Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-06 Thread Edgar Owen

JM and Fitness63,

Mu or emptiness or void or tao is not quite nothingness in the  
ordinary sense. What it really is the absence of actuality, but it  
contains all possibility. Think of it in a cosmological sense. How  
could the universe have appeared out of nothingness? That could  
happen only if the substance of that nothingness was not really  
nothing, but only the absence of actuality. It would have to contain  
what one might refer to as the quantum probabilities for everything  
that could exist. It is an old idea of Tao as nothingness in itself,  
but out of Tao can appear any set of opposites. If you add back the  
opposites again they cancel into nothingness again. But an infinitely  
fertile nothingness. What keeps all the opposites in the universe in  
existence (temporarily for the life of the universe) is that the  
opposites are separated from each other by dimensional time and  
space. If they were all in the same place at the same time they would  
again cancel into the nothingness of formless OE or Tao. Think of the  
original nothingness of the universe as a perfectly still liquid- 
like  bubble floating in gravity free empty space. Now imagine that  
sphere filled with interacting frictionless ripples. Those various  
ripple forms are the things of the world in the original sea of OE or  
Tao. Those ripples keep interacting endlessly on their own and what  
you think of as 'self' is one of those ripples.


In a more day to day sense of direct experience the idea of Mu is  
that everything we experience as real is simply form, it has no  
actual substance of its own that makes it what it is, it has only a  
form and that form is simply a ripple in the one substance of OE or  
Tao. This of course includes 'us' as well. So Zen's 'seeing into the  
nature of things' means directly experiencing everything as forms in  
the single substance of OE or Tao.


Edgar



On Sep 5, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 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.








Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-06 Thread 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 component is the same as 

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-06 Thread 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 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

2008-09-06 Thread 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

2008-09-06 Thread Edgar Owen

Bill and JM,

Authority in one's statements can come either from direct knowledge  
or arrogance or even ignorance. In my opinion Bill often seems to  
speak from direct knowledge. Of course as JM, Bill and myself often  
point out it is very difficult to communicate direct experience in  
words via email. So one always has to try to go beyond the words and  
consider what the likely source of those words in the actual  
consciousness of the writer was.


Edgar


On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Bill Smart wrote:


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 

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-06 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
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.

:-)

Bill Smart wrote:

 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 mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.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

2008-09-06 Thread Fitness63
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

2008-09-06 Thread Fitness63
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

2008-09-06 Thread Fitness63
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

2008-09-06 Thread 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

2008-09-06 Thread 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

2008-09-06 Thread cid830
!!LEGO GO MY EGO!!




--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill Smart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 JMJM,  My comments are imbedded below:
 
 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
 chan.jmjm@ 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 

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-06 Thread 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

2008-09-06 Thread 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

2008-09-06 Thread 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

2008-09-06 Thread cid830
!!!LEGO MY EGO


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill Smart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 
 chan.jmjm@ 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

2008-09-06 Thread 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

2008-09-06 Thread 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

2008-09-06 Thread Bill Smart
OUCH
...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, cid830 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 !!LEGO GO MY 
EGO!!
 
 
 
 
 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill Smart BillSmart@ wrote:
 
  JMJM,  My comments are imbedded below:
  
  --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 
覺妙精明 
  chan.jmjm@ 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, 

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-06 Thread Bill Smart
OUCH
...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, cid830 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 !!!LEGO MY 
EGO
 
 
 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill Smart BillSmart@ 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 
  chan.jmjm@ 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

2008-09-05 Thread BillSmart
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 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

2008-09-05 Thread BillSmart
Edgar and JMJM,

As regards to JMJM's comment about '...Zen may have lost a major part of Chan 
in Japan.', I say GOOD!  The less the better!  Put in down, put it all down!  
ONLY THIS!

...Bill!

From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jue Miao 
Jing Ming - 
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:25 AM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Character Building

Edgar,  Thank you for the confirmation.  I have to leave now.  Will address 
this issue deeper when I have more time.  It is most important.  In short Zen 
may have lost a major part of Chan in Japan.  JM.

Edgar Owen wrote: 
Donald,

I don't think Zen pays much attention to karma. Zen certainly doesn't accept 
reincarnation which is how karma is typically transmitted according to 
traditional Buddhist thought. Zen is more about dealing with the present 
however it may appear. Nor does Zen posit any after death states such as 
nirvana or supernatural Buddha realms (though in early Chan there are passing 
references to such when discussing earlier texts). Zen is all about the here 
now, there is zero supernatural element to Zen.

