Agreed. Words are product from the world of forms. Very very
confusing. Because each one of us are limited to our own
interpretations. What I have learned, is that Maya equates to Form.
Buddha Nature equates to Just This. The more we tried to explain, the
more information we provide, the more confusing it gets. Because, after
all, all discussions in words, logic, concepts, are all Maya/Form/World
of Labels. I have learned after years of teaching, no one is wrong,
just every description is incomplete. That's the nature of language.
Once we describe something, the something is incomplete. The more we
tried to make it complete, the more confusing the meaning.
We need to be ware not to be trapped in the world of labels. Therefore,
we need to be loose in our terminologies and not to insist on any
particular one. Try our best to recommend, suggest, using different
terms. After all, that is what languages are for - communicating.
That is the reason, I have tried to avoid terminologies such as Buddha
and enlightenment. These are subject to imagination. And avoid words
such as maya. These are categorical word, subject to judgment.
Surpassing our thoughts, habits, is the first lesson in Chan. That is
why I posted the 5 poisons for your reference. The only way to have a
better life, a life beyond what we have now, begins by surpassing our
habits and thinking and words we use.
No matter how we think, it is always there. All phenomenon are there as
is. The journey of Chan is not about which one to take, what to do, how
do we go about it, when will happen what. Instead of thinking,
understanding, describing, Chan is, like cross a river by feeling the
stone, experience and witness. No picking and choose. Experience and
don't be afraid. There is a reason for new concept, events, people to
appear in front of us. Always learn and grow ourself from each moment.
Too often and too easily, we become enslaved and trapped by our brain.
Bill Smart wrote:
> Al and JMJM,
> I agree with most everything in JMJM's post below with the following
> VERY MINOR personal adaptations:
> When I said 'enlightenment is an illusion' in a previous post, I
> meant the CONCEP of enlightenment is an illusion, the concept that
> enlightenment is something special and that only monks or ascetics
> can attain. This is the illusion.
> I would use the phrases 'realization of Buddha Nature'
> or 'experiencing Just THIS' instead of 'enlightenment'.
> I would use the terms 'Buddha Nature' or 'Just THIS' instead of 'life
> force' or 'energy' or chi.
> I would delete the second-to-the-last paragraph about 'futile effort'
> since both JMJM's post below and this post itself (and in fact all
> response posts) would fall into that category. I do not judge JMJM's
> post to have been a 'futile effort', and I hope mine is not either.
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Jue Miao Jing Ming - è¦ºå¦™ç²¾æ˜Ž
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Al,
> > Enlightenment is not an illusion. That is a state of
> > connection/transmission can be observed/sensed. Even just from
> some of
> > the disciples of an enlightened teacher, one with absolutely
> > and open heart, can experience some of the phenomenon.
> > Too many people thought that the books they read or the teacher
> > learn from are absolute. Actually, we got it when we were born.
> > one can feel his inner life force, he is on his way. That is if he
> > not blocked by his mind.
> > The only real world is the world of energy, which is a flow in
> > flux. By the time anyone tried to describe it, or take a picture
> > look at it, it is no longer the same. The only way we can be part
> > it, is to sync to it. Flow with it.
> > Judging, categorizing, commenting anyone's post is a futile effort
> > the ego.
> > Fine tune our chi, anyone can connect.
> > JM
> > Fitness63 wrote:
> > >
> > > From: cid830> We can only follow their teachings if we choose to
> > > them, regardless of whether or not they actually taught them at
> all. >
> > >
> > > What we are talking about is the proverbial LEAP OF FAITH that is
> > > required
> > > for any belief system, and thus zen, like any other religion or
> > > philosophy
> > > requires that the adherent BELIEVE in what may very well be total
> > >
> > > So is Maya the illusion, or is the actual illusion that
> > > that
> > > so many strive to achieve and which cannot be objectively
> measured. After
> > > all, when a Roshi says that he is enlightened, all we have is his
> word on
> > > it, and the word of his peers. Can you measure or otherwise prove
> > > enlightenment? Is enlightenment itself not an Illusion (Maya)?
> > >
> > >
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:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: