JMJM, Thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately you've driven me in a corner and forced me to assume the role as a nit-picker (a hair-spliter). If this were a conversation between you and me only I'd have given up by now and probably just be nodding my head while smiling dumbly at you while processing 'ya-da, ya-da, ya-da'. But, this is not a private conversation and there are others that read these posts. It's entirely up to them what value, if any, they take away from these, but I do not want anyone to think that by my lack of response I agree with your statements. I find a lot of them to be very misleading, and at the best will sidetrack people attempting to become better aware of their Buddha Nature. My responses are embedded below: --- In [email protected], Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺å¦ç²¾æ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Bill, This is almost midnight here in LA. Again, you wrote as > always, sincerely. Let me try to explain in simpler terms. > The simpler the better. Truth is always very, very simple. > There is only one True/Final/Real Form - Universal Life Force - can be > labeled as God or Buddha or Ala. > I agree. I call it either Just THIS! or Buddha Nature. Edgar calls it Direct Experience of Reality. But these are just labels. > ULF has two parts intertwined. > Whoops! DUALITY ALERT! DUALITY ALERT! What you've done starting with this statement is revert to the wold of Maya, the world of dualism. THAT'S OKAY WITH ME. I can operate in that world too, and in fact do 99% of the time. BUT, flip- flopping back and forth from Buddha Nature (ULF) to Maya (dualism) without warning will mislead a lot of people. Buddha Nature is Buddha Nature. Just THIS! is Just THIS! ULF is ULF. These cannot be subdived into parts, like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost WITHOUT slipping into the world of Maya - the world of dualism, the world of rationality. AGAIN, I state there's nothing wrong with operating in the world of Maya as long as you are aware of that you are. YOU may indeed be aware that you are (although from many of your previous posts about Chi I'm not convinced you are), but many of the readers of these posts may not be aware you're flipping back and forth and therefore be mislead. >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. > This is all very clear to me as a rational, hierarchy with a functional subgroupings of ULF into CHI and 'universal wisdom/consiousness' which I assume is Buddha Nature. Very clear. Very logical. Very neat. The problem is it is Maya. It's just a rational manipulation of Maya. It's like telling me the names of the all the different classes of Angels and then going on to describe their particular appearance and function. It's interesting. It's satisfying. It's reassuring. It's even fun sometimes. But, it's all Maya! > 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. > I agree in principal, but if you take that thought to the limit you would conclude that talking about these topics is useless. And, that is exactly what zen teaches us over and over and over again. HOWEVER, we are talking about it, and as long as we do try to use words, terms, lables, they are important. I believe we have an obligation to define our terms, try to synch-up our terms, and be consistent. If we can't or won't do that then we should just smile and hold up a flower as did Buddha at Vuluture Peak or one finger as did wise old Gutei. >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? > The quote above means (to me) that 'All spoken/written dharma are dharma in form only, and are therefore dharma in the dualistic world and therefore Maya.' Formless, the way you are using it, is a dualistic term. You saying one one hand there is 'form', and on the other there is 'energy or chi'. This is dualism. This is Maya. ...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/
