JMJM, Thanks for your post. I really never thought you were 'picking on' me. Many times I thought you were challenging my postings which is good for me and good for the forum.
I was so in-tune with a couple of your paragraphs below that I will copy them here: >Chan/zen is the core of all spirituality, because of > its simplicity. It is just a naked connectivity of one's spirit with > that of the universe. It is just a formless, formality less, wordless > spirituality. There is no robe, no shaving head, no bible. Any > religion can dress it any way they prefer. > > As long as the practitioner is truly and spiritually in touch his true > self internally and with that of the universe externally, nothing else > matters. > > All labels and descriptions existed for a reason. They are all forms. > Forms are all relative and pertinent to that particular moment only. We > don't have to compare, accept or reject. These actions in the knowledge > domain does not relate to our well being whatsoever. > > In the end, be liberated from all sufferings, be content with every > moment is the only thing matters. This is exactly what I've been trying to say. I'll admit that I may be hung up on the rejections of forms. I know that forms are relative and transitory as you point out, but when I see them posted I feel like I just have to respond: 'That's just a form! That's not important! That's just the finger! That's not the moon...the moon is Just THIS! Thanks again for your post...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺å¦ç²¾æ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Bill and Mayka, > > I love the sincerity, honesty and warmth of your post. Instead of > picking on Bill, which I am guilty of, I like to share with you my > experience of Chan/zen. > > Historically, in most of the written words, Chan is a Chinese invention > regarding BodhiDharma as the founder or the First Patriarch. He came > from the linage of Kasyapa, who were told to teach without words and > formalities. So yes, Chan has Buddhism DNA. > > Gradually however, Taoist influenced Chan. Compare the Shin-Shin Ming > by the Third Patriarch of Chan with that of Tao-Te-Chin by Lao Tzu, the > founder of Taoism. They are almost similar in content. In other words, > words are useless. Essence is in the synchronization of spirit, or chi > in Chinese. > > Because the Taoist meditative technique is more effective and Buddhist > teaching is more popular, gradually Chan meditative practice became more > Taoist, such as QiGong, acupuncture, etc., Yet Chan still utilizes > Buddhist terms for describing spiritual experience. Chan is quite a hybrid. > > Since the Sixth Patriarch, Chan split into the sudden awakening in the > south and the gradual awakening in the north. I have a huge linage > book given to me by my Teacher. It listed every patriarch in the linage > with some of the recent records destroyed by the communist. Northern > Chan was passed to Japan and pronounced zen about 700 years later. > > Because its 2,000 year history, there are variation in the linages. > Some are more Buddhist and some are more Taoist and some are neutral. > The essence and bulk of Chan, however, are actually quite well > maintained in the at-home practices. Through out Chinese history, most > scholars, court officials practices Chan. Because they are the most > suitable candidates. > > I agree with Bill, Chan/zen is the core of all spirituality, because of > its simplicity. It is just a naked connectivity of one's spirit with > that of the universe. It is just a formless, formality less, wordless > spirituality. There is no robe, no shaving head, no bible. Any > religion can dress it any way they prefer. > > As long as the practitioner is truly and spiritually in touch his true > self internally and with that of the universe externally, nothing else > matters. > > All labels and descriptions existed for a reason. They are all forms. > Forms are all relative and pertinent to that particular moment only. We > don't have to compare, accept or reject. These actions in the knowledge > domain does not relate to our well being whatsoever. > > In the end, be liberated from all sufferings, be content with every > moment is the only thing matters. > > A bow to all, > JM > > > > > > Bill Smart wrote: > > > > Mayka, > > > > Thank you for your very candid and profound post. I appreciate your > > sharing with the forum your admiration for Thich Nhat Hanh. You are > > representing him and his teachings very, very well. > > > > Please remember that I don't get your posts in my email, and I don't > > always check the website. So, if you have a post you want to direct > > specifically to me or to assure my awareness of the post, please > > email it to me directly as you have in the past. > > > > My comments are embedded in your post below: > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum% 40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Mayka" <flordeloto@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill; > > > > > > I have no idea if Thich Nhat Hanh is a self proclaimed Buddhist or > > > not. Knowing him a little bit I can not see him doing any > > > proclamation about anything for he's a very wise, sweet, humble > > > profoundly peaceful man. I know about him that he has turn round > > the > > > dharma wheel and created a new way slightly different way tradition > > > from the tradition he comes from. This is natural, the dharma is > > > something alive which comes first from guiding books and education > > > and becames through daily direct experience practice a living > > dharma. > > > I can say for sure about him that whatever he teaches is something > > > that he has experienced first by himself. He won't ever talk about > > > something that he has not experienced first. In fact one amongst > > his > > > multi remarkable skills is to reduce to the minimum the use of > > words > > > that can create distraction in the mind and using words that are > > very > > > simple but a smack to the intelectual mind, individualism and ego. > > A > > > person who is looking for sophisticated discourses and candy words > > > would find Thic Nhat Hanh tedious and boring. Or on the other > > hand, > > > a perosn who can also be intelectual but has reached to