Hi Bill,  This is almost midnight here in LA.  Again, you wrote as 
always, sincerely.  Let me try to explain in simpler terms.

There is only one True/Final/Real Form - Universal Life Force -  can be 
labeled as God or Buddha or Ala.
ULF has two parts intertwined.  The Chi/Ki/energy which is the carrier 
and the universal wisdom/consciousness is the embedded message.
When our Chi connect with the universal Chi, our Buddha/Self/Original 
Nature can sync up to the universal Consciousness/Wisdom/Buddha.

I hope it is clearer this time.  Let me know if there is anything you 
want me to clarify some more.

Yes Buddha Nature is not the same as Chi.  It can be called Just This or 
maya or spirituality. Why split hair?  After all Buddha nature is as is, 
no matter what name we call it.  All labels are subject to 
interpretations and relative.  There is a saying in Buddhism, "All 
spoken/written dharma are dharma in form only."  Meaning real dharma is 
in formless.  It means energy or chi.  Get it?

Good night.

Bill Smart wrote:
> I DID NOT agree with you that zen was 'just a mind-balancing
> exercise'. I agreed with you that zen was not spritual. Zen is no-
> mind, so there is nothing to balance - WYSIWYG, no adjustments
> necessary.
> I'm not sure what your remark below about my 'inner self' means. I
> guess you think I have an 'inner self' and that you know more about
> what it's doing than I. Please continue to let me know what it's up
> to. I'd hate to have my inner self sneak up on me and surprise me.
> Buddha Nature, which I have called 'JUST THIS', is not in the realm
> of sprituality or maya. It is real. It is reality.
> Buddha Nature and Chi are not the same, or at least Buddha Nature, as
> I know it, is not the same as what you have described Chi to be.
> You've described Chi as a universal energy that you can connect with
> and detect in others, that you can cultivate and accumulate, that you
> can learn to direct and channel, that you can use to heal yourself
> and others, that misuse can harm yourself and others, that you
> describe things you like as to having 'good' Chi and things you don't
> as having 'bad' Chi. This sounds more like something sung about in
> the Beach Boy's song 'Good Vibrations'. (Good hamony there...)
> Some of the above qualities overlap with Buddha Nature, but certainly
> not all of them. Buddha Nature is universal but you could not call
> it energy (or at least I wouldn't). You can 'connect' with it by
> becoming aware of it. You could say you can cultivate it, but what
> you really do is cultivate your awareness of it. You cannot
> accumulate it in the sense of 'storing it up', but you can strengthen
> your awareness of it. You cannot direct or channel it, you follow
> it. You cannot use it to heal yourself and others, although the
> awareness of it has healing in the sense of acceptance and peace.
> You cannot use it to harm yourself or others, other than
> intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting Buddha Nature to
> others. There is no 'good' or 'bad' Buddha Nature.
> As you have described Chi, I think it has the same relationship with
> Buddha Nature as I now beleive Chan has with zen. Chi represents a
> spritualized version of Buddha Nature as does Chan vis-a-vis zen,
> complete with add-on surpernatural qualities, superstitions, wishful
> thinking and lots of attachment-magnets.
> (I just now made up the term attachment-magnets. Pretty cool, huh?
> Feel free to use it without feeling obligated to cite me.)
> JMJM, you didn't comment on my title before when it was Bill!. I
> just got a new one: Big Fish. How do you like it? Does it have good
> Chi or bad Chi? Can I heal or hurt someone with it? If I can, Al
> had better WATCH OUT!
> ...Bill!, Big Fish
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, 
> Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary, Al. What I meant was, if Bill admitted at the
> > beginning that Zen is just a mental balancing exercise, then my
> point is
> > made. Since his did not agree with my observation, yet his Inner
> Self
> > did, he had convinced himself that there could be spirituality.
> > Spirituality in my dictionary is Buddha Nature. :-)
> >
> > There is no one to convert to no where. Just some are more
> delusional
> > than others. No offense.
> >
> > Fitness63 wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - >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
> > >
> > > You sound like a missionary who tries to convert a heathen and
> then says
> > > "What could I expect from a heathen" when the conversion fails!!
> > >
> > > That is funny when I see things in zen that are just like
> Christianity
> > > and
> > > then it makes me wonder if the cynics are right.
> > >
> > > Then again, I learned something from this, so thanks for trying
> to
> > > convert
> > > Bill. You may have missed the big fish but gotten some little
> ones.
> > >
> > >
> >


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