Zen does accept that right action facilitates enlightenment in this lifetime 
though.

Edgar


On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote:


Hi Al,

I don't know whether the other guy you were talking about is Donald Hwong.  I 
am Donald Hwong.  I switched my email to my Dharma Name, JMJM.  A dharma name 
is a name given by my teacher as a recognition for the world of dharma.  We 
have approximately 50 people with dharma names in our school with about 50,000 
practitioners in all.  We are probably the largest at-home practitioner group 
that I know, meaning without temple, formality, words, rules, etc.

I am one of the two teachers in the US.  I am in charge of the English classes. 
 We have about 6 classes in Los Angeles.  However, I am still learning.  I 
don't consider my English is sufficient, nor my sharing of Chan has any value.  
 I have been called many titles, including a monk with hair.  None of these are 
necessary.  A lot of times, I don't even like to sign off on my post.  
Honestly, there is nothing to learn, nothing to master.  We had all within us.

I have been with your group and other groups for about 5-6 years now.  What I 
have learned is that the concept of karma and cause and effect are not taught 
in the Zen.  At least, the Roshi in the other group openly stated so.  

Without the correct understanding of karma and cause and effect, and the proper 
practice to witness it, there is no way to rid of the karma.  It seems to me, 
after reading off/online for about 7-8 years, Zen differs from Chan in the fact 
Zen has no spiritual power.  It is just a mental exercise without any 
connection to the life forces of the universe.   I do hope that I am limited in 
my scope.

To be enlightened, surpass the three realms is the first step, they are the 
realm of Desire, Form and the Formless.  Or in short the karmic hindrances to 
body, mind and spirit.  Karma is not a theory.  It is a force, we can sense, 
process, transfer, etc.  Without a practice to rid of karma, we still can 
suffer from sickness, (bodily karma), mental anguish (mind karma) and accidents 
(spiritual karma).

Just some observations to share.

Fitness63 wrote:

By the way, are you a Roshi or a monk or a sensei? I am sorry that I may sound 
disrespectful to you and the other guy (forgot who he was), but this forum has 
been in existence around ten years and there have been a lot of people claiming 
to be senseis or monks and sometimes they were not and sometimes they were and 
unfortunately they usually had their feelings hurt and left so whenever I do 
not see you post I presume you already gave up and left. Apparently the other 
guy did as he has not posted in a long time.
 
Thank you for giving so much, this is character building though some call it 
abuse.
 
Al
 
- Original Message -
From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Zen] Sick of Flaming

Chan is One, the big One. The One which supports everything visible and 
invisible on an equal basis without preference. The fact that each 
tree grows differently maybe obvious to our eyes, but the causes of 
their differences are difficult to see. Often, instead of pondering on 
the cause, and causes of causes of their difference, we label these 
trees by comparing them and deluded to believe that our labels were real.

Every incident, encounter, formation and phenomenon in our lives are the 
result of some causes, and each cause are often caused by generations of 
causes. It is our purpose, as Chan practitioners, to 
satisfy/consummate/resolve/ferry each one, such that this karma does not 
propagate. This the first act of perfection -- giving. Not judging, 
categorizing, filing away, ignoring, but giving.

It is our practice to recognize the variations

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-05 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
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.  :-)

Second of all, everyone knows Chan was passed to Japan to become Zen 700 
years later.

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.

Fourth of all, Chan uses terms of Buddhism and Taoism for 
communication.  That's all.

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.

Most importantly, no one is WRONG.  Only our judgmental mind.

In conclusion, you typify the fact Zen is incomplete because it lacks 
the connection to the True Form or Final Form. :-)

Fun?

JM

[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:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com 
 [mailto:Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
 mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jue Miao Jing Ming 
 - 
 Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:25 AM
 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.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 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 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

2008-09-05 Thread Charlie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Zen is not 'just a mind exercise'.  Zen is NO-
MIND.  JUST THIS!
 

That is the lesson that all people should learn. This week, as the 
second week of school ends, I had a moment of epiphany studying the 
happy retards as they spent the whole afternoon watching cartoons and 
nobody argued or complained. That is Zen. 

