!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!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 
> to 
> > defend a position, we become partial and incomplete.  We are 
> by a 
> > singular vision - ego driven.  The way you insisted illustrate 
> 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 
> what you're saying.  But whether I state it specifically or not, 
> my posts are my opinions.  My opinions are unlimited and complete 
> unless I specifically state otherwise.  If I'm suspecting or 
> or supposing, I'll state that.  If I don't know something, I'll 
> 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 
> opinions are any less important than Buddha's or anything written 
> 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 
> 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 
> 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 
> 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 
> do.  Chan is maya.  Zen is maya.  There is only THIS.  I do 
> as you do, talk about zen and Chan and good and bad and hot and 
> and lot of other maya all the time.  All this talking and posting 
> not zen and certainly is not THIS.  It is only talking about zen 
> 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, 
> sometimes I try to avoid using Buddhist terms so as not to add to 
> confusion most people have that zen and Buddhism are inextricably 
> linked.  They are not.  (Or maybe I should say 'Golly gee, I could 
> 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 
> > 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 
> Tao, because that is maya.  'THIS' is just THIS.  Nothing more.  
> 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 
> say you're 'wrong', what I mean is my opinion is different than 
> 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 
> 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 
> 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 
> 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:

<*> 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