that really move.
> > > 
> > > Edgar
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:28 AM, mike brown wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Hi Edgar,
> > > > Thanks for the reply and insight. I'm just finding it really 
> > hard  
> > > > to intergrate my understanding and experience of Zen with 
the  
> > > > importance some people here are placing on chi. I can 
> appreciate  
> > > > that chi exists and may even be the source of form and 
> > emptiness,  
> > > > but at the end of the day I just don't believe it is 
essential 
> > to  
> > > > know or experience chi in order to live a Zen life. With due  
> > > > respect, I think JMJM's Chan is just a highly developed 
> > technique  
> > > > which allows a person to feel chi and so feel somewhat  
> > > >

[Zen] Re: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Al,

Exactly!

IF (and that's a big IF) you realize something is an illusion and 
identify it as such, you can qualify it as much as you'd like.

BUT (and that's a bodacious booty) if you're saying something is not 
an illusion you shouldn't use qualifiers.  For example, you wouldn't 
talk about 'my Buddha Nature and your Buddha Nature, or good Buddha 
Nature and Bad Buddha Nature, etc...; would you?

Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Bill Smart dualistic despription of chi, assigning it such qualities as 
personal chi, 
> universal chi, good chi, bad chi, feminine chi, masuline chi, stong 
chi, 
> weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi, you're just 
babbling 
> about some illusions and attachments you have in regards to the 
concept of 
> chi.>
> 
> Chi is an illusion anyway, so why not qualify your illusions. After 
all, 
> they are part of the real world and thus there are all kinds.
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] JUDO

[Bill Smart]

I agree, I agree, I agree.

My point in my last 10 posts or so was that we should be very careful 
not to mix these two modes in such a cavalier fashion that our 
attempts at communication are more open to misinterpretation than 
they already are.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> That's pretty much in line with my terminology. But the difference 
in  
> approach I think is this. We find ourselves in a dualistic world 
in  
> which forms (different manifestations of chi or THIS) do exist. Of  
> course Zen sees they are ultimately illusion and empty, but that  
> doesn't make them go away. We still have to deal with them in 
daily  
> life. Perhaps we can ignore them in zazen but in the other 99% of  
> existence we need to dance with them. My view is that in daily 
life  
> if we become empty of self, of things people think define their  
> selves like trivial thoughts, desires and attachments, then we 
become  
> open to the daily life form flows of Buddha nature, or chi or  
> whatever and thus we spontaneously act in accord with the basic 
music  
> of the Uni-Verse. That is true Zen in daily life which one might 
quip  
> is 99x as important as Zen during zazen. The idea is how to have 
true  
> Zen in daily life, in the world of forms, which even though we may  
> recognize them as illusory are still there. To do that we have to  
> give up the self and become one with the form flow. That allows 
the  
> Tao to spontaneously act of its own accord and generate the 
actions  
> of the illusory form we call ourself. This is as close as 'we' can  
> come to being one with the universe while we live in the world of  
> forms. That is true Zen in daily life in the form world we inhabit.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Bill Smart wrote:
> 
> > Edgar,
> >
> > Thanks for trying to clargy this.
> >
> > I accept your explanation of how you use the word 'chi' or 'OE', 
and
> > have never disagreed with it. I have first encountered it as being
> > called Buddha Nature and now refer to it as Just THIS! becasue I
> > don't want it to be tied to tightly to Buddhism.
> >
> > BUT, my point has always been that as soon as you enter into a
> > dualistic despription of chi, assigning it such qualities as 
personal
> > chi, universal chi, good chi, bad chi, feminine chi, masuline chi,
> > stong chi, weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi,
> > you're just babbling about some illusions and attachments you 
have in
> > regards to the concept of chi.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mike, and Bill too,
> > >
> > > I think the problem you and Bill are having is in thinking of 
chi
> > as
> > > something in particular rather than of the very stuff or 
substance
> > of
> > > everything which is what it is in the sense I (and at least to
> > some
> > > extent JM) are using it. Chi is not something that martial 
artists
> > > 'generate' and that other people don't have. Everything is
> > composed
> > > of chi. It is the only substance of the universe. There is 
nothing
> > > else except the particular forms that arise within it which have
> > no
> > > substance of their own. In this view the universe consists only 
of
> > > chi and the empty forms chi takes on which have no reality
> > substance
> > > of their own. I generally use the term OE (ontological energy) 
for
> > > chi. It is what gives otherwise empty forms actual real being in
> > the
> > > present moment.
> > >
> > > So Mike and Bill's emptiness is simply chi that isn't moving, 
that
> > is
> > > devoid of form. Calling chi chi is just terminology. One could
> > call
> > > it Mu, Tao, OE, emptiness or anything else just so long as we 
know
> > > what we are talking about. It is the definition we are using 
that
> > > counts. Don't go by some huff and puffing guy who thinks only he
> > has
> > > chi. All of us ARE chi, simply forms in the sea of chi, forms in
> > the
> > > universal sea of OE.
> > >
> > > So in the stillness of Zen meditation perhaps chi is hardly
> > moving,
> > > but in daily life chi moves constantly, and Zen is being in tune
> > with
> > > that movement. That's the same as saying what MIke and Bill are
> > > saying since chi is intrinsically empty, Mu, void, Tao. It is 
only
>

[Zen] Re: Dancing Meditation

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

Yes, I use lower case 'z' to indicate that 'zen' is nothing special 
and not specifically associated with anything else (like Buddhism).  
I use 'Zen' with an upper case 'Z' to stand for Zen Buddhism which is 
a proper noun and does stand for something very specific and 
therefore bounded - also of course it is directly associated with 
Buddhism.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> Yes, I agree completely with your distinction. Interesting though  
> that you use the capitalization in exactly the opposite way as I 
tend  
> to. I'll have to re-evaluate the way I use my capitalization.  
> Generally I distinguish by using the terms true Zen vs zen sects.  
> Maybe I use the caps for true Zen because that's where the 
brightness  
> lies and you the small z to indicate it's nothing in particular?
> 
> Best,
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Bill Smart wrote:
> 
> > Edgar,
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with your comments about sex and zen, and 
in
> > fact think that applies to lots of other areas.
> >
> > This is why I differentiate between Zen Buddhism (a religion) and 
zen
> > (what you have referred to as 'True Zen').
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen  wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeni Jeni,
> > >
> > > One can be enlightened at any moment, in fact there is always
> > > enlightenment, its just a matter of realizing it, of admitting 
it.
> > As
> > > I indicated in my previous response to you sexual energy is
> > certainly
> > > chi and sex can certainly intensify one's chi. While orgasms are
> > > certainly beneficial on their own, even better is to use the
> > sexual
> > > chi to purify the entire being by moving it through the energy
> > body
> > > using techniques such as Tantra teach.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you have brought up the subject of sex here as many Zen
> > > practitioners are rather prudish about sex. That is one major
> > > criticism I have of most Zen teaching which originates with the
> > whole
> > > idea of celibate monks and nuns trying to ignore a natural part 
of
> > > their being. Most Zen sects consider sex a distraction at best,
> > and
> > > for many it borders on the sinful. True Zen makes no such
> > judgments
> > > however and accepts sex as part of life just like anything else,
> > and
> > > uses it like everything else on the path to enlightenment.
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 6, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Jeni Jeni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pole dancing is very popular and I think you can really feel
> > your
> > > > Chi when you are grinding against a pole. The exercise is
> > intense.
> > > > Does orgasm count as a moment of enlightenment?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] JUDO

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

Thanks for trying to clargy this.

I accept your explanation of how you use the word 'chi' or 'OE', and 
have never disagreed with it.  I have first encountered it as being 
called Buddha Nature and now refer to it as Just THIS! becasue I 
don't want it to be tied to tightly to Buddhism.

BUT, my point has always been that as soon as you enter into a 
dualistic despription of chi, assigning it such qualities as personal 
chi, universal chi, good chi, bad chi, feminine chi, masuline chi, 
stong chi, weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi, 
you're just babbling about some illusions and attachments you have in 
regards to the concept of chi.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike, and Bill too,
> 
> I think the problem you and Bill are having is in thinking of chi 
as  
> something in particular rather than of the very stuff or substance 
of  
> everything which is what it is in the sense I (and at least to 
some  
> extent JM) are using it. Chi is not something that martial artists  
> 'generate' and that other people don't have. Everything is 
composed  
> of chi. It is the only substance of the universe. There is nothing  
> else except the particular forms that arise within it which have 
no  
> substance of their own. In this view the universe consists only of  
> chi and the empty forms chi takes on which have no reality 
substance  
> of their own. I generally use the term OE (ontological energy) for  
> chi. It is what gives otherwise empty forms actual real being in 
the  
> present moment.
> 
> So Mike and Bill's emptiness is simply chi that isn't moving, that 
is  
> devoid of form. Calling chi chi is just terminology. One could 
call  
> it Mu, Tao, OE, emptiness or anything else just so long as we know  
> what we are talking about. It is the definition we are using that  
> counts. Don't go by some huff and puffing guy who thinks only he 
has  
> chi. All of us ARE chi, simply forms in the sea of chi, forms in 
the  
> universal sea of OE.
> 
> So in the stillness of Zen meditation perhaps chi is hardly 
moving,  
> but in daily life chi moves constantly, and Zen is being in tune 
with  
> that movement. That's the same as saying what MIke and Bill are  
> saying since chi is intrinsically empty, Mu, void, Tao. It is only  
> the forms within chi that really move.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:28 AM, mike brown wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi Edgar,
> > Thanks for the reply and insight. I'm just finding it really 
hard  
> > to intergrate my understanding and experience of Zen with the  
> > importance some people here are placing on chi. I can appreciate  
> > that chi exists and may even be the source of form and 
emptiness,  
> > but at the end of the day I just don't believe it is essential 
to  
> > know or experience chi in order to live a Zen life. With due  
> > respect, I think JMJM's Chan is just a highly developed 
technique  
> > which allows a person to feel chi and so feel somewhat  
> > spiritualised and 'connected'. I've felt something very similar 
in  
> > my Vipassana meditation (Vipassana uses a technique which 
generates  
> > a lot of chi and this is then used to 'scan' the body to feel 
the  
> > most minute, subtle sensations within and on the surface of the  
> > body), however it is still a technique. I'm not saying 
techniques  
> > are a bad thing - after all zazen meditation is a technique . 
What  
> > I am saying tho' is that ultimately ALL techniques are just 
rafts  
> > which need to be discarded after reaching the other shore (the  
> > shore we're already on, of course). Zen is just simply living 
life  
> > fully in the moment and doesn't require anything extra in the 
way  
> > of 'energy currents', God, or listening to our 'inner-dolphin'. 
Mike.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message 
> > From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 11 September, 2008 7:41:41
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] JUDO
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> >
> > An excellent post from someone who obviously has direct 
experience  
> > of what he's talking about.
> >
> > The huffing and puffing type of concentration of chi is 
primarily  
> > useful in demonstrations of force in set conditions such as  
> > breaking bricks. Bricks don't avoid punches or  strike back! In  
> > such cases one can concentrate on concentrating one's chi 
against  
> > the unchanging chi of the bricks and take one's time. However in  
> > interactive situations with a live opponent things are much  
> > different and concentrating on one's own chi in this way is not  
> > usually the best tactic.
> >
> > Against a live opponent the key is emptiness, or as you say 
mushin.  
> > If you are full of concentrating on your own chi your focus and  
> > your energy will be in that concentration of chi, not on the 
total  
> > interactive situation with the opponent. The emptier of such  
> > concentration o

[Zen] Re: Dancing Meditation

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments about sex and zen, and in 
fact think that applies to lots of other areas.

This is why I differentiate between Zen Buddhism (a religion) and zen 
(what you have referred to as 'True Zen').