I could have fought their tendencies and tried to teach them basic 
math, but why be like a rock? Zen is like water, adjusting and 
flowing around every obstacle. Why fight their nature? I flowed 
around their retardation and found out what their favorite movies are 
and now I have my classroom stocked with their favorite cartoons and 
Disney movies and the 'tards are happy and I have no stress. I even 
like some of those movies. 

The best part is that in a couple of weeks I can show them the same 
movies and they won't remember that they saw them before! I am not 
sure if that is Happy People Zen but it works for me. Life is too 
short to stress out. 

Charlie




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

2008-09-05 Thread Edgar Owen

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







Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-05 Thread Edgar Owen

Bill,

Right, let go of everything. No attachments. Only this

Edgar


On Sep 5, 2008, at 10:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Edgar and JMJM,

As regards to JMJM's comment about '...Zen may have lost a major  
part of Chan in Japan.', I say GOOD! The less the better! Put in  
down, put it all down! ONLY THIS!


...Bill!

From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
On Behalf Of Jue Miao Jing Ming - 

Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:25 AM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Character Building

Edgar, Thank you for the confirmation. I have to leave now. Will  
address this issue deeper when I have more time. It is most  
important. In short Zen may have lost a major part of Chan in  
Japan. JM.


Edgar Owen wrote:
Donald,

I don't think Zen pays much attention to karma. Zen certainly  
doesn't accept reincarnation which is how karma is typically  
transmitted according to traditional Buddhist thought. Zen is more  
about dealing with the present however it may appear. Nor does Zen  
posit any after death states such as nirvana or supernatural Buddha  
realms (though in early Chan there are passing references to such  
when discussing earlier texts). Zen is all about the here now,  
there is zero supernatural element to Zen.


Zen does accept that right action facilitates enlightenment in this  
lifetime though.


Edgar

On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote:

Hi Al,

I don't know whether the other guy you were talking about is  
Donald Hwong. I am Donald Hwong. I switched my email to my Dharma  
Name, JMJM. A dharma name is a name given by my teacher as a  
recognition for the world of dharma. We have approximately 50  
people with dharma names in our school with about 50,000  
practitioners in all. We are probably the largest at-home  
practitioner group that I know, meaning without temple, formality,  
words, rules, etc.


I am one of the two teachers in the US. I am in charge of the  
English classes. We have about 6 classes in Los Angeles. However, I  
am still learning. I don't consider my English is sufficient, nor  
my sharing of Chan has any value. I have been called many titles,  
including a monk with hair. None of these are necessary. A lot of  
times, I don't even like to sign off on my post. Honestly, there is  
nothing to learn, nothing to master. We had all within us.


I have been with your group and other groups for about 5-6 years  
now. What I have learned is that the concept of karma and cause and  
effect are not taught in the Zen. At least, the Roshi in the other  
group openly stated so.


Without the correct understanding of karma and cause and effect,  
and the proper practice to witness it, there is no way to rid of  
the karma. It seems to me, after reading off/online for about 7-8  
years, Zen differs from Chan in the fact Zen has no spiritual  
power. It is just a mental exercise without any connection to the  
life forces of the universe. I do hope that I am limited in my scope.


To be enlightened, surpass the three realms is the first step, they  
are the realm of Desire, Form and the Formless. Or in short the  
karmic hindrances to body, mind and spirit. Karma is not a theory.  
It is a force, we can sense, process, transfer, etc. Without a  
practice to rid of karma, we still can suffer from sickness,  
(bodily karma), mental anguish (mind karma) and accidents  
(spiritual karma).


Just some observations to share.

Fitness63 wrote:

By the way, are you a Roshi or a monk or a sensei? I am sorry that  
I may sound disrespectful to you and the other guy (forgot who he  
was), but this forum has been in existence around ten years and  
there have been a lot of people claiming to be senseis or monks and  
sometimes they were not and sometimes they were and unfortunately  
they usually had their feelings hurt and left so whenever I do not  
see you post I presume you already gave up and left. Apparently the  
other guy did as he has not posted in a long time.


Thank you for giving so much, this is character building though  
some call it abuse.


Al

- Original Message -
From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Zen] Sick of Flaming

Chan is One, the big One. The One which supports everything visible  
and

invisible on an equal basis without preference. The fact that each
tree grows differently maybe obvious to our eyes, but the causes of
their differences are difficult to see. Often, instead of pondering on
the cause, and causes of causes of their difference, we label these
trees by comparing them and deluded to believe that our labels were  
real.


