Hi Bill, Your post was what I expected. If you had mentioned in the first place that spirituality to you has no meaning, then I don't have to write that many posts. :-) JM
Bill Smart wrote: > > JMJM, > > I am not the one who first brought up the subject of spirituality and > used that term in these posts. That was you. > > It all started in you post 11750 on 04Sep when you posted: "I suspect > that Zen is just a mental balancing excercise > without spirituality." That generated a lot of posting activity from > many people, including me lauding that assertion. > > You then started this particular thread in post 11814 on 07 Sep that > has 'true spirituality' in the title. (That begs the question > what 'false spirituality' is, but I didn't ask that of you.) > > To answer you present question, I beleive all spirituality is maya, > so I really don't know how to define it any more detailed than that. > All spirituality is an illusion - true spirituality, false > sprituality, blue sprituality, bad sprituality, etc... > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Bill, What is your definition of spiritualism & spirituality in the > > common day context? Thanks, JM > > > > Bill Smart wrote: > > > > > > JMJM, > > > > > > Thanks for your clarifications. > > > > > > Much of your description of Chi below sounds like Buddha Nature as > > > that term is used in English translations of Japanese Zen Buddhist > > > writings. Are you aware of this, and is there indeed a difference > or > > > are these two concepts the pretty much the same? > > > > > > Your comments about how people can use Chi are good examples of > the > > > spritualism I reject and classify as maya, but they're > entertaining > > > to think about. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Zen_Forum% > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > > > <chan.jmjm@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Good questions Bill, > > > > > > > > Chi is pronounced Cheee. In Japnese it is pronounced Ki, like > > > ReiKi. > > > > In new Chinese, it is spelled Qi, but pronounced the same. > > > > > > > > #2 is the detailed answer. Chi is the universal life force and > > > > therefore it is always one and connected. Yet, it could be > > > blocked. If > > > > it were blocked in our body, like teachings of QiGong or > > > acupuncture, > > > > then we become sick or injured. It if blocks our mind, we > becomes > > > > crazy. These blockages are called karma in Buddhist terms and > just > > > > blockage in traditional Chinese medicine. > > > > > > > > Because Chi is pure energy, not visible, not in any form. There > > > are > > > > occasion people take vantage of its illusiveness. So beware, as > > > pointed > > > > out by Edgar. Some martial artists can hurt you even without > > > touching > > > > you. Doctors can heal you also without touching you. I have had > > > both > > > > type of experiences many times. > > > > > > > > Sometimes, Chi is used as a descriptor. For instance, your Chi > is > > > bad, > > > > meaning you don't look too well. This calligraphy has no chi, > > > meaning, > > > > it flows bad. > > > > > > > > Let me know if you have any other question. > > > > JM > > > > > > > > Bill Smart wrote: > > > > > > > > > > JMJM, > > > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Zen_Forum% > > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙 > ç²¾æËÅ"Ž > > > > > <chan.jmjm@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Chi of us can be connected to Chi of others only if we > don't > > > > > use our > > > > > > mind, eyes, mouth, nose, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think maybe some of our difficulty in communicating comes > down > > > to > > > > > word usage. > > > > > > > > > > In the above sentence, do you mean: > > > > > > > > > > 1. I have my Chi and you have your Chi, but the Chi's are not > now > > > > > connected, and the only way (or at least part of the way) I > can > > > > > connect to your Chi is to not use my senses? > > > > > > > > > > 2. Or...I have Chi and you have Chi, and the Chi is the same > Chi > > > so > > > > > by definition is already connected, but the only way I can > sense > > > or > > > > > become aware of that connection is to not use my senses? > > > > > > > > > > 3. Or...something else? > > > > > > > > > > Also, is 'Chi' pronouced 'chee' (like the first part > of 'cheese', > > > > > or 'key' with a hard 'c' pronounced like 'k'; and is it also > > > > > sometimes rendered into English as 'Qi'? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks...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/
