IF (and that's a big IF) you realize something is an illusion and 
identify it as such, you can qualify it as much as you'd like.

BUT (and that's a bodacious booty) if you're saying something is not 
an illusion you shouldn't use qualifiers.  For example, you wouldn't 
talk about 'my Buddha Nature and your Buddha Nature, or good Buddha 
Nature and Bad Buddha Nature, etc...; would you?


--- In, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Bill Smart<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 
> weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi, you're just 
> about some illusions and attachments you have in regards to the 
concept of 
> chi.>
> Chi is an illusion anyway, so why not qualify your illusions. After 
> they are part of the real world and thus there are all kinds.


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