Every incident, encounter, formation and phenomenon in our lives  
are the
result of some causes, and each cause are often caused by  
generations of

causes. It is our purpose, as Chan practitioners, to
satisfy/consummate/resolve/ferry each one, such that this karma  
does

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-05 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
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

2008-09-03 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明










Hi Al,

I don't know whether the "other guy" you were talking about is Donald
Hwong.  I am Donald Hwong.  I switched my email to my Dharma Name,
JMJM.  A dharma name is a name given by my teacher as a recognition for
the world of dharma.  We have approximately 50 people with dharma names
in our school with about 50,000 practitioners in all.  We are probably
the largest at-home practitioner group that I know, meaning without
temple, formality, words, rules, etc.

I am one of the two teachers in the US.  I am in charge of the English
classes.  We have about 6 classes in Los Angeles.  However, I am still
learning.  I don't consider my English is sufficient, nor my sharing of
Chan has any value.   I have been called many titles, including a monk
with hair.  None of these are necessary.  A lot of times, I don't even
like to sign off on my post.  Honestly, there is nothing to learn,
nothing to master.  We had all within us.

I have been with your group and other groups for about 5-6 years now. 
What I have learned is that the concept of karma and cause and effect
are not taught in the Zen.  At least, the Roshi in the other group
openly stated so.  

Without the correct understanding of karma and cause and effect, and
the proper practice to witness it, there is no way to rid of the
karma.  It seems to me, after reading off/online for about 7-8 years,
Zen differs from Chan in the fact Zen has no spiritual power.  It is
just a mental exercise without any connection to the life forces of the
universe.   I do hope that I am limited in my scope.

To be enlightened, surpass the three realms is the first step, they are
the realm of Desire, Form and the Formless.  Or in short the karmic
hindrances to body, mind and spirit.  Karma is not a theory.  It is a
force, we can sense, process, transfer, etc.  Without a practice to rid
of karma, we still can suffer from sickness, (bodily karma), mental
anguish (mind karma) and accidents (spiritual karma).

Just some observations to share.

Fitness63 wrote:

  
  
  
  By the way, are you a Roshi or a monk or a
sensei? I am sorry that I may sound disrespectful to you and the other
guy (forgot who he was), but this forum has been in existence around
ten years and there have been a lot of people claiming to be senseis or
monks and sometimes they were not and sometimes they were and
unfortunately they usually had their feelings hurt and left so whenever
I do not see you post I presume you already gave up and left.
Apparently the other guy did as he has not posted in a long time. 
   
  Thank you for giving so much, this is
character building though some call it abuse. 
   
  Al
   
  - Original Message - 
  
From:
Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com

Sent:
Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:56 AM
Subject:
Re: [Zen] Sick of Flaming



Chan is One, the big One. The One which supports everything
visible and 
invisible on an equal basis without preference. The fact that each 
tree grows differently maybe obvious to our eyes, but the causes of 
their differences are difficult to see. Often, instead of pondering on 
the cause, and causes of causes of their difference, we label these 
trees by comparing them and deluded to believe that our labels were
real.

Every incident, encounter, formation and phenomenon in our lives are
the 
result of some causes, and each cause are often caused by generations
of 
causes. It is our purpose, as Chan practitioners, to 
satisfy/consummate/resolve/ferry each one, such that this karma
does not 
propagate. This the "first act of perfection" -- giving. Not judging, 
categorizing, filing away, ignoring, but giving.

It is our practice to recognize the variations of cause and effect and 
learn from them to resolve/satisfy externally as well as make peace 
internally, such that our spirituality is strengthened and enhanced.

Lotus does not grow from clean water. The bigger the mud, the bigger 
the lotus.

Let us do it together.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]org
wrote:

 Cynthia,

 The only thing that can be done to stop the flaming is to turn
this 
 forum into a fully moderated forum in which the moderator - Al -
reads 
 and approves postings before allowing them on the forum. Al could
also 
 probably block some contributors, but they could get around this
very 
 easily by just registering as a different name.

 A fully moderated forum has a lot of drawbacks:
 - it's a LOT OF WORK for the moderator
 - it slows down posting exchanges
 - it gives the power of censorship to the moderator - which in
this 
 case is Al, whom I'm comfortable with, but it's always a bone of 
 contention
 - there are probably more drawbacks that I haven't thought of...