...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jeni Jeni,
> 
> One can be enlightened at any moment, in fact there is always  
> enlightenment, its just a matter of realizing it, of admitting it. 
As  
> I indicated in my previous response to you sexual energy is 
certainly  
> chi and sex can certainly intensify one's chi. While orgasms are  
> certainly beneficial on their own, even better is to use the 
sexual  
> chi to purify the entire being by moving it through the energy 
body  
> using techniques such as Tantra teach.
> 
> I'm glad you have brought up the subject of sex here as many Zen  
> practitioners are rather prudish about sex. That is one major  
> criticism I have of most Zen teaching which originates with the 
whole  
> idea of celibate monks and nuns trying to ignore a natural part of  
> their being. Most Zen sects consider sex a distraction at best, 
and  
> for many it borders on the sinful. True Zen makes no such 
judgments  
> however and accepts sex as part of life just like anything else, 
and  
> uses it like everything else on the path to enlightenment.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 6, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Jeni Jeni wrote:
> 
> > Pole dancing is very popular and I think you can really feel 
your  
> > Chi when you are grinding against a pole. The exercise is 
intense.  
> > Does orgasm count as a moment of enlightenment?
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: fMRI images 'forgiveness and love'?

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

I'm in the process of reading your paper on time.  It written with 
meticulous care to follow the scientific process.  Why then would you 
be drawn into this kind of psuedo-science?

For just one example, the first fatal flaw in this experiment is the 
assumption that Matthieu Ricard is representative of Buddhis monks, 
and that Buddhist monks as a group have 'developed a greater  
capacity for forgiveness and compassion'.  I know that's the popular 
consensus, certainly on this forum, and it's even my belief - BUT, 
that doesn't make it a valid assumption on which to base a scientific 
experiement.

Or...were you forwarding this to us to share it as a joke?

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can love change your mind? New project explores neuroscience of  
> 'positive qualities'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wearing a 128-channel geodesic sensor net, Buddhist monk Matthieu  
> Ricard sits in a soundproof room and talks with Richard Davidson  
> (right) before participating in an electroencephalography (EEG) 
test  
> at the EEG facility at the Waisman Center in June. Davidson, 
director  
> of the Waisman Lab for Brain Imaging and Behavior, recently 
received  
> a grant to create a new research initiative on the neuroscience of  
> compassion, love and forgiveness, where he will investigate how 
those  
> virtues work in the human mind. Photo: Jeff Miller
> 
> What is happening in the minds of people who have developed a 
greater  
> capacity for forgiveness and compassion? Can a quality like love 
â€"  
> whether it's shown toward a family member or a friend â€" be  
> neurologically measured in the brain?
> 
> A new research project at UWâ€"Madison offers the opportunity to 
apply  
> hard science to these seemingly ethereal questions. UWâ€"Madison  
> psychology professor Richard Davidson, director of the Waisman  
> Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior, has received a $2.5  
> million grant from the Michigan-based Fetzer Institute to create a  
> new research initiative on the neuroscience of compassion, love 
and  
> forgiveness, investigating how these virtues manifest themselves 
in  
> the human mind and whether we have the ability to nurture and 
expand  
> them through practice.
> 
> Davidson already has the foundation for probing these questions  
> through his decade-long work exploring brain function and 
meditation.  
> Davidson works with a population of Tibetan monks and lay  
> practitioners who have incorporated meditation practices into 
their  
> daily lives, looking into how that practice impacts their mental 
and  
> physical health.
> 
> Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques,  
> Davidson has been able to demonstrate that significant positive  
> changes in brain behavior can be activated through meditation and  
> other "contemplative practices." The research has been very  
> influential in providing evidence of "neuroplasticity," the idea 
that  
> brain function changes throughout life in response to experience 
and  
> purposeful training.
> 
> "This is totally uncharted territory," says Davidson of the Fetzer  
> project. "This grant is really meant to launch a new field where 
the  
> wisdom of the contemplative traditions can intersect with hard-
nosed  
> mainstream science to understand how the brain can be transformed,  
> through certain exercises, to strengthen these kinds of positive  
> qualities."
> 
> Davidson's ultimate goal is build a deep base of scientific 
evidence  
> not only of the neurological machinery that supports these 
qualities,  
> but of specific practices that can have an impact on mental health  
> and point the way to new techniques to cultivate these virtues in  
> children and adults, including those with disabilities.
> 
> "Most commentators agree that if the world contained more people 
who  
> more often displayed qualities such as love, forgiveness, 
compassion  
> and related characteristics, some of the myriad problems that 
plague  
> modern society would be less severe," Davidson says.
> 
> Davidson's research team has already done studies on compassion, 
in  
> which they examined how specific mental training exercises were 
able  
> to elicit changes in a brain region called the insula, an area 
that  
> is directly tied to interactions between the mind and body. When  
> subjects are asked to respond to stimuli that depicts human  
> suffering, for example, there are often parallel physical 
reactions  
> in the body that can be measured. Those reactions may serve as  
> motivators for the propensity to help others, Davidson says.
> 
> One big challenge will be how to define, isolate and measure what  
> responses in the brain are directly connected with a construct 
such  
> as love or forgiveness. Davidson says a great deal of their 
success  
> will depend on whether specific studies can be designed to really  
> hone in on a particular virtue. Adding

[Zen] Re: JUDO

[Bill Smart]

This is exactly the same as my perspective without the due 
respect...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Edgar,
> Thanks for the reply and insight. I'm just finding it really hard 
to intergrate my understanding and experience of Zen with the 
importance some people here are placing on chi. I can appreciate that 
chi exists and may even be the source of form and emptiness, but at 
the end of the day I just don't believe it is essential to know or 
experience chi in order to live a Zen life. With due respect, I think 
JMJM's Chan is just a highly developed technique which allows a 
person to feel chi and so feel somewhat spiritualised 
and 'connected'. I've felt something very similar in my Vipassana 
meditation (Vipassana uses a technique which generates a lot of chi 
and this is then used to 'scan' the body to feel the most minute, 
subtle sensations within and on the surface of the body), however it 
is still a technique. I'm not saying techniques are a bad thing - 
after all zazen meditation is a technique . What I am saying tho' is 
that ultimately ALL techniques are just
>  rafts which need to be discarded after reaching the other shore 
(the shore we're already on, of course). Zen is just simply living 
life fully in the moment and doesn't require anything extra in the 
way of 'energy currents', God, or listening to our 'inner-dolphin'. 
Mike.
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> 
> From: Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 11 September, 2008 7:41:41
> Subject: Re: [Zen] JUDO
> 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> An excellent post from someone who obviously has direct experience 
of what he's talking about.
> 
> The huffing and puffing type of concentration of chi is primarily 
useful in demonstrations of force in set conditions such as breaking 
bricks. Bricks don't avoid punches or  strike back! In such cases one 
can concentrate on concentrating one's chi against the unchanging chi 
of the bricks and take one's time. However in interactive situations 
with a live opponent things are much different and concentrating on 
one's own chi in this way is not usually the best tactic. 
> 
> Against a live opponent the key is emptiness, or as you say mushin. 
If you are full of concentrating on your own chi your focus and your 
energy will be in that concentration of chi, not on the total 
interactive situation with the opponent. The emptier of such 
concentration one is the faster and more appropriately one can act. 
The idea is to be empty of self so that you are maximally aware and 
tuned to the flow of the total situation and are able to respond 
instantly and naturally to any change the opponent makes in the unity 
of the whole situation. This too is actually chi, but not a huff and 
puff concentration of chi in one's own hara, but a maximal awareness 
and response to the total chi of the entire situation that exists 
between you and your opponent. If you erect no chi barrier to your 
opponent you are able to sense instantly any change he makes to the 
chi flow you share with him and respond optimally - assuming you have 
the training to do so of
>  course.
> 
> This all goes to a very important point. What to do with 
realization, what to do with Zen? As Bill noted, he spends 99% of his 
life out of zazen. No matter how enlightened we exist in the world of 
maya where causality holds sway. With Zen we can realize that is 
illusion, but we still must exist within it. The big question is how 
to bring Zen into that world in our daily lives 24/7. 
> 
> Al points to the way here. The key is to be empty. That doesn't 
mean to be empty of chi, but to be empty of any hinderances to the 
flow of chi. When we are empty of such blockages we are continually 
being filled with the chi of the present here now which flows through 
us unobstructed, and out of this flow our own action originates 
naturally and spontaneously. Most people's action originates from 
their hinderances to the free flow of chi, those internal forms in 
which they try to trap chi, that is the internal forms in which most 
people try to structure and hold chi according to their particular 
desires, and thoughts, those forms which they call their self. But 
true Zen action arises directly from the free unhindered flow of the 
chi of the present moment through one's center. We see that 
brilliantly in the finest martial artists such as the aikido of 
Ueshiba Morihei, but it also works in every aspect of daily life if 
we just empty ourselves and tune to
>  the chi of the moment, and let that originate our actions without 
hinderance.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 10, 2008, at 7:44 AM, mike brown wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Al, 
> I'm a Kyokushin karate practioner and have represented Australia 
(actually I'm Welsh, but it's a long story..) at the international 
level. I have found Zen to be indispensable when fighting in 
competitions. If you start worrying negatively a

[Zen] Re: Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,  I reveived and read this post...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,
> 
> I have tried to use the simplest term to explain the foundation of 
Life 
> Force, which composes of Chi and it carries Universal Wisdom.
> 
> Since your post is for others and not for yourself, then I shall 
stop 
> here, because the way you have assumed the argument for others are 
> getting into the relativity and nitty-gritty of word definition, 
instead 
> of the essence of the universe.  That feeds the brain instead of 
the 
> spirit,  because there is no absolute definition in words.  There 
is 
> nothing to understand in the first place.  Understand exists in the 
> world of labels.
> 
> On the other hand, unless you experience and witness Chi, all 
discussion 
> is irrelevant.  Let me give you some tips to experience Chi first.
> 
> However, I like to mention another concept of Chan in our school 
(by our 
> school, I mean, we may not be THE school  Remember every time I 
utter an 
> opinion, it is correct based on my incomplete gathering of 
information). 
> In our school, the mind is the brain, and the heart or the spirit 
is the 
> Buddha Nature.  It is my experience to state, no matter how 
limited, 
> erroneous, delusional the brain is, our heart is always aware, pure 
and 
> compassionate.  Therefore, I state that your brain may deny, your 
heart 
> accepts.  Your brain may doubt, but your heart believes.  Often our 
> actions are rescued, corrected by our heart at the end, even though 
our 
> mind may astray.
> 
> Therefore, no matter how you argue, your heart knows the way.  Here 
> comes the punch line.
> 
> If there is no ego, how can you be "cornered".  You see, your heart 
is 
> telling while your brain is not.
> 
> Our job as Chan practitioners, is to learn from everything, not get 
lost 
> in definitions.  Because everything is manifested by the universal 
life 
> force, or the One.  Why differentiate?  Try to grow our 
spirit/Buddha 
> nature from it, is the key.  For you Bill, grow means, "let go of 
the 
> mind" and not "grow the Buddha Nature". 
> 
> After all these long posts, which is very dangerous, I recommend 
one 
> thing and one thing only, cultivate your Chi in your Zazen.  
Everything 
> else will come naturally.  All labels, definition, knowledge, sutra 
are 
> second hand at best.
> 
> JM
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
> >
> > Unfortunately you've driven me in a corner and forced me to assume
> > the role as a nit-picker (a hair-spliter). If this were a
> > conversation between you and me only I'd have given up by now and
> > probably just be nodding my head while smiling dumbly at you while
> > processing 'ya-da, ya-da, ya-da'.
> >
> > But, this is not a private conversation and there are others that
> > read these posts. It's entirely up to them what value, if any, 
they
> > take away from these, but I do not want anyone to think that by my
> > lack of response I agree with your statements. I find a lot of 
them
> > to be very misleading, and at the best will sidetrack people
> > attempting to become better aware of their Buddha Nature.
> >
> > My responses are embedded below:
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bill, This is almost midnight here in LA. Again, you wrote as
> > > always, sincerely. Let me try to explain in simpler terms.
> > >
> > The simpler the better. Truth is always very, very simple.
> >
> > > There is only one True/Final/Real Form - Universal Life Force -
> > can be
> > > labeled as God or Buddha or Ala.
> > >
> > I agree. I call it either Just THIS! or Buddha Nature. Edgar calls
> > it Direct Experience of Reality. But these are just labels.
> >
> > > ULF has two parts intertwined.
> > >
> > Whoops! DUALITY ALERT! DUALITY ALERT!
> >
> > What you've done starting with this statement is revert to the 
wold
> > of Maya, the world of dualism. THAT'S OKAY WITH ME. I can operate
> > in that world too, and in fact do 99% of the time. BUT, flip-
> > flopping back and forth from Buddha Nature (ULF) to Maya (dualism)
> > without warning will mislead a lot of people. Buddha Nature is
> > Buddha Nature. Just THIS! is Just THIS! ULF is ULF. These cannot
> > be subdived into parts, like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost 

Re: [Zen] Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

Dear Flower of the Lotus,

Thank you for your posting.  I always think getting everyone's 
defintions of terms is very important.

