JMJM,

I really like the expression 'As Is'.  It might be a better way to 
express what I want to express than 'Just THIS!'

As Mayka recently pointed out 'Just THIS' carries the dualistic 
connotation that there could be a 'THAT', and that's now what I 
mean.  But I guess 'As Is' could be said to carry the smame type of 
dualistic connotation that there is a 'Not As Is'.  

I just don't know.  Words are very clumsy.  Its hard to spread them 
round without creating the danger of tripping over them.

Thanks for your post,

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My Dear Bill,
> 
> Since there is no YOU, there is truly no one to pick on.  :-)
> 
> In words, everything that you have said is the same as our 
school.  :-)  
> We use "As Is" instead of "Just This".  "As Is" in Chinese 
is "如來“, 
> which is the name of Buddha.  Every form has its causes to be 
> manifested, therefore, every form is "As Is", meaning complete 
> synchronization.  The difference between zen and Chan, is in the 
> invisible and the unwritten.  We emphasize the importance of the 
energy 
> of "As Is", which zen could mean just on the form.  When we say 
be "As 
> Is", we mean the energy which manifest the form and not the 
transient 
> form.  Only when there is energy, there is life.  And therefore 
there is 
> spirit. 
> 
> I understand fully why you take so much time to answer each post.  
You 
> Do have my deepest respect.  Yet, awakening must come from within 
and 
> quite difficult to be taught. 
> 
> Please practice with chi, you shall enter into a different realm.  
> Everything in this universe is As Is.  There is no maya, if we 
don't 
> think.  No matter what teachers or books say.  Everything we can 
> experience, we must not ignore.  When one's heart is open, he meets 
> Buddha, meaning universal truth. 
> 
> There is nothing to pick or choose.  Everything is As Is. 
> JM
> 
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > 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 <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> > <chan.jmjm@> 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> <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/

Reply via email to