Edgar,  In teaching words, they are the same.  Why is there the "shout", 
the "stick", the robe and the rituals? :-) 

Actually, in China, some of the linages have the same issues.  As you 
know, this is the dark age of spirituality.  :-(
JM

Edgar Owen wrote:
>
> JM,
>
>
> If northern chan was the gradual awakening and Japanese zen comes from 
> that why does most Japanese Zen emphasize sudden, not gradual awakening?
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:33 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 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 [email protected] 
>> <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, 
>> > "Mayka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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