Although I've already given my defintion, I'll give it here again:

Sprituality is Maya.  It is a sub-division of Maya into a dualism of 
corporal (physical including energy) and spiritual.  We experience 
items in the corporal division through our physical sense of touch 
(which is usually further divided into touch, sight, hear, taste, and 
smell).  We experience spirutalism though our sense of 
imagination/intuition/soul/spirit.

Thanks for playing...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Mayka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Donald and Bill
> 
> I love the dharma discussions you both have from time to time.  You 
both are good 
> stimulants leading one to deep thought. 
> 
>  I'm rather busy in the last months and have no much friee time 
left to dedicate in the list.  
> However, I appreciate the creation of interesting threads.
> 
> It would be iinteresting the way that everyone in the list 
understands spirituality.  It seems 
> that we have a different way of understanding this word.  In the 
process of good 
> communication I have found important to establish an affinity with 
the different ways we 
> all understand something.  
> 
> For instance, to me spirituality is the continuos evolution as 
human beings . Like our 
> bodies and minds were our private garden.  A beautiful garden that 
needs to be 
> continuosly look after, taking careA garden that is like this 
or like that because we 
> choose to be. The Master Piece of our life.  Making it real, truly 
alive, truthful, beatiful and 
> good. Taking good care of the weeds. With peace, perseverance and 
disciplining our 
> undisciplined minds.
> 
> Greetings to all
> MAYKA
> 





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately you've driven me in a corner and forced me to assume 
the role as a nit-picker (a hair-spliter).  If this were a 
conversation between you and me only I'd have given up by now and 
probably just be nodding my head while smiling dumbly at you while 
processing 'ya-da, ya-da, ya-da'.

But, this is not a private conversation and there are others that 
read these posts.  It's entirely up to them what value, if any, they 
take away from these, but I do not want anyone to think that by my 
lack of response I agree with your statements.  I find a lot of them 
to be very misleading, and at the best will sidetrack people 
attempting to become better aware of their Buddha Nature.

My responses are embedded below:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,  This is almost midnight here in LA.  Again, you wrote as 
> always, sincerely.  Let me try to explain in simpler terms.
>
The simpler the better.  Truth is always very, very simple.
 
> There is only one True/Final/Real Form - Universal Life Force -  
can be 
> labeled as God or Buddha or Ala.
>
I agree.  I call it either Just THIS! or Buddha Nature.  Edgar calls 
it Direct Experience of Reality.  But these are just labels.

> ULF has two parts intertwined.
>
Whoops!  DUALITY ALERT!  DUALITY ALERT!

What you've done starting with this statement is revert to  the wold 
of Maya, the world of dualism.  THAT'S OKAY WITH ME.  I can operate 
in that world too, and in fact do 99% of the time.  BUT, flip-
flopping back and forth from Buddha Nature (ULF) to Maya (dualism) 
without warning will mislead a lot of people.  Buddha Nature is 
Buddha Nature.  Just THIS! is Just THIS!  ULF is ULF.  These cannot 
be subdived into parts, like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost WITHOUT 
slipping into the world of Maya - the world of dualism, the world of 
rationality.  AGAIN, I state there's nothing wrong with operating in 
the world of Maya as long as you are aware of that you are.  YOU may 
indeed be aware that you are (although from many of your previous 
posts about Chi I'm not convinced you are), but many of the readers 
of these posts may not be aware you're flipping back and forth and 
therefore be mislead.
 
>The Chi/Ki/energy which is the carrier 
> and the universal wisdom/consciousness is the embedded message.
> When our Chi connect with the universal Chi, our 
>Buddha/Self/Original 
> Nature can sync up to the universal Consciousness/Wisdom/Buddha. 
> I hope it is clearer this time.  Let me know if there is anything 
>you 
> want me to clarify some more.
>
This is all very clear to me as a rational, hierarchy with a 
functional subgroupings of ULF into CHI and 'universal 
wisdom/consiousness' which I assume is Buddha Nature.  Very clear.  
Very logical.  Very neat.  The problem is it is Maya.  It's just a 
rational manipulation of Maya.  It's like telling me the names of the 
all the different classes of Angels and then going on to describe 
their particular appearance and function.  It's interesting.  It's 
satisfying.  It's reassuring.  It's even fun sometimes.  But, it's 
all Maya!
 
> Yes Buddha Nature is not the same as Chi.  It can be called Just 
This or 
> maya or spirituality. Why split hair?  After all Buddha nature is 
as is, 
> no matter what name we call it.  All labels are subject to 
> interpretations and relative.
>
I agree in principal, but if you take that thought to the limit you 
would conclude that talking about these topics is useless.  And, that 
is exactly what zen teaches us over and over and over again.  
HOWEVER, we are talking about it, and as long as we do try to use 
words, terms, lables, they are important.  I believe we have an 
obligation to define our terms, try to synch-up our terms, and be 
consistent.  If we can't or won't do that then we should just smile 
and hold up a flower as did Buddha at Vuluture Peak or one finger as 
did wise old Gutei.

>There is a saying in Buddhism, "All 
> spoken/written dharma are dharma in form only."  Meaning real 
>dharma is 
> in formless.  It means energy or chi.  Get it?
>
The quote above means (to me) that 'All spoken/written dharma are 
dharma in form only, and are therefore dharma in the dualistic world 
and therefore Maya.'

Formless, the way you are using it, is a dualistic term.  You saying 
one one hand there is 'form', and on the other there is 'energy or 
chi'.  This is dualism.  This is Maya.

...Bill!




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

[Zen] Re: Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

Thanks for your reply.  The titles were confusing to me.  This reply 
post of your is less confusing - only just slightly.

Bill! (I've dropped the Big Fish title since it was superfluous and 
probably confusing.)

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Big Fish,
> 
> It is always a pleasure to read your post.  Always so serious and 
> straight from the heart.  Especially this post.  Because...
> 
> Before I reply, please excuse me first.  Because I trapped you with 
this 
> small statement to illustrate a point.  hahaha...
> 
> Roshi（老師） - is indeed a Japanese pronunciation for the same 
> character of (老師） pronounces Lao-Shi in Chinese, which is 
what I am 
> called in the Chinese community. 
> While the naming of American Zen Association has the opposite 
story.  At 
> the time of our registration, I thought Zen is Chan, because they 
are 
> the same character in Chinese.
> 
> Now what is the point?  The point is, labels are confusing.  That's 
> all  And you fell for it.  Sorry.
> 
> It does not matter at all, my friend.  State of our Inner Self is 
the 
> only thing matters.
> 
> I will address your other longer post after dinner.  OK?  Stay 
Tuned. 
> 
> Sorry again,
> _/\_
> JM
> 
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > JMJM:
> >
> > AND ANOTHER THING...
> >
> > (Sorry for the second posting so soon after my last, but I'm on my
> > second cup of tea this mornig and my inner self is in a frenzy. It
> > wants to reach out and CHI someone!)
> >
> > Here is my question:
> >
> > You are a teacher in a Chan school. Chan is Chinese. You spell and
> > pronouce Chi as 'Chi' which is modern Chinese (as opposed to 'ki' 
as
> > in Japnese' or 'qi' traditional or some other kind of Chinese.) 
Your
> > family name is Hwong. Isn't that Chinese also?
> >
> > So...and here comes the question...Why is your title 'Roshi', 
which
> > is Japanese?
> >
> > Enquiring no-minds want to know...
> >
> > Bill!, Big Fish
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > "Bill Smart"  wrote:
> > >
> > > JMJM,
> > >
> > > I DID NOT agree with you that zen was 'just a mind-balancing
> > > exercise'. I agreed with you that zen was not spritual. Zen is 
no-
> > > mind, so there is nothing to balance - WYSIWYG, no adjustments
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what your remark below about my 'inner self' 
means. I
> > > guess you think I have an 'inner self' and that you know more 
about
> > > what it's doing than I. Please continue to let me know what it's
> > up
> > > to. I'd hate to have my inner self sneak up on me and surprise 
me.
> > >
> > > Buddha Nature, which I have called 'JUST THIS', is not in the 
realm
> > > of sprituality or maya. It is real. It is reality.
> > >
> > > Buddha Nature and Chi are not the same, or at least Buddha 
Nature,
> > as
> > > I know it, is not the same as what you have described Chi to be.
> > > You've described Chi as a universal energy that you can connect
> > with
> > > and detect in others, that you can cultivate and accumulate, 
that
> > you
> > > can learn to direct and channel, that you can use to heal 
yourself
> > > and others, that misuse can harm yourself and others, that you
> > > describe things you like as to having 'good' Chi and things you
> > don't
> > > as having 'bad' Chi. This sounds more like something sung about 
in
> > > the Beach Boy's song 'Good Vibrations'. (Good hamony there...)
> > >
> > > Some of the above qualities overlap with Buddha Nature, but
> > certainly
> > > not all of them. Buddha Nature is universal but you could not 
call
> > > it energy (or at least I wouldn't). You can 'connect' with it by
> > > becoming aware of it. You could say you can cultivate it, but 
what
> > > you really do is cultivate your awareness of it. You cannot
> > > accumulate it in the sense of 'storing it up', but you can
> > strengthen
> > > your awareness of it. You cannot direct or channel it, you 
follow
> > > it. You cannot use it to heal yourself and others, although the
> > > awareness of it has healing in the sense of acceptance and 
peace.
> > >

[Zen] Re: Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM:

AND ANOTHER THING...

(Sorry for the second posting so soon after my last, but I'm on my 
second cup of tea this mornig and my inner self is in a frenzy.  It 
wants to reach out and CHI someone!)

Here is my question:

You are a teacher in a Chan school.  Chan is Chinese.  You spell and 
pronouce Chi as 'Chi' which is modern Chinese (as opposed to 'ki' as 
in Japnese' or 'qi' traditional or some other kind of Chinese.)  Your 
family name is Hwong.  Isn't that Chinese also?

So...and here comes the question...Why is your title 'Roshi', which 
is Japanese?

Enquiring no-minds want to know...

