Bill,

Yes I agree, it's very easy to get hung up in the forms one deals with and forget they are only forms.


Edgar


On Sep 11, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Bill Smart wrote:

I agree, I agree, I agree.

My point in my last 10 posts or so was that we should be very careful
not to mix these two modes in such a cavalier fashion that our
attempts at communication are more open to misinterpretation than
they already are.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> That's pretty much in line with my terminology. But the difference
in
> approach I think is this. We find ourselves in a dualistic world
in
> which forms (different manifestations of chi or THIS) do exist. Of
> course Zen sees they are ultimately illusion and empty, but that
> doesn't make them go away. We still have to deal with them in
daily
> life. Perhaps we can ignore them in zazen but in the other 99% of
> existence we need to dance with them. My view is that in daily
life
> if we become empty of self, of things people think define their
> selves like trivial thoughts, desires and attachments, then we
become
> open to the daily life form flows of Buddha nature, or chi or
> whatever and thus we spontaneously act in accord with the basic
music
> of the Uni-Verse. That is true Zen in daily life which one might
quip
> is 99x as important as Zen during zazen. The idea is how to have
true
> Zen in daily life, in the world of forms, which even though we may
> recognize them as illusory are still there. To do that we have to
> give up the self and become one with the form flow. That allows
the
> Tao to spontaneously act of its own accord and generate the
actions
> of the illusory form we call ourself. This is as close as 'we' can
> come to being one with the universe while we live in the world of
> forms. That is true Zen in daily life in the form world we inhabit.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Bill Smart wrote:
>
> > Edgar,
> >
> > Thanks for trying to clargy this.
> >
> > I accept your explanation of how you use the word 'chi' or 'OE',
and
> > have never disagreed with it. I have first encountered it as being
> > called Buddha Nature and now refer to it as Just THIS! becasue I
> > don't want it to be tied to tightly to Buddhism.
> >
> > BUT, my point has always been that as soon as you enter into a
> > dualistic despription of chi, assigning it such qualities as
personal
> > chi, universal chi, good chi, bad chi, feminine chi, masuline chi,
> > stong chi, weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi,
> > you're just babbling about some illusions and attachments you
have in
> > regards to the concept of chi.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mike, and Bill too,
> > >
> > > I think the problem you and Bill are having is in thinking of
chi
> > as
> > > something in particular rather than of the very stuff or
substance
> > of
> > > everything which is what it is in the sense I (and at least to
> > some
> > > extent JM) are using it. Chi is not something that martial
artists
> > > 'generate' and that other people don't have. Everything is
> > composed
> > > of chi. It is the only substance of the universe. There is
nothing
> > > else except the particular forms that arise within it which have
> > no
> > > substance of their own. In this view the universe consists only
of
> > > chi and the empty forms chi takes on which have no reality
> > substance
> > > of their own. I generally use the term OE (ontological energy)
for
> > > chi. It is what gives otherwise empty forms actual real being in
> > the
> > > present moment.
> > >
> > > So Mike and Bill's emptiness is simply chi that isn't moving,
that
> > is
> > > devoid of form. Calling chi chi is just terminology. One could
> > call
> > > it Mu, Tao, OE, emptiness or anything else just so long as we
know
> > > what we are talking about. It is the definition we are using
that
> > > counts. Don't go by some huff and puffing guy who thinks only he
> > has
> > > chi. All of us ARE chi, simply forms in the sea of chi, forms in
> > the
> > > universal sea of OE.
> > >
> > > So in the stillness of Zen meditation perhaps chi is hardly
> > moving,
> > > but in daily life chi moves constantly, and Zen is being in tune
> > with
> > > that movement. That's the same as saying what MIke and Bill are
> > > saying since chi is intrinsically empty, Mu, void, Tao. It is
only
> > > the forms within chi that really move.
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:28 AM, mike brown wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Edgar,
> > > > Thanks for the reply and insight. I'm just finding it really
> > hard
> > > > to intergrate my understanding and experience of Zen with the
> > > > importance some people here are placing on chi. I can
appreciate
> > > > that chi exists and may even be the source of form and
> > emptiness,
> > > > but at the end of the day I just don't believe it is essential
> > to
> > > > know or experience chi in order to live a Zen life. With due
> > > > respect, I think JMJM's Chan is just a highly developed
> > technique
> > > > which allows a person to feel chi and so feel somewhat
> > > > spiritualised and 'connected'. I've felt something very
similar
> > in
> > > > my Vipassana meditation (Vipassana uses a technique which
> > generates
> > > > a lot of chi and this is then used to 'scan' the body to feel
> > the
> > > > most minute, subtle sensations within and on the surface of
the
> > > > body), however it is still a technique. I'm not saying
> > techniques
> > > > are a bad thing - after all zazen meditation is a technique .
> > What
> > > > I am saying tho' is that ultimately ALL techniques are just
> > rafts
> > > > which need to be discarded after reaching the other shore (the
> > > > shore we're already on, of course). Zen is just simply living
> > life
> > > > fully in the moment and doesn't require anything extra in the
> > way
> > > > of 'energy currents', God, or listening to our 'inner-
dolphin'.
> > Mike.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@>
> > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 11 September, 2008 7:41:41
> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] JUDO
