JMJM,  My comments are imbedded below:

--- In, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
> Dear Bill,  I admire your commitment and passion.  I have already 
> 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.  
> you insisted and defended that you are right.  Once any of us begin 
> defend a position, we become partial and incomplete.  We are driven 
by a 
> singular vision - ego driven.  The way you insisted illustrate the 
> 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 

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 
> 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 
- JMJM's opinion that zen (as compared with Chan) does not have a 
spiritual component is the same as my opinion.  I however think 
that's a good quality since spirituality is maya (illusion).
- JMJM's opinion that zen is 'just a mind exercise' is not the 
opinion I hold.  My oh so humble opinion is that zen is not an 
exercise of the mind, zen is realizing that mind and all its products 
are maya (illusions), and that when all maya are eliminated, or at 
least suspended, there is only THIS.

I think you're getting a little to hung up on words (wrong) here and 
taking it a little too personal.
> In conclusion, you typify the fact Zen is incomplete because it 
> the connection to the True Form or Final Form. :-)
Seventh of all...I am not a type, I am Bill!  Zen is maya.  You are 
not a type (Chan practicioner and advocate), you are JMJM.  True Form 
is maya.  Final Form is maya.  Only THIS!
> Fun?
No, disappointing.



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:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to