Bill!, Big Fish  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> JMJM,
> 
> I DID NOT agree with you that zen was 'just a mind-balancing 
> exercise'.  I agreed with you that zen was not spritual.  Zen is no-
> mind, so there is nothing to balance - WYSIWYG, no adjustments 
> necessary.
> 
> I'm not sure what your remark below about my 'inner self' means.  I 
> guess you think I have an 'inner self' and that you know more about 
> what it's doing than I.  Please continue to let me know what it's 
up 
> to.  I'd hate to have my inner self sneak up on me and surprise me.
> 
> Buddha Nature, which I have called 'JUST THIS', is not in the realm 
> of sprituality or maya.  It is real.  It is reality.
> 
> Buddha Nature and Chi are not the same, or at least Buddha Nature, 
as 
> I know it, is not the same as what you have described Chi to be.  
> You've described Chi as a universal energy that you can connect 
with 
> and detect in others, that you can cultivate and accumulate, that 
you 
> can learn to direct and channel, that you can use to heal yourself 
> and others, that misuse can harm yourself and others, that you 
> describe things you like as to having 'good' Chi and things you 
don't 
> as having 'bad' Chi.  This sounds more like something sung about in 
> the Beach Boy's song 'Good Vibrations'.  (Good hamony there...)
> 
> Some of the above qualities overlap with Buddha Nature, but 
certainly 
> not all of them.  Buddha Nature is universal but you could not call 
> it energy (or at least I wouldn't).  You can 'connect' with it by 
> becoming aware of it.  You could say you can cultivate it, but what 
> you really do is cultivate your awareness of it.  You cannot 
> accumulate it in the sense of 'storing it up', but you can 
strengthen 
> your awareness of it.  You cannot direct or channel it, you follow 
> it.  You cannot use it to heal yourself and others, although the 
> awareness of it has healing in the sense of acceptance and peace.  
> You cannot use it to harm yourself or others,  other than 
> intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting Buddha Nature to 
> others.  There is no 'good' or 'bad' Buddha Nature.
> 
> As you have described Chi, I think it has the same relationship 
with 
> Buddha Nature as I now beleive Chan has with zen. Chi represents a 
> spritualized version of Buddha Nature as does Chan vis-a-vis zen, 
> complete with add-on surpernatural qualities, superstitions, 
wishful 
> thinking and lots of attachment-magnets.
> 
> (I just now made up the term attachment-magnets.  Pretty cool, 
huh?  
> Feel free to use it without feeling obligated to cite me.)
> 
> JMJM, you didn't comment on my title before when it was Bill!.  I 
> just got a new one: Big Fish.  How do you like it?  Does it have 
good 
> Chi or bad Chi?  Can I heal or hurt someone with it?  If I can, Al 
> had better WATCH OUT!
> 
> ...Bill!, Big Fish
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
>  wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary, Al.  What I meant was, if Bill admitted at the 
> > beginning that Zen is just a mental balancing exercise, then my 
> point is 
> > made. Since his did not agree with my observation, yet his Inner 
> Self 
> > did, he had convinced himself that there could be spirituality.  
> > Spirituality in my dictionary is Buddha Nature.  :-)
> > 
> > There is no one to convert to no where.  Just some are more 
> delusional 
> > than others.  No offense.
> > 
> > Fitness63 wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - >Hi Bill, Your post was what I 
> expected. If 
> > > you
> > > had mentioned in the first place that spirituality to you has 
no 
> meaning,
> > > then I don't have to write that many posts. :-) JM
> > >
> > > You sound like a missionary who tries to convert a heathen and 
> then says

[Zen] Re: Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

I DID NOT agree with you that zen was 'just a mind-balancing 
exercise'.  I agreed with you that zen was not spritual.  Zen is no-
mind, so there is nothing to balance - WYSIWYG, no adjustments 
necessary.

I'm not sure what your remark below about my 'inner self' means.  I 
guess you think I have an 'inner self' and that you know more about 
what it's doing than I.  Please continue to let me know what it's up 
to.  I'd hate to have my inner self sneak up on me and surprise me.

Buddha Nature, which I have called 'JUST THIS', is not in the realm 
of sprituality or maya.  It is real.  It is reality.

Buddha Nature and Chi are not the same, or at least Buddha Nature, as 
I know it, is not the same as what you have described Chi to be.  
You've described Chi as a universal energy that you can connect with 
and detect in others, that you can cultivate and accumulate, that you 
can learn to direct and channel, that you can use to heal yourself 
and others, that misuse can harm yourself and others, that you 
describe things you like as to having 'good' Chi and things you don't 
as having 'bad' Chi.  This sounds more like something sung about in 
the Beach Boy's song 'Good Vibrations'.  (Good hamony there...)

Some of the above qualities overlap with Buddha Nature, but certainly 
not all of them.  Buddha Nature is universal but you could not call 
it energy (or at least I wouldn't).  You can 'connect' with it by 
becoming aware of it.  You could say you can cultivate it, but what 
you really do is cultivate your awareness of it.  You cannot 
accumulate it in the sense of 'storing it up', but you can strengthen 
your awareness of it.  You cannot direct or channel it, you follow 
it.  You cannot use it to heal yourself and others, although the 
awareness of it has healing in the sense of acceptance and peace.  
You cannot use it to harm yourself or others,  other than 
intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting Buddha Nature to 
others.  There is no 'good' or 'bad' Buddha Nature.

As you have described Chi, I think it has the same relationship with 
Buddha Nature as I now beleive Chan has with zen. Chi represents a 
spritualized version of Buddha Nature as does Chan vis-a-vis zen, 
complete with add-on surpernatural qualities, superstitions, wishful 
thinking and lots of attachment-magnets.

(I just now made up the term attachment-magnets.  Pretty cool, huh?  
Feel free to use it without feeling obligated to cite me.)

JMJM, you didn't comment on my title before when it was Bill!.  I 
just got a new one: Big Fish.  How do you like it?  Does it have good 
Chi or bad Chi?  Can I heal or hurt someone with it?  If I can, Al 
had better WATCH OUT!

...Bill!, Big Fish

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On the contrary, Al.  What I meant was, if Bill admitted at the 
> beginning that Zen is just a mental balancing exercise, then my 
point is 
> made. Since his did not agree with my observation, yet his Inner 
Self 
> did, he had convinced himself that there could be spirituality.  
> Spirituality in my dictionary is Buddha Nature.  :-)
> 
> There is no one to convert to no where.  Just some are more 
delusional 
> than others.  No offense.
> 
> Fitness63 wrote:
> >
> > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - >Hi Bill, Your post was what I 
expected. If 
> > you
> > had mentioned in the first place that spirituality to you has no 
meaning,
> > then I don't have to write that many posts. :-) JM
> >
> > You sound like a missionary who tries to convert a heathen and 
then says
> > "What could I expect from a heathen" when the conversion fails!!
> >
> > That is funny when I see things in zen that are just like 
Christianity 
> > and
> > then it makes me wonder if the cynics are right.
> >
> > Then again, I learned something from this, so thanks for trying 
to 
> > convert
> > Bill. You may have missed the big fish but gotten some little 
ones.
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

Al, I'm at Ox Herding Pictures stage 42...

Concepts like chi, karma, dharma, buddha nature and bovine bunching 
pictures are teaching tools - training wheels.  Use them if you want 
to, but don't get too ATTACHED to them.

Just sit...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Bill Smart>Your comments about how people can use Chi are 
good 
> examples of the spritualism I reject and classify as maya, but 
they're 
> entertaining to think about.>
> 
> You must be aware of your CHI if you meditate regularly.
> 
> This was interesting, from The Anelects of Confucius:
> 
> The [morally] noble man guards himself against three things. When 
he is 
> young, his xue-qi has not yet stabilized, so he guards himself 
against 
> sexual passion. When he reaches his prime, his xue-qi is not easily 
subdued, 
> so he guards himself against combativeness. When he reaches old 
age, his 
> xue-qi is already depleted, so he guards himself against 
acquisitiveness.
> 
> What stage are you at Bill, if you no longer feel your CHI?
> 
> If you want, I will let you feel my CHI.
> 
> Al The Pal
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

I am not the one who first brought up the subject of spirituality and 
used that term in these posts.  That was you.

It all started in you post 11750 on 04Sep when you posted: "I suspect 
that Zen is just a mental balancing excercise
without spirituality."  That generated a lot of posting activity from 
many people, including me lauding that assertion.

You then started this particular thread in post 11814 on 07 Sep that 
has 'true spirituality' in the title.  (That begs the question 
what 'false spirituality' is, but I didn't ask that of you.)

To answer you present question, I beleive all spirituality is maya, 
so I really don't know how to define it any more detailed than that.  
All spirituality is an illusion - true spirituality, false 
sprituality, blue sprituality, bad sprituality, etc...

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill, What is your definition of spiritualism & spirituality in the 
> common day context? Thanks, JM
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> >
> > Thanks for your clarifications.
> >
> > Much of your description of Chi below sounds like Buddha Nature as
> > that term is used in English translations of Japanese Zen Buddhist
> > writings. Are you aware of this, and is there indeed a difference 
or
> > are these two concepts the pretty much the same?
> >
> > Your comments about how people can use Chi are good examples of 
the
> > spritualism I reject and classify as maya, but they're 
entertaining
> > to think about.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Good questions Bill,
> > >
> > > Chi is pronounced Cheee. In Japnese it is pronounced Ki, like
> > ReiKi.
> > > In new Chinese, it is spelled Qi, but pronounced the same.
> > >
> > > #2 is the detailed answer. Chi is the universal life force and
> > > therefore it is always one and connected. Yet, it could be
> > blocked. If
> > > it were blocked in our body, like teachings of QiGong or
> > acupuncture,
> > > then we become sick or injured. It if blocks our mind, we 
becomes
> > > crazy. These blockages are called karma in Buddhist terms and 
just
> > > blockage in traditional Chinese medicine.
> > >
> > > Because Chi is pure energy, not visible, not in any form. There
> > are
> > > occasion people take vantage of its illusiveness. So beware, as
> > pointed
> > > out by Edgar. Some martial artists can hurt you even without
> > touching
> > > you. Doctors can heal you also without touching you. I have had
> > both
> > > type of experiences many times.
> > >
> > > Sometimes, Chi is used as a descriptor. For instance, your Chi 
is
> > bad,
> > > meaning you don't look too well. This calligraphy has no chi,
> > meaning,
> > > it flows bad.
> > >
> > > Let me know if you have any other question.
> > > JM
> > >
> > > Bill Smart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JMJM,
> > > >
> > > > You wrote:
> > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Zen_Forum%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙
ç²¾æËÅ"Ž
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Chi of us can be connected to Chi of others only if we 
don't
> > > > use our
> > > > > mind, eyes, mouth, nose, etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think maybe some of our difficulty in communicating comes 
down
> > to
> > > > word usage.
> > > >
> > > > In the above sentence, do you mean:
> > > >
> > > > 1. I have my Chi and you have your Chi, but the Chi's are not 
now
> > > > connected, and the only way (or at least part of the way) I 
can
> > > > connect to your Chi is to not use my senses?
> > > >
> > > > 2. Or...I have Chi and you have Chi, and the Chi is the same 
Chi
> > so
> > > > by definition is already connected, but the only way I can 
sense
> > or
> > > > become aware of that connection is to not use my senses?
> > > >
> > > > 3. Or...something else?
> > > >
> > > > Also, is 'Chi' pronouced 'chee' (like the first part 
of 'cheese',
> > > > or 'key' with a hard 'c' pronounced like 'k'; and is it also
> > > > sometimes rendered into English as 'Qi'?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks...Bill!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

Thanks for your clarifications.

Much of your description of Chi below sounds like Buddha Nature as 
that term is used in English translations of Japanese Zen Buddhist 
writings.  Are you aware of this, and is there indeed a difference or 
are these two concepts the pretty much the same?

Your comments about how people can use Chi are good examples of the 
spritualism I reject and classify as maya, but they're entertaining 
to think about.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Good questions Bill,
> 
> Chi is pronounced Cheee.  In Japnese it is pronounced Ki, like 
ReiKi.  
> In new Chinese, it is spelled Qi, but pronounced the same.
> 
> #2 is the detailed answer.  Chi is the universal life force and 
> therefore it is always one and connected.  Yet, it could be 
blocked.  If 
> it were blocked in our body, like teachings of QiGong or 
acupuncture, 
> then we become sick or injured.  It if blocks our mind, we becomes 
> crazy.  These blockages are called karma in Buddhist terms and just 
> blockage in traditional Chinese medicine.
> 
> Because Chi is pure energy, not visible, not in any form.  There 
are 
> occasion people take vantage of its illusiveness.  So beware, as 
pointed 
> out by Edgar.  Some martial artists can hurt you even without 
touching 
> you. Doctors can heal you also without touching you.  I have had 
both 
> type of experiences many times.
> 
> Sometimes, Chi is used as a descriptor.  For instance, your Chi is 
bad, 
> meaning you don't look too well.  This calligraphy has no chi, 
meaning, 
> it flows bad. 
> 
> Let me know if you have any other question.
> JM
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> >
> > You wrote:
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > The Chi of us can be connected to Chi of others only if we don't
> > use our
> > > mind, eyes, mouth, nose, etc.
> > >
> >
> > I think maybe some of our difficulty in communicating comes down 
to
> > word usage.
> >
> > In the above sentence, do you mean:
> >
> > 1. I have my Chi and you have your Chi, but the Chi's are not now
> > connected, and the only way (or at least part of the way) I can
> > connect to your Chi is to not use my senses?
> >
> > 2. Or...I have Chi and you have Chi, and the Chi is the same Chi 
so
> > by definition is already connected, but the only way I can sense 
or
> > become aware of that connection is to not use my senses?
> >
> > 3. Or...something else?
> >
> > Also, is 'Chi' pronouced 'chee' (like the first part of 'cheese',
> > or 'key' with a hard 'c' pronounced like 'k'; and is it also
> > sometimes rendered into English as 'Qi'?
> >
> > Thanks...Bill!
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

I'm not arguing with you.  I don't really care what names we use such 
as Chan/zen, Chi/JUST THIS, po-TAY-to/po-TAH-to.  I only care that when 
we use these terms we know what they mean, or at leat know whether 
we're referring to the same thing or not.