 I think it would be better to keep the forum open and just censor
the 
 postings yourself - by using your delete key.

 Also, and maybe the best suggestion, is we could all help reduce
the 
 flaming by not responding to flames - 

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-03 Thread Edgar Owen

Donald,

I don't think Zen pays much attention to karma. Zen certainly doesn't  
accept reincarnation which is how karma is typically transmitted  
according to traditional Buddhist thought. Zen is more about dealing  
with the present however it may appear. Nor does Zen posit any after  
death states such as nirvana or supernatural Buddha realms (though in  
early Chan there are passing references to such when discussing  
earlier texts). Zen is all about the here now, there is zero  
supernatural element to Zen.


Zen does accept that right action facilitates enlightenment in this  
lifetime though.


Edgar


On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote:


Hi Al,

I don't know whether the other guy you were talking about is  
Donald Hwong.  I am Donald Hwong.  I switched my email to my Dharma  
Name, JMJM.  A dharma name is a name given by my teacher as a  
recognition for the world of dharma.  We have approximately 50  
people with dharma names in our school with about 50,000  
practitioners in all.  We are probably the largest at-home  
practitioner group that I know, meaning without temple, formality,  
words, rules, etc.


I am one of the two teachers in the US.  I am in charge of the  
English classes.  We have about 6 classes in Los Angeles.  However,  
I am still learning.  I don't consider my English is sufficient,  
nor my sharing of Chan has any value.   I have been called many  
titles, including a monk with hair.  None of these are necessary.   
A lot of times, I don't even like to sign off on my post.   
Honestly, there is nothing to learn, nothing to master.  We had all  
within us.


I have been with your group and other groups for about 5-6 years  
now.  What I have learned is that the concept of karma and cause  
and effect are not taught in the Zen.  At least, the Roshi in the  
other group openly stated so.


Without the correct understanding of karma and cause and effect,  
and the proper practice to witness it, there is no way to rid of  
the karma.  It seems to me, after reading off/online for about 7-8  
years, Zen differs from Chan in the fact Zen has no spiritual  
power.  It is just a mental exercise without any connection to the  
life forces of the universe.   I do hope that I am limited in my  
scope.


To be enlightened, surpass the three realms is the first step, they  
are the realm of Desire, Form and the Formless.  Or in short the  
karmic hindrances to body, mind and spirit.  Karma is not a  
theory.  It is a force, we can sense, process, transfer, etc.   
Without a practice to rid of karma, we still can suffer from  
sickness, (bodily karma), mental anguish (mind karma) and accidents  
(spiritual karma).


Just some observations to share.

Fitness63 wrote:



By the way, are you a Roshi or a monk or a sensei? I am sorry that  
I may sound disrespectful to you and the other guy (forgot who he  
was), but this forum has been in existence around ten years and  
there have been a lot of people claiming to be senseis or monks  
and sometimes they were not and sometimes they were and  
unfortunately they usually had their feelings hurt and left so  
whenever I do not see you post I presume you already gave up and  
left. Apparently the other guy did as he has not posted in a long  
time.


Thank you for giving so much, this is character building though  
some call it abuse.


Al

- Original Message -
From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Zen] Sick of Flaming

Chan is One, the big One. The One which supports everything  
visible and

invisible on an equal basis without preference. The fact that each
tree grows differently maybe obvious to our eyes, but the causes of
their differences are difficult to see. Often, instead of  
pondering on

the cause, and causes of causes of their difference, we label these
trees by comparing them and deluded to believe that our labels  
were real.


Every incident, encounter, formation and phenomenon in our lives  
are the
result of some causes, and each cause are often caused by  
generations of

causes. It is our purpose, as Chan practitioners, to
satisfy/consummate/resolve/ferry each one, such that this karma  
does not

propagate. This the first act of perfection -- giving. Not judging,
categorizing, filing away, ignoring, but giving.

It is our practice to recognize the variations of cause and effect  
and

learn from them to resolve/satisfy externally as well as make peace
internally, such that our spirituality is strengthened and enhanced.

Lotus does not grow from clean water. The bigger the mud, the bigger
the lotus.

Let us do it together.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Cynthia,

 The only thing that can be done to stop the flaming is to turn this
 forum into a fully moderated forum in which the moderator - Al -  
reads
 and approves postings before allowing them on the forum. Al  
could also
 probably block some contributors, but 

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-03 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明










Edgar,  Thank you for the confirmation.  I have to leave now.  Will
address this issue deeper when I have more time.  It is most
important.  In short Zen may have lost a major part of Chan in Japan. 
JM.