conclusion > > > that intelectuality can be a boundary when this is not used in the > > > appropiate way, then that person, if receptive enough, would find > > > Thich Nhat Hanh a very enlightened person. > > > > > > My direct experience about him is that he is a living Buddha. I > > can > > > sense, touch and see that in all his body language, his living > > > dharma, his energy, in each action he does.... When he pass on his > > > dharma he doesn't pass on just words but also pass on his direct > > > experience about it!. So the words become like something very > > lively > > > and real in him. He never talks about something that he has not > > > experiencing first by himself. > > > > > > > Thank you again for your vivid description of Thich Nhat Hanh and > > your impression of him. He is honored to have you as a student. > > > > One of the things you've said above rings especially true for this > > forum: living dharma cannot be expressed by words alone - especially > > in only written text. It's only from face-to-face contact with some > > as you describe that you can fully appreciate their total absorption > > in the dharma. > > > > > The tradition he teaches I'm not sure but I'm under the impresion > > > that has its roots in Mahayana Buddhism. > > > > > > > Zen Buddhism does have it's roots in Mahayana Buddhism. Some beleive > > Zen is a type of Mahayana Buddhism, and some beleive Zen is the > > evolution (culmination) of Mahayana Buddhim and is a branch of its > > own. I assum Thich Nhat Hanh being Vietnamese would have grown up > > under the influence of Theravada Buddhism, but anyway Theravada is > > not mutually exclusive from Mahayana Buddhsim. > > > > As you and I both know and have said repeatedly, none of these names > > or terms are really important. I usually only bring these up in > > response to someone else's post referring to some specific type of > > Buddhism. I'm not really overly concerned with Buddhism. All you > > Buddhists can give it what ever names, and divide it up into whatever > > categories you want. > > > > > I have never hear before zen without the influence of buddhism or > > > having as buddhism in its root. Interesting also the simplicity you > > > seem to follow your own practice. > > > > > > > I know what you say is true. Most people (99.9%?) inextricably > > assocaiate zen and Buddhism. Some think it is just one of the many > > branches of Buddhism. Some, like the Vispassana Buddhists here in > > Thailand, think Zen is not a part of Buddhism at all - more like a > > cult, a derranged and impure psuedo-Buddhism. Some think of Zen as > > the culmination of all Buddhism - the most pure form. > > > > I think of zen as pre-dating Buddhism, Hinduism, Judiasm, > > Christianity and all other religions. I think of zen as the core of > > most other religions, and these other religions, including Buddhism, > > are zen with a lot of extra crap stuck all over it. In a lot of the > > religions the extra crap is so thick that the zen core is totally > > obsucured. I do think that in Zen Buddhism, even with all the crap > > attached, at least the zen core is recognizable and accessible. > > > > >I like from it [Bill's zen practice] how direct is and > > > its simplicity. I also like from it how open is to criticism, and > > > the fact that one can talk about positve things and negative > > things > > > happening to one in a very open way. In constrast to the profound > > > wisdom from Thich Nhat Hanh I have always found difficult to relate > > > myself in the non monastic sanghas due to its kind of Disneyland > > way > > > of doing. I certainly share with you that as a practicioner I don't > > > like to wave but to deal with what it comes as it comes alone. > > > Though, I do lack of the mental stability over my emotions and > > > solidity you seem to have. > > > > > > > I also feel a close connection with you, even though we often > > disagree, or at least seem to disagree. I respect your perspective > > and enjoy your posts. > > > > > You say that you practice from the perspective "Just This". > > But "Just > > > This" can not exist without "Just That". > > > > > > > Your statement above is actually true. As soon as you say 'this', > > you imply there is a 'that'. This is a good example of dualistic > > thinking, but something that is all but impossible to extract from > > our language. Language ASSUMES and is based on dualism. This is why > > zen masters often refrain from giving language-based answers to > > questions like 'What is Buddha Nature?'. As soon as you open your > > mouth to speak, you're lost. So what do they do? > > > > Sometimes they do use language, but in such a non-ordinary way that > > the listener cannot take their reponose literaly. Examples of these > > are 'mu', or 'the cypress tree in the garden', or 'dried shit on a > > stick'. Sometimes they just yell something that is not a word at > > all, like 'Katz!' or 'Wah!'. Since these are not words they cannot > > be misunderstood. Sometimes they don't speak but just slap the > > floor, or turn around and walk away. They do avoid using ordinary > > langauage if at all possible. > > > > If you and I were face-to-face and your were to ask me about Buddha > > Nature I would not say 'Just THIS!'. I would demostrate Buddha > > Nature. The best way I figured out how to do this in writing like on > > this forum is to type Just THIS! > > > > > zen or buddhism are not bigger or smaller. They may be different > > > ways in which the dharma is transmitted and nothing else. > > > > > > > When I say zen is smaller than Buddhism, I mean zen is the core and > > Buddhism (or Hinduism or Christianity) is the packaging. Like zen is > > the marrow and Buddhsim is the bone which contains but hides the > > marrow, or maybe even Buddhism is the entire body. It's hard to get > > to the marrow if you have to hack through the body and the bone. > > > > > I'm truly happy to see you active in the list. Sorry if we can't > > > help oneselves by letting you lurking. I suppose we all miss you > > > very much. The zen forum is not the same without you, JM, Mike, > > > Edgar.... > > > > > > A respectuos bow to you > > > Mayka > > > > > > > El gusto es mio... > > > > ...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/