>From you postings I don't think JMJM's Chan is the same thing as 
Bill!'s Zen Buddhism, and especially not Bill!'s zen.  I also don't 
think JMJM's Chi is the same as Bill!'s JUST THIS!

>From what I've gleaned so far I think the major difference (and maybe 
the only difference) between Chan and Zen Buddhism is Chan's focus on 
Chi.  I think the major difference between Chan and zen is 
spiritualism, which inlcudes things like Chi.

I do enjoy our posting exchanges, even when I'm disapointed.

I do like your title: JMJM, Roshi - American Zen Association.

Do you like mine?  Bill!  




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

You wrote:
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Chi of us can be connected to Chi of others only if we don't 
use our 
> mind, eyes, mouth, nose, etc.  
> 

I think maybe some of our difficulty in communicating comes down to 
word usage.

In the above sentence, do you mean:

1.  I have my Chi and you have your Chi, but the Chi's are not now 
connected, and the only way (or at least part of the way) I can 
connect to your Chi is to not use my senses?

2.  Or...I have Chi and you have Chi, and the Chi is the same Chi so 
by definition is already connected, but the only way I can sense or 
become aware of that connection is to not use my senses?

3.  Or...something else?

Also, is 'Chi' pronouced 'chee' (like the first part of 'cheese', 
or 'key' with a hard 'c' pronounced like 'k'; and is it also 
sometimes rendered into English as 'Qi'?

Thanks...Bill!




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Chan?

[Bill Smart]

Edgar,

Thanks.  I took a brief look at it and it looks very interesting.  
Long though (24 pages).  I'll read it sometime in the next couple 
days and get back to you...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill and Chris,
> 
> If you want to understand time please read my paper on spacetime 
and  
> consciousness http://EdgarLOwen.com/stc.pdf
> 
> Any comments would be appreciated,
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Bill Smart wrote:
> 
> > Chris,
> >
> > The 'origin' of zen is difficult to talk about because has a 1:1
> > relationship with the 'origin' of reality; and, the 
concept 'origin'
> > presumes there is time, and that time flows in a constant 
direction.
> > That's a lot to tackle before my morning cup of tea. I beleive the
> > sense of time is a human construct (maya), so anything I would say
> > using the concept of time would be misleading.
> >
> > Now that the caveat emptor is in place I will say I believe the
> > ability to have a direct experience of reality has 
existed 'forever',
> > or as long as reality, and that it is only the advent of sentient
> > beings (evolution of the rational mind) that has occuluded the
> > awareness of this ability. I think there were many, many people 
who
> > were able to directly experience reality before Siddhartha Buddha 
(or
> > the myth of) Siddhartha Buddha. Whether he and his story are real 
or
> > not, his story is just the one we have mythologized, and for us he
> > stands for the one who rediscovered (became aware) of this ability
> > universal and pre-existing ability.
> >
> > That is pre-morning-cup-of-tea MY OPINION...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I too have enjoyed these latest threads, even though I'm afraid
> > some
> > > of the intended meanings may go over my head. I believe the
> > > connection to God is reached through strict meditation (sure 
there
> > > are other ways, but this is the ZEN_Forum)... We still have our
> > > individual personalities that will shape what we do when we are
> > > within our practice. No matter how close to a Buddha one may 
be, we
> > > still have our Ego. If one chooses, he may use his new-found
> > > awareness to help others, somewhat like a bodhidarma. A Zen
> > > practitioner can still be a contributing member of society, we
> > still
> > > must live our lives. I do still enjoy hearing of Chan from JM.
> > > Although I do now feel that JM may want to start a Chan_Forum. I
> > see
> > > the two practices are quite different. It is admirable to sync 
to
> > > this life-force energy that several of us acknowledge is there, 
but
> > > JM takes an active role in using this energy for purposes of
> > other's
> > > health and well-being. While this is admirable, it definitely is
> > not
> > > Zen. I do believe the the Buddha himself practiced Zen, even if 
Zen
> > > is said to have been started at a later date... Like I have 
heard
> > > before, it was always there, the Buddha is just credited with 
the
> > 1st
> > > person who found it. Through Zen like meditation, and living the
> > > precepts and wisdom he had gained. The Eight-fold path, the 
Middle
> > > Way and such. But that is just my buddhist philosophy that is
> > > coloring my opinion.
> > >
> > > Thanks Anyway,
> > > Later,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: cid830 >if you detach yourself from your Ego through 
these
> > > > 'mind-numbing' practices you will be a better person, more in-
> > tune
> > > with the
> > > > world around you and enabling you to be an agent of change or
> > > positive
> > > > influence to others. >
> > > >
> > > > I would like that, but Bill, Mike, Edgar, etc., state it is 
just
> > an
> > > illusion
> > > > which is trancended when you reach the JUST THIS stage.
> > > >
> > > > I realize that I can be a bit combative about some issues, so 
I
> > > apologize
> > > > for that. I think a while back I hit this wall we are 
discussing
> > > now and it
> > > > was never clarified for me and I gave up on zen and just 
chalked
> > it
> > > up as
> > > > another bogus p

[Zen] Re: Chan?

[Bill Smart]

Al et al,

I was bothered all night because I SCREWED UP when I added the 
mapping from the 'Mountain' saying to the 10 Oxherding stages.  I 
added them at the last minute before posting and should have thought 
more before doing so.

So, now that I do have that morning cup of tea in front of me, I'll 
correct that.

The 'Mountain' saying starts off BEFORE any enlightenment experience:

First there is a mountain,
This is meant to describe your experience of dualism.  There is me 
and there is a mountain.
This first verse would corrspond to before 1 of the Ox Herding 
pictures to about picture 3 or 4, or the period before you have 
experience non-duality.

Then there is no mountain,
This describes non-duality.
It would correspond to the Ox Herding pictures 4 or 5 to 8.

Then there is.
This describes the integration of an enlighented being back into the 
world, where you can remain grounded in direct experience of reality 
(JUST THIS!), but also function in the world of illusions (maya) 
WITHOUT BECOMING ATTACHED to them.

So, the new and improved, and tea-enabled matrix is:

First there is a mountain, (oxhearding prior-to-1 to 4 or 5)
Then there is no mountain, (oxherding 4 or 5 to 8)
Then there is. (oxherding 9 and 10)

Okay!  I feel better now!  I think I'll have another cup of tea...

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Al,
> 
> You're asking very difficult questions.
> 
> I'll pass for now on the one about 'What is the point of living a 
> good life if it means nothing and has no value?'.  I'll only say 
now 
> that although I don't worry about a point or a meaning to living, I 
> wouldn't say life has no value.
> 
> I'd like to instead go back a few posts to your question about JUST 
> THIS being 'Zombie Zen'.  I only answered that I thought that you 
> were selling JUST THIS short, and that it had a lot more richness 
> than you thought.  After mulling this over for a while I remembered 
> the 10 Oxherding Pictures and Verses, and direct you to them.  You 
> can Google 'zen oxherding' and you'll get a lot of links.  (Make 
sure 
> you get the 10 version and not the 8 version, at least to synch up 
> with this posting.)
> 
> In case you're not familar with these, they depict the journey to 
> enlightenment in 10 stages or pictures, each with its own verse.  
(I 
> just want to make sure no one really thinks there are 10 actual 
> stages to enlightenment - these are just someone's examples of 
> milestones along the way.)
> 
> The first 6 depict the search for and the eventual realization of 
> enlightenment, which is represented by the ox.
> 
> The 7th depicts a very advanced stage where enlightenment is 
> forgotten.
> 
> The 8th stage depicts the 'void' stage that I think you are 
referring 
> to and worrying about.  You don't want to get stuck there.  But 
take 
> heart!  There are 2 more stages.
> 
> The 9th stage depicts the worldly phenomenen coming back into focus 
> again, but this time a new focus through the prism of the 
> enlighenment experience.
> 
> The 10th and final stage depcits an enlightened being fully 
> integrated back into society - driking wine, eating fish, buying 
and 
> selling in the market.  This is the end product of zen.
> 
> These stages are also represented in a familar saying and song 
lyrics:
> 
> First there is a mountain, (oxhearding 1-7)
> Then there is no mountian, (oxherding 8-9)
> Then there is. (oxherding 10)
> 
> Usually on this forum I only post about no mountian, but when all 
is 
> integrated fully, then there is.
> 
> So Al, you see there is something to look forward to after 
> the 'void', if you need that assurance to go forward.
> 
> ...Bill! 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63"  wrote:
> >
> > From: cid830 >if you detach yourself from your Ego through these 
> > 'mind-numbing' practices you will be a better person, more in-
tune 
> with the 
> > world around you and enabling you to be an agent of change or 
> positive 
> > influence to others. >
> > 
> > I would like that, but Bill, Mike, Edgar, etc., state it is just 
an 
> illusion 
> > which is trancended when you reach the JUST THIS stage.
> > 
> > I realize that I can be a bit combative about some issues, so I 
> apologize 
> > for that. I think a while back I hit this wall we are discussing 
> now and it 
> > was never clarified for me and I gave up on zen and just chalked 
it 
> up as 
> > another bogus path that I had followed.
> > 
> > I am enjoying this d

Re: [Zen] Chan - a true spirituality - the Inner Self

[Bill Smart]

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...all Zen is from Chan. 

>From what I've heard from you of Chan, I'd say zen is bare bones Chan, 
stripped of all of what seems to me to be it's superfulous and self-
indulgent superstitions.
 
> Whatever the incident, whether watching a tree or eating an apple, 
> always try to connect to the Chi of it...

When watching a tree, just watch.  When eating an apple, just eat.  

JMJM, you're getting me confused...do YOU have Chi and also the APPLE 
has Chi, or is this all the same Chi?  And if it is all the same Chi, 
why do you have to TRY to connect with it?  Aren't you ALREADY 
connected with it?

...Bill!




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Chan?

[Bill Smart]

Chris,

The 'origin' of zen is difficult to talk about because has a 1:1 
relationship with the 'origin' of reality; and, the concept 'origin' 
presumes there is time, and that time flows in a constant direction.  
That's a lot to tackle before my morning cup of tea.  I beleive the 
sense of time is a human construct (maya), so anything I would say 
using the concept of time would be misleading.

Now that the caveat emptor is in place I will say I believe the 
ability to have a direct experience of reality has existed 'forever', 
or as long as reality, and that it is only the advent of sentient 
beings (evolution of the rational mind) that has occuluded the 
awareness of this ability.  I think there were many, many people who 
were able to directly experience reality before Siddhartha Buddha (or 
the myth of) Siddhartha Buddha.  Whether he and his story are real or 
not, his story is just the one we have mythologized, and for us he 
stands for the one who rediscovered (became aware) of this ability 
universal and pre-existing ability.