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mike,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > An excellent post from someone who obviously has direct
> > experience
> > > > of what he's talking about.
> > > >
> > > > The huffing and puffing type of concentration of chi is
> > primarily
> > > > useful in demonstrations of force in set conditions such as
> > > > breaking bricks. Bricks don't avoid punches or strike back! In
> > > > such cases one can concentrate on concentrating one's chi
> > against
> > > > the unchanging chi of the bricks and take one's time. However
in
> > > > interactive situations with a live opponent things are much
> > > > different and concentrating on one's own chi in this way is
not
> > > > usually the best tactic.
> > > >
> > > > Against a live opponent the key is emptiness, or as you say
> > mushin.
> > > > If you are full of concentrating on your own chi your focus
and
> > > > your energy will be in that concentration of chi, not on the
> > total
> > > > interactive situation with the opponent. The emptier of such
> > > > concentration one is the faster and more appropriately one can
> > act.
> > > > The idea is to be empty of self so that you are maximally
aware
> > and
> > > > tuned to the flow of the total situation and are able to
respond
> > > > instantly and naturally to any change the opponent makes in
the
> > > > unity of the whole situation. This too is actually chi, but
not
> > a
> > > > huff and puff concentration of chi in one's own hara, but a
> > maximal
> > > > awareness and response to the total chi of the entire
situation
> > > > that exists between you and your opponent. If you erect no chi
> > > > barrier to your opponent you are able to sense instantly any
> > change
> > > > he makes to the chi flow you share with him and respond
> > optimally -
> > > > assuming you have the training to do so of course.
> > > >
> > > > This all goes to a very important point. What to do with
> > > > realization, what to do with Zen? As Bill noted, he spends 99%
> > of
> > > > his life out of zazen. No matter how enlightened we exist in
the
> > > > world of maya where causality holds sway. With Zen we can
> > realize
> > > > that is illusion, but we still must exist within it. The big
> > > > question is how to bring Zen into that world in our daily
lives
> > 24/7.
> > > >
> > > > Al points to the way here. The key is to be empty. That
doesn't
> > > > mean to be empty of chi, but to be empty of any hinderances to
> > the
> > > > flow of chi. When we are empty of such blockages we are
> > continually
> > > > being filled with the chi of the present here now which flows
> > > > through us unobstructed, and out of this flow our own action
> > > > originates naturally and spontaneously. Most people's action
> > > > originates from their hinderances to the free flow of chi,
those
> > > > internal forms in which they try to trap chi, that is the
> > internal
> > > > forms in which most people try to structure and hold chi
> > according
> > > > to their particular desires, and thoughts, those forms which
> > they
> > > > call their self. But true Zen action arises directly from the
> > free
> > > > unhindered flow of the chi of the present moment through one's
> > > > center. We see that brilliantly in the finest martial artists
> > such
> > > > as the aikido of Ueshiba Morihei, but it also works in every
> > aspect
> > > > of daily life if we just empty ourselves and tune to the chi
of
> > the
> > > > moment, and let that originate our actions without hinderance.
> > > >
> > > > Edgar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sep 10, 2008, at 7:44 AM, mike brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Al,
> > > >> I'm a Kyokushin karate practioner and have represented
> > Australia
> > > >> (actually I'm Welsh, but it's a long story..) at the
> > international
> > > >> level. I have found Zen to be indispensable when fighting in
> > > >> competitions. If you start worrying negatively about the
> > outcome
> > > >> of the fight, or regret not training hard enough then by the
> > time
> > > >> you get on the mat you'll have expended too much nervous
energy
> > > >> and/or react too slow to your opponents strikes and kicks. In
> > > >> training the same Zen principles applies - the kick or punch
> > you
> > > >> throw NOW is the most important kick or punch you will ever
> > throw
> > > >> in your life so put 100% into it.
> > > >>
> > > >> The outcome of this training is the development of mushin
> > (or 'no
> > > >> mind') where the fear of losing and injury doesn't exist. The
> > > >> Japanese call this spirit 'Budo'. Any focus on 'Chi' is
minimal
> > or
> > > >> non-existent although that's not to say it doesn't exist.
It's
> > > >> just that focusing on the mind/ego thru zazen is much more
> > > >> important and crucial to this development. I've often seen
kung
> > fu
> > > >> players performing intricate chi-type exercises before a
> > competion
> > > >> and then come out and get their arses kicked by fighters who
> > > >> wouldn't know their chi if it jumped and bit them on their
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> Mike.
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message ----
> > > >> From: Fitness63 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .net>
> > > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, 10 September, 2008 12:26:56
> > > >> Subject: [Zen] JUDO
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> By the way, I learned a lot from that old Judo instructor.
He is
> > a
> > > >> very nice guy and now he is in his 80s.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think that he felt that Judo and Zen were intertwined and
> > that
> > > >> zen helped him focus his CHI to be better at Judo.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think that is why the samurai also were devoted to zen. It
> > was
> > > >> not because they were atheists who believed in nothing. I
would
> > > >> like to hear from those who have experience in Judo or other
> > > >> martial arts and whether or not you are aware of CHI and if
it
> > has
> > > >> any relationship to zazen in your experience.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>




Reply via email to