JMJM,  I reveived and read this post...Bill!

--- In, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
> Dear Bill,
> I have tried to use the simplest term to explain the foundation of 
> Force, which composes of Chi and it carries Universal Wisdom.
> Since your post is for others and not for yourself, then I shall 
> here, because the way you have assumed the argument for others are 
> getting into the relativity and nitty-gritty of word definition, 
> of the essence of the universe.  That feeds the brain instead of 
> spirit,  because there is no absolute definition in words.  There 
> nothing to understand in the first place.  Understand exists in the 
> world of labels.
> On the other hand, unless you experience and witness Chi, all 
> is irrelevant.  Let me give you some tips to experience Chi first.
> However, I like to mention another concept of Chan in our school 
(by our 
> school, I mean, we may not be THE school  Remember every time I 
utter an 
> opinion, it is correct based on my incomplete gathering of 
> In our school, the mind is the brain, and the heart or the spirit 
is the 
> Buddha Nature.  It is my experience to state, no matter how 
> erroneous, delusional the brain is, our heart is always aware, pure 
> compassionate.  Therefore, I state that your brain may deny, your 
> accepts.  Your brain may doubt, but your heart believes.  Often our 
> actions are rescued, corrected by our heart at the end, even though 
> mind may astray.
> Therefore, no matter how you argue, your heart knows the way.  Here 
> comes the punch line.....
> If there is no ego, how can you be "cornered".  You see, your heart 
> telling while your brain is not.
> Our job as Chan practitioners, is to learn from everything, not get 
> in definitions.  Because everything is manifested by the universal 
> force, or the One.  Why differentiate?  Try to grow our 
> nature from it, is the key.  For you Bill, grow means, "let go of 
> mind" and not "grow the Buddha Nature". 
> After all these long posts, which is very dangerous, I recommend 
> thing and one thing only, cultivate your Chi in your Zazen.  
> else will come naturally.  All labels, definition, knowledge, sutra 
> second hand at best.
> JM
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > 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, 
> > 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 
> > 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 <mailto:Zen_Forum%>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> > <chan.jmjm@> 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.
> > >
> >
> > What you've done starting with this statement is revert to the 
> > 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 
> > slipping into the world of Maya - the world of dualism, the world 
> > rationality. AGAIN, I state there's nothing wrong with operating 
> > the world of Maya as long as you are aware of that you are. YOU 
> > 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 
> > 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 
> > 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 
> > would conclude that talking about these topics is useless. And, 
> > 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 
> > 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 
> > and therefore Maya.'
> >
> > Formless, the way you are using it, is a dualistic term. You 
> > 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:

<*> 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