That is  pre-morning-cup-of-tea MY OPINION...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I too have enjoyed these latest threads, even though I'm afraid 
some 
> of the intended meanings may go over my head.  I believe the 
> connection to God is reached through strict meditation (sure there 
> are other ways, but this is the ZEN_Forum)... We still have our 
> individual personalities that will shape what we do when we are 
> within our practice. No matter how close to a Buddha one may be, we 
> still have our Ego. If one chooses, he may use his new-found 
> awareness to help others, somewhat like a bodhidarma. A Zen 
> practitioner can still be a contributing member of society, we 
still 
> must live our lives. I do still enjoy hearing of Chan from JM. 
> Although I do now feel that JM may want to start a Chan_Forum. I 
see 
> the two practices are quite different. It is admirable to sync to 
> this life-force energy that several of us acknowledge is there, but 
> JM takes an active role in using this energy for purposes of 
other's 
> health and well-being. While this is admirable, it definitely is 
not 
> Zen. I do believe the the Buddha himself practiced Zen, even if Zen 
> is said to have been started at a later date... Like I have heard 
> before, it was always there, the Buddha is just credited with the 
1st 
> person who found it. Through Zen like meditation, and living the 
> precepts and wisdom he had gained. The Eight-fold path, the Middle 
> Way and such. But that is just my buddhist philosophy that is 
> coloring my opinion.  
> 
> Thanks Anyway,
> Later,
> Chris
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63"  wrote:
> >
> > From: cid830 >if you detach yourself from your Ego through these 
> > 'mind-numbing' practices you will be a better person, more in-
tune 
> with the 
> > world around you and enabling you to be an agent of change or 
> positive 
> > influence to others. >
> > 
> > I would like that, but Bill, Mike, Edgar, etc., state it is just 
an 
> illusion 
> > which is trancended when you reach the JUST THIS stage.
> > 
> > I realize that I can be a bit combative about some issues, so I 
> apologize 
> > for that. I think a while back I hit this wall we are discussing 
> now and it 
> > was never clarified for me and I gave up on zen and just chalked 
it 
> up as 
> > another bogus path that I had followed.
> > 
> > I am enjoying this discussion because I realize that it is 
> something that 
> > has been bothering me for a long time. Where is the connection to 
> God, 
> > Universal, Dharma, ancestors, etc. What is the point of living a 
> good life 
> > if it means nothing and has no value? Why make sacrifices if we 
are 
> just 
> > bits of meaningless nothing?
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Chan?

[Bill Smart]

Al,

You're asking very difficult questions.

I'll pass for now on the one about 'What is the point of living a 
good life if it means nothing and has no value?'.  I'll only say now 
that although I don't worry about a point or a meaning to living, I 
wouldn't say life has no value.

I'd like to instead go back a few posts to your question about JUST 
THIS being 'Zombie Zen'.  I only answered that I thought that you 
were selling JUST THIS short, and that it had a lot more richness 
than you thought.  After mulling this over for a while I remembered 
the 10 Oxherding Pictures and Verses, and direct you to them.  You 
can Google 'zen oxherding' and you'll get a lot of links.  (Make sure 
you get the 10 version and not the 8 version, at least to synch up 
with this posting.)

In case you're not familar with these, they depict the journey to 
enlightenment in 10 stages or pictures, each with its own verse.  (I 
just want to make sure no one really thinks there are 10 actual 
stages to enlightenment - these are just someone's examples of 
milestones along the way.)

The first 6 depict the search for and the eventual realization of 
enlightenment, which is represented by the ox.

The 7th depicts a very advanced stage where enlightenment is 
forgotten.

The 8th stage depicts the 'void' stage that I think you are referring 
to and worrying about.  You don't want to get stuck there.  But take 
heart!  There are 2 more stages.

The 9th stage depicts the worldly phenomenen coming back into focus 
again, but this time a new focus through the prism of the 
enlighenment experience.

The 10th and final stage depcits an enlightened being fully 
integrated back into society - driking wine, eating fish, buying and 
selling in the market.  This is the end product of zen.

These stages are also represented in a familar saying and song lyrics:

First there is a mountain, (oxhearding 1-7)
Then there is no mountian, (oxherding 8-9)
Then there is. (oxherding 10)

Usually on this forum I only post about no mountian, but when all is 
integrated fully, then there is.

So Al, you see there is something to look forward to after 
the 'void', if you need that assurance to go forward.

...Bill! 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: cid830 >if you detach yourself from your Ego through these 
> 'mind-numbing' practices you will be a better person, more in-tune 
with the 
> world around you and enabling you to be an agent of change or 
positive 
> influence to others. >
> 
> I would like that, but Bill, Mike, Edgar, etc., state it is just an 
illusion 
> which is trancended when you reach the JUST THIS stage.
> 
> I realize that I can be a bit combative about some issues, so I 
apologize 
> for that. I think a while back I hit this wall we are discussing 
now and it 
> was never clarified for me and I gave up on zen and just chalked it 
up as 
> another bogus path that I had followed.
> 
> I am enjoying this discussion because I realize that it is 
something that 
> has been bothering me for a long time. Where is the connection to 
God, 
> Universal, Dharma, ancestors, etc. What is the point of living a 
good life 
> if it means nothing and has no value? Why make sacrifices if we are 
just 
> bits of meaningless nothing?
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Chan for this discussion group

[Bill Smart]

Al et al,

Since we're on a lighter note I'd like to pass on that 'chi' in Thai 
is a verb that means 'to pee'.  I always think of that when I read 
JMJM's posts.  Maybe that's why I've had such a hard time swallowing 
his admonitions to embrace the chi.

...Bill!


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So you finally let go of your mistaken notions and accept CHI? 
> 
> very good grasshopper. 
> 
> Now understand CHI. 
> 
> CHI is everywhere. CHIcks, CHIhuahuas, CHIn, CHIna, CHIcano, 
CHIcago, CHIli, CHIle, etc.
> 
> Get in touch with CHI. Ride your CHI. 
> 





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Chan for this discussion group

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

Although I do not agree with everything in your recent posting 
attached, I was not at all disappointed.

I especially liked your quote from the Platform Sutra:
"We originally have what is pure, unmovable, undying and sufficient."

...and your comment right after that:
It is our mind and our knowledge that hinder us. Do let go and be in 
sync with the universal Chi. Try it and witness yourself.

Thanks...Bill!


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> 
> There is a reason that Edgar post what he did.  There is a reason 
for Al 
> to post what he did.  There is also reasons for Bill and me and 
Mike and 
> Chris to post what we did.
> 
> The Chan of these discussion is not to differentiate who is right 
or who 
> is wrong.  What to agree or what not to?  But to learn and grow 
from 
> them all.  Understand, learn and grow everything as it is without 
using 
> any pre-conceived values, theories or teachings.  Just practice and 
> witness oneself.
> 
> Platform Sutra said it very clearly, "We originally have what is 
pure, 
> unmovable, undying and sufficient."
> 
> It is our mind and our knowledge that hinder us.  Do let go and be 
in 
> sync with the universal Chi.  Try it and witness yourself.
> 
> Have you ever taste a Waxed Apple.  Do you know how it taste?  
> Everything in the world exist under the same life force for a 
reason.  
> Nothing is out of the realm of Chan, including your emotions, 
feelings, 
> and so called supernatural.  They are all part of us.  Don't be 
> dualistic. We all can.
> 
> JM
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

OUCH
...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> !!!LEGO MY 
EGO
> 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart"  wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> > 
> > I can accept any word/name you use to describe what I call THIS!  
> You 
> > can use 'chi', or 'Buddha Nature', or 'tao', or 'inky-dinky-
doo'.  
> I'd 
> > actually prefer you use 'inky-dinky-doo' since it is a nonesense 
> word, 
> > so other people won't try to 'understand' the name you're using.  
> I'd 
> > also like to see you use an original name, something that you 
made 
> up 
> > from your own experience, and not a name used by your teacher or 
> Chan 
> > or something in a sutra.  But 'chi' is okay with me.
> > 
> > So, Chi = THIS! = no-self/no-illusions.
> > 
> > ...Bill!  
> > 
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
覺妙精明 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, Bill. If we say, THIS is Chi.  The world is all maya 
except 
> > Chi.  
> > > Can you accept?  If I accept your term of THIS, which I always 
> did. 
> > Just 
> > > the way you described it is incomplete.  Can you not accept my 
> term 
> > of 
> > > Chi?  Chi gives life to your "THIS".  Chi is the original THIS.
> > >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Chan?

[Bill Smart]

Chris,

I've also experienced a flush of energy during zazen.  I have no 
doubt this is the same energy that Chan (and other schools) refer to 
as 'chi'.

I've also experienced being suspended in a golden light or aura, 
floating out-of-body experiences, strong visualizations of Buddhist 
and other 'meaningful' symbols, sudden outbursts of sadness 
accompanied by uncontrollable crying,  feelings of tremendous joy, 
feelings of omnipotence - that I was in control of everything around 
me and all would do my bidding, etc...  My teacher at the time told 
me such things as these were maya and unimportant, and always 
refocused me to 'just sit'.  This advice proved very valuable to me.

I've read in Zen literature that sitting zazen and cultivating chi 
can lead to the ability to perform remarkable, maybe even 
supernatural, acts.  Even if this were true, this is not zen.  These 
are maya, and unimportant - attachments which you will have to 
eventually discard.

These are my opinions based on both teachings and personal experience.

...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> I experienced in deep practice of Zen a tremendous amount of ENERGY 
> while meditating. Usually just when I would reach a completely 
> relaxed state I would experience the most beautiful rush of energy, 
> but through my training I would just ignore this and continue my 
> concentration. 
> 
> Through my very limited knowledge of Chan, it seems to me that JM 
> speaks of this experience of ENERGY the tangible experience of Chi. 
> It seems to me the He can manipulate this energy, or karma, or chi 
> for positive values. 
> 
> So that seems to me at least part of it; hopefully JM can help me 
out 
> alittle.  But that seems to also be a difference between Chan and 
Zen.
> Zen just experience Just This, and Chan, cultivate the energies of 
> Just This for a positive existence. 
> 
> Later,
> And I always reserve the right to completely be Wrong!
> 
> Chris
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

OUCH
...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "cid830" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> !!LEGO GO MY 
EGO!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Smart"  wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,  My comments are imbedded below:
> > 
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
覺妙精明 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Bill,  I admire your commitment and passion.  I have 
already 
> > stated 
> > > that it is not my focus to discuss this subject.  Since you are 
> > > interested, let us continue. 
> > > 
> > > First of all, I always used the following words, "I suspect, I 
> > could be 
> > > limited in my scope, I am incomplete..." that Zen is 
incomplete.  
> > Yet 
> > > you insisted and defended that you are right.  Once any of us 
> begin 
> > to 
> > > defend a position, we become partial and incomplete.  We are 
> driven 
> > by a 
> > > singular vision - ego driven.  The way you insisted illustrate 
> the 
> > fact 
> > > you are not THIS.  :-)
> > You bring up an important point and I am happy to comment on it.  
> > I've had others in the past tell me they think my posting is 
> > egotistical or authoritarian-sounding.
> > 
> > All of my posts are my opinions.  Sometimes I include that very 
> > phrase as a caveat emptor, but sometimes I don't.  Sometimes I 
> > use 'IMNSHO' as a shorthand which means 'in my not-so-humble 
> > opinion'.  I like being positive when I state something, as 
opposed 
> > to pussy-footing around about things, sounding unsure.  In fact, 
I 
> > SUSPECT that a lot of your understated style comes from a desire 
to 
> > protect your ego.  You don't want to state anything definitely 
> > because you are afraid someone will think you're wrong or you 
might 
> > have to change it someday because you are not really confident 
> about 
> > what you're saying.  But whether I state it specifically or not, 
> all 
> > my posts are my opinions.  My opinions are unlimited and complete 
> > unless I specifically state otherwise.  If I'm suspecting or 
> guessing 
> > or supposing, I'll state that.  If I don't know something, I'll 
> state 
> > that also.  If I post anything that is not my opinion I'll cite a 
> > source.
> > 
> > I think you are confusing my being direct and sure of what I am 
> > posting (my opinions), with being egotistical.  I don't think my 
> > opinions are any more important than yours, but I also don't 
think 
> my 
> > opinions are any less important than Buddha's or anything written 
> in 
> > a Sutra.  They're my opinions which have come from my 
experiences.  
> > My opinions are also not sacrosanct and can be modified or even 
> > completely discarded as I have new experiences.  On most of the 
> > fundamental areas we discuss here, however, I rarely have had 
> > occasion to change my opinion, but often do find and adapt to 
> better 
> > ways of expressing my opinion.
> >  
> > > Second of all, everyone knows Chan was passed to Japan to 
become 
> > Zen 700 
> > > years later.
> > I know that.  I also know Bodhidarma reportedly brought Chan to 
> China 
> > from India.  So what?  A lineage doesn't necessarily mean the 
older 
> > or prior forms are somehow better or more pure than the newer 
forms 
> > as you are insinuating.  Actually, no one brought or transported 
> zen 
> > anywhere.  What they did bring was a method to realize (re-
realize, 
> > really) only THIS.
> > 
> > > Third of all, what is maya?  Everything in this world is Chan.  
> > Chan is 
> > > One.  One is all including maya if there is such a thing.
> > This is an ingenious question and I think beneath your usual high-
> > level postings.  Maya is worldly illusion, you know that as well 
as 
> I 
> > do.  Chan is maya.  Zen is maya.  There is only THIS.  I do 
> however, 
> > as you do, talk about zen and Chan and good and bad and hot and 
> cold 
> > and lot of other maya all the time.  All this talking and posting 
> is 
> > not zen and certainly is not THIS.  It is only talking about zen 
> and 
> > talking about THIS - no more.
> >  
> > > Fourth of all, Chan uses terms of Buddhism and Taoism for 
> > > communication.  That's all.
> > That's pretty much what I do and said in the 

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

Al,  My comments and replies are embedded below:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Bill Smart> JUST THIS!, or THIS!. That way I don't have to 
deal with 
> the dualities of direct/non-direct, or explain what 'experience' 
means, or 
> the duality of reality/illusion. >
> 
> What about everything else that is ZEN? That is what JM is 
referring to, 
> that you just want a mental exercise for "experiencing reality 
directly" 
> without conscience, without responsibility, without obligations, 
what is 
> THAT?

