Oh!  Now I get it...NOT!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> "just this" connotes some kind of insistence.  "as is" connotes 
> acceptance.  In our world of forms and delusional minds, acceptance 
> connotes results in less resistance.  It is apparent by now that 
zen may 
> have some Buddhist roots.  Words are what we called "convenient 
dharma" 
> or "方便法”.  :-)
> 
> Since zen is the naked core of all religion and faith, it can and 
it 
> must be able to explain all religion and faith, as well as 
reversely, 
> utilize all terms from other faith to explain itself.  Therefore 
> categorize some of the terms into zen and not zen is not zen.  In 
the 
> world of forms, all is partial, relative and incomplete.
> 
> Just for your reference as is.  :-)
> JM
> 
> Bill Smart wrote:
> >
> > JMJM,
> >
> > I really like 'As Is'. It might be better than 'Just THIS!' to
> > communicate what I'm trying to describe. As Mayka has recently
> > pointed out 'Just THIS!' has the dualistic connotation that there 
is
> > a 'THAT! somewhere. Of course 'As Is' could also be thought to 
have
> > a dualistic connotation that there is a 'Not As Is', but that's 
the
> > endemic danger of language. Whenever you open you mouth and spread
> > words around there's always the danger someone will come along and
> > trip over them.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%
40yahoogroups.com>, 
> > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> > <chan.jmjm@> 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â€Å"ï¼Å'
> > > 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> <mailto:Zen_Forum%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙
ç²¾æËÅ"Ž
> > > > <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> <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