Thank you for the clarification.  March On, Bill...

Bill Smart wrote:
>
> JMJM,
>
> My last post was difficult for you to understand because it was an
> attempt at a joke, and evidently a pretty poor attempt at that.
>
> What it was meant to convey was that I agree with you that it is
> difficult to talk about zen with words, but also necessary.
>
> Sorry for the confusion...Bill!
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, 
> Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Bill. This kind of wording is difficult for me to
> understand... JM
> >
> > Bill Smart wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh! Now I get it...NOT!
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Zen_Forum%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> > > <chan.jmjm@> 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 "æâ€"¹ä¾¿æ³•â€. :-)
> > > >
> > > > 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>
> > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Zen_Forum%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙
> ç²¾æËÅ"Ž
> > > > > <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>
> > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Zen_Forum%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > Jue Miao Jing Ming -
> ÃÆ'¨Â¦ÂºÃÆ'¥Â¦â„¢
> > > ÃÆ'§Â²Â¾ÃÆ'¦ËÅ"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>
> > > > > > > <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