> Just the meat and none of the bone? All the good parts without the 
> responsibility for the rest of the world? You cannot have Dharma 
without 
> Karma and that entails a bigger picture than JUST THIS.
>
There is nothing else that is zen besides THIS!  There is no THAT!  
All THAT (conscience, responsibility, obligations, meat, bone, good 
parts, Dharma, karma, bigger picture, etc...) are prodcuts of your 
self and are illusary.

Just THIS!

...Bill!





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

Al, Al, Al...

I think you're seriously short-changing experiencing reality without 
illusions.  Read your Zen literature again or talk to a Zen teacher.  
Zen refers to this as 'jumping off 

I don't usually post quotes.  I like to say things myself in my own 
way, but since I've done that, and Edgar and Mike have also done 
that, I'll try a quote:

"What is the master [within you] who at this very moment is seeing 
and hearing? If you reply, as most do, that it is Mind or Nature or 
Buddha or one's Face before birth or one's Original Home or Koan or 
Being or Nothingness or Emptiness or Form-and-Color or the Known or 
the Unknown or Truth or Delusion, or say something or remain silent, 
or regard it as Enlightenment or Ignorance, you fall into error at 
once. What is more, if you are so foolhardy as to doubt the reality 
of this master, you bind yourself though you use no rope. However 
much you try to know it through logical reasoning or to name or call 
it, you are doomed to failure. And even though all of you becomes one 
mass of questioning as you turn inward and intently search the very 
core of your being, you will find nothing that can be termed Mind or 
Essence. Yet should someone call your name, something from within 
will hear and respond. Find out this instant who it is!
If you push forward with your last ounce of strength at the very 
point where the path of your thinking has been blocked, and then, 
completely stymied, leap with hands high in the air into the 
tremendous abyss of fire confronting you -- into the ever-burning 
flame of your own primordial nature -- all ego-consciousness, all 
delusive feelings and thoughts and perceptions will perish with your 
ego-root and the true source of your Self-nature will appear. You 
will feel resurrected, all sickness having completely vanished, and 
will experience genuine peace and joy."

Bassui - Japanese Zen Master (1327-1387)

...Bill!

P.S.  I bow with great humility to your dog...

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Bill Smart> It is not a name of a particular think. It is not 
a proper 
> noun.) is direct experience of reality. >
> 
> OK, so what? My dog experiences reality directly without illusions 
> (presumably).
> 
> What you define as zen sounds like Zombie Zen, not even Happy 
People Zen. 
> You are talking about just lurching through life gaping at 
everything 
> "experiencing it directly."
> 
> A flower is a flower, etc., so what? Where is the turning of the 
Dharma 
> Wheel in THAT? What is THAT if it is just about standing there 
looking at IT 
> and experiencing IT without any Maya? What is the point of THAT?
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

Al,

I screwed up the acronym (in my opinion).  It's supposed to be 
WYSIWYG - What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get.

There's humor in this screw-up if you like to laugh at my mistakes.  
Feel free.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Bill Smart Zen is not warm and fuzzy. Zen is crisp and clear. 
It's the 
> ultimate WSYWIG.>
> 
> What-See-You-What-It-Get?
> 
> Ho-Ho-Ho
> 
> Is there humor in THIS?
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

Al,

I think if you'd reread some of the Zen literature, especially koans, 
you'll quickly see that what these people are talking about is 
exactly 'JUST SIT or JUST TAKE A SHIT or JUST FUCK or JUST DIE'.

Morals, ideals, etc... are all illusions.  Why do we have them?  I 
don't really know, but I SUSPECT (opinion warning!) that we have them 
because they make us feel good.  They make us feel like the universe 
is orderly and, through understanding with our rational mind, we can 
have some kind of control over our lives.  That's generally what 
religions are for - to make us feel like we have some control over 
our lives and destinies.  All of this is illusion - maya.

Why do you think we have morals and ideals?

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: mike brown The only thing that is real is this moment now 
(JUST THIS! 
> ala Bill!)- nothing else exists outside of it. Nothing can exist 
outside of 
> it. Anything else is just wishful thinking and obscures a direct 
experience 
> of THIS. The simpleness of Zen is not disappointing (or "lame-
O" :) !), but 
> liberates us from delusional thinking - and hence, unhappiness. 
Could 
> ultimate reality really be anything morer than just pure 
simplicity? >
> 
> Shit yeah. JUST THIS is pretty fucking lame-O. Striving to JUST SIT 
or JUST 
> TAKE A SHIT or JUST FUCK or JUST DIE is really ultimately fucking 
lame.
> 
> That's just my lame-O opinion, but just walking in the park is 
great fun but 
> if that's it then why have morals, why have ideals, why have 
anything? I 
> don't think that Zen is just be an animal and live at the same 
level as your 
> dog or cat.
> 
> I don't think Zen is just to be a droid-like animal with your mouth 
agape, 
> thankful that JUST THIS exists and your are temporarily part of 
JUST THAT.
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

I can accept any word/name you use to describe what I call THIS!  You 
can use 'chi', or 'Buddha Nature', or 'tao', or 'inky-dinky-doo'.  I'd 
actually prefer you use 'inky-dinky-doo' since it is a nonesense word, 
so other people won't try to 'understand' the name you're using.  I'd 
also like to see you use an original name, something that you made up 
from your own experience, and not a name used by your teacher or Chan 
or something in a sutra.  But 'chi' is okay with me.

So, Chi = THIS! = no-self/no-illusions.

...Bill!  


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, Bill. If we say, THIS is Chi.  The world is all maya except 
Chi.  
> Can you accept?  If I accept your term of THIS, which I always did. 
Just 
> the way you described it is incomplete.  Can you not accept my term 
of 
> Chi?  Chi gives life to your "THIS".  Chi is the original THIS.
> 





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

You wrote:
>Aha Bill,  Interesting.  Sorry that I disappointed you.  This 
>discussion typifies the problem of communicating in words. I believe 
>you use words precisely.  Your terms are well-defined.   Yes, and 
>no.  Wrong and right.  You and me.  While I believe every meaning 
>is relative and  every opinion is partial and incomplete.   That's 
>our difference.  Would you agree?

I think we do have real, fundamental differences that are not explained 
away by our communication styles.  But for the most part I agree with 
your statement above.

>Is Maya Zen/Chan?

I think of it as 
Zen/zen/Chan/Christianity/Islam/good/bad/hot/cold/karma are all 
illusary, and a Buddhist (and maybe originally Hindu?) term for 
illusary is maya.

...Bill!




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

Mike is RIGHT!  (Oooops!  I mean - I agree with Mike's opinion.)

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Al,
> I get the feeling from the general thrust of your posts that you're 
looking for something, some kind of meaning to your existence. 
Nothing wrong with that, but IMHO there is nothing to look for - no 
spiritual experience, no angels, no God, no Enlightenment, no 
heaven/hell, no Saviour to come and rescue us, no book or scriptures 
(nothing Holy)  The only thing that is real is this moment now (JUST 
THIS! ala Bill!)- nothing else exists outside of it. Nothing can 
exist outside of it. Anything else is just wishful thinking and 
obscures a direct experience of THIS. The simpleness of Zen is not 
disappointing (or "lame-O" :) !), but liberates us from delusional 
thinking - and hence, unhappiness. Could ultimate reality really be 
anything morer than just pure simplicity? Mike.
> 
> - Original Message 
> 
> From: Fitness63 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 September, 2008 8:33:34
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Character Building
> 
> 
> From: Edgar Owen >Right, let go of everything. No attachments. Only 
> this>
> 
> If that is all Zen is, it seems pretty lame-O. I thought the idea 
of getting 
> to ONLY THIS is what JM was talking about. You get to the 
impermanence in 
> order to get to the CHI, the life-force.
> 
> You are saying that just getting to the VOID is all there is. That 
is what I 
> would call the hole in your soul.
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,

I also agree with Al's decision not to moderate.

I, however, would not insist on anyone using the term THIS as I do.  
In fact I think it's better they don't.  They should develop their 
own means of expressing THIS.  I use it because I don't know how else 
to communicate what I've experienced.  You could also use the term 
THIS and it might not be the right thing for you.  Remember Gutei's 
student's finger!

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Al is always Al.  Fun!
> 
> I am however, hats off to you for your refusal to moderate.  I am 
on 
> your side.  No matter how we teach, the wake up got to come from 
the 
> inside.  The door to Buddha is always open.  It is the door to our 
> hearts that are frequently blocked.
> 
> MU in Chinese really is a negation add-on.  The word itself means 
NO to 
> whatever after it.  By itself has no meaning. Like Not or No.
> 
> Emptiness in sutra does not mean nothing.  There is the "Exquisite 
> existance" which is the surname of Quan-Yin, as well as a hint of 
> invisible life force.  If we insert "life sustaining energy" into 
all 
> the Buddhist sutras, it can be understood by our rational mind a 
lot 
> easier.  Emptiness is just a reminder of impermanence.
> 
> Of course, even "life sustaining energy" is just a label.  Bill may 
> however, insist that we call it THIS.  It is okay with me.  Just a 
label.
> 
> Fun?
> 
> 
> 
> Fitness63 wrote:
> >
> > From: Edgar Owen >Right, let go of everything. No attachments. 
Only
> > this>
> >
> > If that is all Zen is, it seems pretty lame-O. I thought the idea 
of 
> > getting
> > to ONLY THIS is what JM was talking about. You get to the 
impermanence in
> > order to get to the CHI, the life-force.
> >
> > You are saying that just getting to the VOID is all there is. 
That is 
> > what I
> > would call the hole in your soul.
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

Al,

Edgar is right (that really means I have the same opinion).  No 
attachments, only THIS.  That is all zen is.  It's up to you to 
decide whether that is lame-o or not.  I think putting your belief in 
a idea of a life force or chi is pretty lame-o.  You might as well re-
read Genesis and believe in a talking snake, or maybe even a soul - 
with or without a hole.  All of these things are maya, and a lot of 
maya does make you feel good, comfortable, in control, understanding -
 that warm and fuzzy feeling.  Zen is not warm and fuzzy.  Zen is 
crisp and clear.  It's the ultimate WSYWIG.

When you experience THIS, and only THIS, (without any maya distorting 
things), then you experience ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING - full and 
complete, not 'just a void', unless your idea of a void is what you 
have left when you eliminate all maya.