Edgar Owen wrote:

  
  Donald,
  
  
  I don't think Zen pays much attention to karma. Zen certainly
doesn't accept reincarnation which is how karma is typically
transmitted according to traditional Buddhist thought. Zen is more
about dealing with the present however it may appear. Nor does Zen
posit any after death states such as nirvana or supernatural Buddha
realms (though in early Chan there are passing references to such when
discussing earlier texts). Zen is all about the here now, there is zero
supernatural element to Zen.
  
  
  Zen does accept that right action facilitates enlightenment in
this lifetime though.
  
  
  Edgar
  
  
  
  
  On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote:
  
  



Hi Al,

I don't know whether the "other guy" you were talking about is Donald
Hwong.  I am Donald Hwong.  I switched my email to my Dharma Name,
JMJM.  A dharma name is a name given by my teacher as a recognition for
the world of dharma.  We have approximately 50 people with dharma names
in our school with about 50,000 practitioners in all.  We are probably
the largest at-home practitioner group that I know, meaning without
temple, formality, words, rules, etc.

I am one of the two teachers in the US.  I am in charge of the English
classes.  We have about 6 classes in Los Angeles.  However, I am still
learning.  I don't consider my English is sufficient, nor my sharing of
Chan has any value.   I have been called many titles, including a monk
with hair.  None of these are necessary.  A lot of times, I don't even
like to sign off on my post.  Honestly, there is nothing to learn,
nothing to master.  We had all within us.

I have been with your group and other groups for about 5-6 years now. 
What I have learned is that the concept of karma and cause and effect
are not taught in the Zen.  At least, the Roshi in the other group
openly stated so.  

Without the correct understanding of karma and cause and effect, and
the proper practice to witness it, there is no way to rid of the
karma.  It seems to me, after reading off/online for about 7-8 years,
Zen differs from Chan in the fact Zen has no spiritual power.  It is
just a mental exercise without any connection to the life forces of the
universe.   I do hope that I am limited in my scope.

To be enlightened, surpass the three realms is the first step, they are
the realm of Desire, Form and the Formless.  Or in short the karmic
hindrances to body, mind and spirit.  Karma is not a theory.  It is a
force, we can sense, process, transfer, etc.  Without a practice to rid
of karma, we still can suffer from sickness, (bodily karma), mental
anguish (mind karma) and accidents (spiritual karma).

Just some observations to share.

Fitness63 wrote:

  
  
  
  By the way, are you a Roshi or a monk or
a sensei? I am sorry that I may sound disrespectful to you and the
other guy (forgot who he was), but this forum has been in existence
around ten years and there have been a lot of people claiming to be
senseis or monks and sometimes they were not and sometimes they were
and unfortunately they usually had their feelings hurt and left so
whenever I do not see you post I presume you already gave up and left.
Apparently the other guy did as he has not posted in a long time.
   
  Thank you for giving so much, this is
character building though some call it abuse.
   
  Al
   
  - Original Message -
  
From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Zen] Sick of Flaming



Chan is One, the big One. The One which supports everything
visible and 
invisible on an equal basis without preference. The fact that each 
tree grows differently maybe obvious to our eyes, but the causes of 
their differences are difficult to see. Often, instead of pondering on 
the cause, and causes of causes of their difference, we label these 
trees by comparing them and deluded to believe that our labels were
real.

Every incident, encounter, formation and phenomenon in our lives are the 
result of some causes, and each cause are often caused by generations of 
causes. It is our purpose, as Chan practitioners, to 
satisfy/consummate/resolve/ferry each one, such that this karma
does not 
propagate. This the "first act of perfection" -- giving. Not judging, 
categorizing, filing away, ignoring, but giving.

It is our practice to recognize the variations of cause and effect and 
learn from them to resolve/satisfy externally as well as make peace 
internally, such that our spirituality is strengthened and enhanced.

Lotus does not 

Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-03 Thread Fitness63
 - 覺妙精明In short Zen may have lost a major part of Chan in Japan.  JM.

Or maybe Edgar has no idea what he is talking about? 




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

2008-09-03 Thread Fitness63
- 覺妙精明 I don't know whether the other guy you were talking about is 
Donald Hwong.  

