!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!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 - è¦ºå¦ç²¾æ > <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 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 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 > lacks > > 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. > > ...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/