While I'm posting to you I'd like to address one other thing you've 
said.  You don't like the idea that zen is 'whatever you want'.  I 
don't either.  Zen is not just 'whatever you want'.  Zen is THIS, and 
THIS is not just 'whatever you want.  'Whatever you want' requires 
a 'you' (self) and an attachment.  You cannot experience THIS through 
a self or under the influence of attachments.

A Christian equivilent to this would be 'not my will but Yours be 
done.'  This is not just 'anything you want'.

...Bill!

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Edgar Owen >Right, let go of everything. No attachments. Only 
> this>
> 
> If that is all Zen is, it seems pretty lame-O. I thought the idea 
of getting 
> to ONLY THIS is what JM was talking about. You get to the 
impermanence in 
> order to get to the CHI, the life-force.
> 
> You are saying that just getting to the VOID is all there is. That 
is what I 
> would call the hole in your soul.
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

Thank you for your post.  I agree with everything in it.

IN MY OPINION, zen (I spell it with an initial lower case 'z' to 
differentiate it from Zen Buddhism, and to help remind me that it is 
nothing special.  It is not a name of a particular think.  It is not 
a proper noun.) is direct experience of reality.  My shorthand 
version of this is JUST THIS!, or THIS!.  That way I don't have to 
deal with the dualities of direct/non-direct, or explain 
what 'experience' means, or the duality of reality/illusion.  Of 
course even typing 'THIS' leave open the this/non-this duality, but I 
don't know how else to express it in text.  It would be better just 
to slap the floor or remain silent, but that doesn't work too well on 
an internet forum.

I'm not partiularily interested in comparing or contrasting zen and 
Chan, but I am interested in trying to dispel all the misconceptions 
about zen, especially those associated with Zen Buddhism, Buddhism 
and now I guess Chan also.

Thanks for joining the forum.  We've had a lot of participants come 
and go, but you're the first who I think holds almost exactly the 
same opinions about zen and I hold - so far.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> 
> I tend to agree with the thrust of your post, but we need to  
> distinguish between Zen as I think you understand it, as just 
seeing  
> what actually is, as opposed to the various sects of Japanese Zen  
> considered as sects. True Zen as I believe you use the term is not 
to  
> be found exclusively in any sect, whether those of Japanese Zen or  
> Chinese Chan (though those can be an aid in realization for some).  
> True Zen is wherever one is right here, right now. It is simply  
> unmediated direct experience of reality.
> 
> So really any dispute between Zen and Chan is just a distraction 
to  
> true Zen (or true Chan if you prefer).
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2008, at 10:17 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > JMJM and AL,
> >
> > Zen is not a subset of Chan. Chan is a subset of zen.
> >
> > Chan, at least as JMJM represents it, it a religion, a subset of  
> > Buddhism.
> >
> > JMJM is right when he says zen does not have any spirituality.  
> > Spirituality is maya. Karma is maya.
> >
> > Remember, JUST THIS! Zen's difficulty is it is SO SIMPLE and SO  
> > BASIC and SO PURE that it is easy to miss when your rational 
mind  
> > is busy being dualistic.
> >
> > JMJM is wrong. Zen is not 'just a mind exercise'. Zen is NO-
MIND.  
> > JUST THIS!
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
> > On Behalf Of Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:25 AM
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Character Building
> >
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > I would not say that HPZ is NOT Chan, but a subset of Chan.  
> > Besides, we use the term Content instead of Happy in Chan
> >
> > It is not my position nor mission to academically compare Zen 
and  
> > Chan. This road serves no purpose. I will however explain what 
Chan  
> > is if the readers are interested. Since I brought up the subject  
> > however, I will complete it..
> >
> > I believe Zen could be just a subset of Chan. Zen seems to have 
all  
> > the visible forms -- words, concepts and descriptions of Chan, 
but  
> > not the invisible part of Chan, karma, cause, etc. If so then 
Zen  
> > is incomplete from my understanding of Chan.
> >
> > Chan deals with everything in the universe, whether it is 
labeled  
> > as supernatural, unscientific, energy, field, maya, samsara. 
Chan  
> > is simple and direct. It is taught without words and 
formalities.  
> > And the gate to enter it is absolute stillness and absolute  
> > surrender of ego.
> >
> > JM
> >
> > Fitness63 wrote:
> > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - > I don't seem to understand your  
> > comment on what
> > I wrote. I don't find them relate to each other.>
> >
> > OK. You say Chan is about karma and liberation? I agree.
> >
> > I think that HAPPY PEOPLE ZEN is what is now being taught in 
many  
> > places in
> > America. It is NO KARMA, just HAPPY PEOPLE no matter what. Just  
> > zazen and BE
> > HAPPY.
> >
> > That is not CHAN. OK?
> >
> >
> > __ NOD32 3401 (20080829) Information __
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this grou

Re: [Zen] Character Building

[Bill Smart]

JMJM,  My comments are imbedded below:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,  I admire your commitment and passion.  I have already 
stated 
> that it is not my focus to discuss this subject.  Since you are 
> interested, let us continue. 
> 
> First of all, I always used the following words, "I suspect, I 
could be 
> limited in my scope, I am incomplete..." that Zen is incomplete.  
Yet 
> you insisted and defended that you are right.  Once any of us begin 
to 
> defend a position, we become partial and incomplete.  We are driven 
by a 
> singular vision - ego driven.  The way you insisted illustrate the 
fact 
> you are not THIS.  :-)
You bring up an important point and I am happy to comment on it.  
I've had others in the past tell me they think my posting is 
egotistical or authoritarian-sounding.

All of my posts are my opinions.  Sometimes I include that very 
phrase as a caveat emptor, but sometimes I don't.  Sometimes I 
use 'IMNSHO' as a shorthand which means 'in my not-so-humble 
opinion'.  I like being positive when I state something, as opposed 
to pussy-footing around about things, sounding unsure.  In fact, I 
SUSPECT that a lot of your understated style comes from a desire to 
protect your ego.  You don't want to state anything definitely 
because you are afraid someone will think you're wrong or you might 
have to change it someday because you are not really confident about 
what you're saying.  But whether I state it specifically or not, all 
my posts are my opinions.  My opinions are unlimited and complete 
unless I specifically state otherwise.  If I'm suspecting or guessing 
or supposing, I'll state that.  If I don't know something, I'll state 
that also.  If I post anything that is not my opinion I'll cite a 
source.

I think you are confusing my being direct and sure of what I am 
posting (my opinions), with being egotistical.  I don't think my 
opinions are any more important than yours, but I also don't think my 
opinions are any less important than Buddha's or anything written in 
a Sutra.  They're my opinions which have come from my experiences.  
My opinions are also not sacrosanct and can be modified or even 
completely discarded as I have new experiences.  On most of the 
fundamental areas we discuss here, however, I rarely have had 
occasion to change my opinion, but often do find and adapt to better 
ways of expressing my opinion.
 
> Second of all, everyone knows Chan was passed to Japan to become 
Zen 700 
> years later.
I know that.  I also know Bodhidarma reportedly brought Chan to China 
from India.  So what?  A lineage doesn't necessarily mean the older 
or prior forms are somehow better or more pure than the newer forms 
as you are insinuating.  Actually, no one brought or transported zen 
anywhere.  What they did bring was a method to realize (re-realize, 
really) only THIS.

> Third of all, what is maya?  Everything in this world is Chan.  
Chan is 
> One.  One is all including maya if there is such a thing.
This is an ingenious question and I think beneath your usual high-
level postings.  Maya is worldly illusion, you know that as well as I 
do.  Chan is maya.  Zen is maya.  There is only THIS.  I do however, 
as you do, talk about zen and Chan and good and bad and hot and cold 
and lot of other maya all the time.  All this talking and posting is 
not zen and certainly is not THIS.  It is only talking about zen and 
talking about THIS - no more.
 
> Fourth of all, Chan uses terms of Buddhism and Taoism for 
> communication.  That's all.
That's pretty much what I do and said in the paragraph above, except 
sometimes I try to avoid using Buddhist terms so as not to add to the 
confusion most people have that zen and Buddhism are inextricably 
linked.  They are not.  (Or maybe I should say 'Golly gee, I could be 
wrong, but I speculate sometimes, but am not really sure, that zen 
and Buddhism may not be linked - but then again maybe they are.')
 
> Fifth of all, what is THIS? Can you explain? In Chan, THIS is the 
> current flowing of life force, not form, not feelings good.  It is 
THIS 
> LIFE FORCE that is everything.
No, I can't explain what THIS is, that's why I use the term THIS.  
THIS is not the 'current flowing of life force' which I understand as 
Tao, because that is maya.  'THIS' is just THIS.  Nothing more.  Some 
have called it MU, or THREE POUNDS OF FLAX, or DRIED SHIT ON A 
STICK.  It's just THIS!
 
> Most importantly, no one is WRONG.  Only our judgmental mind.
I agree with you that using the word 'wrong' with you (or anyone) 
when talking about their opinions (as opposed to a misquote or 
misstatement of historical facts) is not a helpful practice.  When I 
say you're 'wrong', what I mean is my opinion is different than your 
opinion.  I will re-state the main points in my original post as 
follows:
- JMJM's opinion that zen (as compared with Chan) does not have a 
spiritual c

[Zen] Re: Gay Roshis?

[Bill Smart]

Manivadivu,

I'll asume that your questions are serious questions and answer 
accordingly:

I have never read or heard anything about the attitude of Japanese 
zen towards homosexuality.  I don't even know what the attitude was 
of medieval Japan towards homosexuality.  Many medieval Western and 
Asian cultures were more tolerant of sexual preferences than today's 
societies.  Not seeing any mention of this leads me to beleive that 
homosexuality was not seen as a big deal or a problem.

I also don't know what the attitude or teachings of Buddhism is 
towards homosexuality, or care for that matter.

My own opinion is that homosexuality itself is not a specific concern 
in zen practice.  I would just lump homosexuality in with general 
sexuality, and that I do not consider a problem unless you become 
attached to it and it interferes with your practice.

Hope this helps...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "manivadivu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Back in the early days of Japanese Zen, I can imagine that any hint 
of homosexuality would have been unacceptable.
> 
> What is the position of Zen Buddhism towards homosexuality? When 
did it become acceptable? Is it acceptable in Japan?
>





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: zazen

[Bill Smart]

Sean,  Sorry for the tardy reply, but I did not get your posting via 
email as I normally do.  I logged into the site today and saw your post.

I am not an expert in Vipassana, but I do live in Thailand where 
Vipassana is widely practiced and have spent a short time at a 
Vipassana training center and believe I do have some knowledge of it 
and its teachings.

Your description of Vipassana meditation, '...sitting and not grasping 
any thoughts, emotions, experience, etc,...', is also completely 
applicable to zazen.  I think it is important, however, to emphasis 
that 'not grasping' does not mean 'rejecting' or 'avoiding'.  'Not 
grasping' means 'not holding onto', or 'not forming attachments to' 
thoughts, emotions, experience, etc...

>From my experiences and observations the major differences between 
Vispanna and zen are in the rites and rituals, rather than the 
meditation.  Also, as far as I can tell Vipassana does not recognize 
mind-to-mind (non-verbal) transmission which goes to the core of zen 
teaching.

Hope this helps.  Let me know what you thnk.

...Bill!  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "seanlukens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
> 
> I am new here and have a basic question. How is zazen different from
> vipassana meditation? I practice the latter each day, sitting and not
> grasping any thoughts, emotions, experience, etc, and this seems
> similar to zazen. 
> 
> But, I read someone on-line who adamantly said that "vipassana is NOT
> zazen!" but there was no explanation of the difference. 
> 
> Any guidance or referral to sources would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> Sean
>






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Zen] Re: Christian Zen

[Bill Smart]

I hadn't received any postings via email from Zen Forum for a while, so 
I logged into the website and found this posting:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "hot_si_man" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I profess no expertise in either Zen practice or Christianity, but 
> there is a partial verse that I think sums it up quite nicely, from 
> Psalms 46:10 - 
> 
> "Be still, and know that I am God."
> 
> ...snip...

I think the quote is a very good one also - and how better could you 
describe zazen?

...Bill!




Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/