Hi Donald;

I've heard that expresion about the Ground of Being in TNH tradition 
but I'm afraid haven't had a clear insight of it yet.  I was actually 
expecting you to explain it!.  I can see we both are in the same boat 
here. From what you're saying about "as is" means in your tradition 
it seems to me as it was closed to the same description as "The 
Ground of Being".

Mayka



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mayka,
> 
> I must apologize for having read only two books from TNH.  I don't 
know 
> the term "Ground Of Being".  Can you explain?
> 
> Most of my English terms are translated from Chinese.  So I need to 
be 
> careful and clear.  My terms are not from English writers. For 
instance, 
> your definition of karma is a lot closer to mine than others.  
Karma is 
> the cause to every phenomenon without a "good or bad" qualifier.
> 
> "As is" is used often to acknowledge the existence, transiency and 
> relative nature of every form, including all concepts, which are 
> constructs of our mind.  At the same time, "as is" surrenders our 
ego 
> and acknowledges the causal effect of universal life force and 
wisdom. 
> 
> In Buddhism, "as is" also means, "no beginning, no end."   It let 
every 
> being "be".  It flows along without interfering in harmony.  Yet it 
is 
> aware, active,  in sync and as you say, it let all "interbeings 
> interbe".  :-)
> 
> JM
> 
> Mayka wrote:
> >
> > Donald;
> >
> > The expresion "As is" in the way you explain on this context 
would it
> > be the equivalent to "The Ground of Being"?
> >
> > Mayka
> >
> > --- 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