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
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. :-)
[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
> From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.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.
> 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
> 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:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: