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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> <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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> <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/

Reply via email to