Are you the guy from Europe who looks Scandinavian and has a goatee? 




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

2008-09-03 Thread Fitness63
覺妙精明 Without the correct understanding of karma and cause and effect, and 
the proper practice to witness it, there is no way to rid of the karma.  It 
seems to me, after reading off/online for about 7-8 years, Zen differs from 
Chan in the fact Zen has no spiritual power.  It is just a mental exercise 
without any connection to the life forces of the universe.

I think that is the bullshit Zen that I am not sure exists as proper Zen. It 
is not what I was reading in the older Zen books. The Zen that is just an 
exercise is the crap that is just anything goes and you will feel better 
about the evil you do if you meditate. That is the HUM OF HAPPY PEOPLE ZEN 
which I do not think is true to the spirit and history of Zen. 




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

2008-09-03 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明










Hi Al,  I don't seem to understand your comment on what I wrote.  I
don't find them relate to each other.  Can you explain?  Thanks, JM

i.e. exercise? feel better? evil? happy?  Do use any strong words you
prefer.   It is okay.. 

Fitness63 wrote:

  
  覺妙精明 Without the correct understanding of karma and cause and
effect, and 
the proper practice to witness it, there is no way to rid of the karma.
It 
seems to me, after reading off/online for about 7-8 years, Zen differs
from 
Chan in the fact Zen has no spiritual power. It is just a mental
exercise 
without any connection to the life forces of the universe.
  
I think that is the bullshit Zen that I am not sure exists as proper
Zen. It 
is not what I was reading in the older Zen books. The Zen that is just
an 
exercise is the crap that is just anything goes and you will feel
better 
about the evil you do if you meditate. That is the HUM OF HAPPY PEOPLE
ZEN 
which I do not think is true to the spirit and history of Zen. 
  
  
  
 

__._,_.___









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








   







  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___




Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-03 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
Hi Al, on second thought, perhaps I should be more clearer on what I was 
trying to say.  I suspect that Zen is just a mental balancing excercise 
without spirituality.  Well?  If you don't agree, then what is Zen.  
All these years, you have always commented on others' post and hardly 
took any position yourself.  Perhaps it is time to take a risk?  :-)  JM

Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote:

 Hi Al,  I don't seem to understand your comment on what I wrote.  I 
 don't find them relate to each other.  Can you explain?  Thanks, JM

 i.e. exercise? feel better? evil? happy?  Do use any strong words you 
 prefer.   It is okay..

 Fitness63 wrote:

 覺妙精明 Without the correct understanding of karma and cause and 
 effect, and
 the proper practice to witness it, there is no way to rid of the 
 karma. It
 seems to me, after reading off/online for about 7-8 years, Zen 
 differs from
 Chan in the fact Zen has no spiritual power. It is just a mental 
 exercise
 without any connection to the life forces of the universe.

 I think that is the bullshit Zen that I am not sure exists as proper 
 Zen. It
 is not what I was reading in the older Zen books. The Zen that is 
 just an
 exercise is the crap that is just anything goes and you will feel better
 about the evil you do if you meditate. That is the HUM OF HAPPY 
 PEOPLE ZEN
 which I do not think is true to the spirit and history of Zen.

  



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

2008-09-03 Thread Fitness63
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? 




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

2008-09-03 Thread Fitness63
From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - I suspect that Zen is just a mental balancing 
excercise without spirituality.

I agree that the New Age Zen of today is like that.

Well? If you don't agree, then what is Zen.

When I was younger, the books that I read seemed to point to the issue of 
karma and spiritual connection from zazen. That is how I understood it based 
on my upbringing as a person of faith and spirituality. I think that is how 
you describe CHAN? 




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

2008-09-03 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明










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? 
  
  
  
 

__._,_.___









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








   







  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___




Re: [Zen] Character Building

2008-09-03 Thread Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
Aha, then we are on the same page.  I have some sessions to enter 
today.  When I have time, I will try to paint a clearer picture.

Thanks, JM.

Fitness63 wrote:

 From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - I suspect that Zen is just a mental balancing
 excercise without spirituality.

 I agree that the New Age Zen of today is like that.

 Well? If you don't agree, then what is Zen.

 When I was younger, the books that I read seemed to point to the issue of
 karma and spiritual connection from zazen. That is how I understood it 
 based
 on my upbringing as a person of faith and spirituality. I think that 
 is how
 you describe CHAN?

  



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/