!!!!!!!!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å¦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/
