Bill!,

Lol! Gutei's finger cuts off your knife!

Mike




________________________________
From: "siska_...@yahoo.com" <siska_...@yahoo.com>
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 24 November, 2010 23:05:32
Subject: Re: [Zen] Perhaps

  
Hi Bill, Mayka,

I know the koan is for Mayka but I'm so tempted to say: Just This? 

I hope the term is not a registered trademark of yours :-)

Siska 
________________________________

From: Maria Lopez <flordel...@btinternet.com> 
Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:59:16 +0000 (GMT)
To: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>
ReplyTo: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: RE: [Zen] Perhaps
  
Bill; Everything you talked about was indeed form. In the peach example the 
forms are: peach, hands, eyes, lips and pleasant are forms. What you didn't 
talk 
about was the experience of just seeing, smelling, feeling and tasting. These 
are not forms. They are experience. They are empty. You place forms around them 
when you ‘think’ or ‘create the concepts of’ peach, hands, lips, pleasant, etc…

Mayka: Not to mention the word: "experience" didn't exclude the experience.  
The 
talk of the form was made in that way to point it out that in the experience of 
"just this" the form also takes part.  It's a motion in that motion is the 
experience.  One is not separated from the motion.  One is one with the now as 
endless motion travelling in the now and with everything that is happening.  Of 
course there is a direct experience with all that happening at once.   If you 
didn't have the peach you wouldn't have the experience of just this while 
eating 
the peach.  Not sure if I'm explaining well this.  Of course,  you can argue 
now; "If I didn't have the peach still I could have the experience of just 
this".  But in order to have that wouldn't be need of something else? And if 
so still this "just this" will be happening because of that "just that".  

 
Bill: Here is a koan for you: Say something about Emptiness!

Mayka: Emptiness of a separate self.
 
--- On Wed, 24/11/10, billsm...@hhs1963.org <billsm...@hhs1963.org> wrote:


>From: billsm...@hhs1963.org <billsm...@hhs1963.org>
>Subject: RE: [Zen] Perhaps
>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Wednesday, 24 November, 2010, 10:49
>
>
>  
>Mayka,
>
>You can't intrude on a discussion on this forum. All discussions are meant to 
>be 
>for all.
>
>Everything you talked about was indeed form. In the peach example the forms 
>are: 
>peach, hands, eyes, lips and pleasant are forms. What you didn't talk about 
>was 
>the experience of just seeing, smelling, feeling and tasting. These are not 
>forms. They are experience. They are empty. You place forms around them when 
>you 
>‘think’ or ‘create the concepts of’ peach, hands, lips, pleasant, etc…
>
>When there is Just THIS there is no peach, hands, eyes, lips or pleasant. 
>There 
>is Just THIS! which might be the raw experience of sight, smell, feel and/or 
>taste.
>
>The Prajnaparamita Sutra may indeed state that ‘Form is Emptiness and 
>Emptiness 
>in Form’, but you have not demonstrated that to me. You’ve only talked about 
>Form. Anyone can talk about Forms.
>
>Here is a koan for you: Say something about Emptiness!
>
>…Bill!
>
>From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
>Of 
>Maria Lopez
>Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:02 PM
>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [Zen] Perhaps
>
>JMJM and Bill:
>
>Sorry to intrude between your both interesting conversation but I'd like to 
>contribute to it too: 
>
>
>The way I experience "Just This" is that the form and the non form interbeing 
>with each other. I would disagree with Bill here saying that excludes de form. 
>The form takes part of the experience of "Just This". "Just This is in 
>continuous motion. It's the now travelling in the now.
>
>eg; I have a big nice peach in my two hands. 
>Peach=Form
>Hands=Form
>I look at it (I use my eyes to look at it. Eyes=Form). 
>I bring the peach to my lips (movement=Form, Lips=Form)
>Hmmm...what a pleasant smell (smell=form, thought=Form)
>....and etc.
>
>What it happens with just this is that there is no attachment to the motion 
>and 
>all sensations, thoughts, images etc etc.
>
>Another example will be the clap of a hand. Sound=Form
>Hand=Form
>
>The form and the non form are not separated from each other. They're one. The 
>form is in the non form and the non form is in the form. Even the 
>Prajnaparamita 
>Sutra can confirm this: "...Emptiness is form, form is emptiness...."
>
>Mayka
>
>--- On Wed, 24/11/10, billsm...@hhs1963.org <billsm...@hhs1963.org> wrote:
>
>From: billsm...@hhs1963.org <billsm...@hhs1963.org>
>Subject: RE: [Zen] Perhaps
>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Wednesday, 24 November, 2010, 4:10
>
>JMJM,
>
>I think what you expressed in the attached email is essentially correct. I do 
>use 'Just THIS!' to express emptiness, and the absence of forms.
>
>I have always assumed that when I use the term ‘illusions’ or 
>‘concepts’ 
>it is the same as your use of the word ‘form’.
>
>I don’t reject or completely ignore forms, in fact I use them all the time. 
>I’m using them right now. I’ve always said that my zen practice involves 
>learning to properly integrate forms into my life while maintaining the 
>knowledge that they are forms - illusions and impermanent - without substance.
>
>'Just THIS!' does not include forms. I think you would call it 'emptiness'. 
>However my attempt at communicating 'Just THIS!' or emptiness when using a 
>text-based media like this involves the use of forms - like words I type of 
>'Just THIS!'. Saying 'Just THIS!' is a little different in that it only 
>involves 
>creating a sound, and you only experience a sound. That's all there is to 
>that. 
>If you (or I) go on to create a concept or a definition or try to 'understand' 
>the sound 'Just THIS!', then we are creating a concept to explain the sound - 
>which is the same as saying we create a form to superimpose on emptiness. 
>Sometimes this seems necessary and I do that all the time. So do we all.
>
>Does this seem to correspond more closely with Chan teachings?
>
>Thanks...Bill!
>
>From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
>Of 
>Jue Miao Jing Ming - ????
>Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:56 AM
>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Zen] Perhaps
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>You stated that Shigantaza is "just this". If "just this" is indeed 
>Shigantaza, as you stated, now I would understand finally why you 
>channel most postings to "just this" as the singular truth and others as 
>"illusory".
>
>For us to communicate better, I like to clarify some of the terms that 
>we use. I believe that your "illusory" is equate to my "form". If so, 
>then "just this", or "clear mind", is not "as is", as per our previous 
>discussion.
>
>"As is" in my posts includes everything. It includes all the "forms", 
>as well as "clear mind" and a "heart with harmonious intentions". In 
>other words, "as is" includes both "illusions" and "clear mind" of 
>yours, plus "pure heart without other impulses".
>
>You are separating "Just this" from all "illusions", which is not wrong, 
>while we teach to accept all "forms" as well as maintaining a "clear 
>mind" and a "pure heart". "Pure heart" in our our school also means 
>"originally embedded with compassion or harmonious intentions".
>
>For us to live an enlightened life, accept/fulfill/consummate every 
>"form", or "illusion", is a required condition, which is why we need 
>"pana/wisdom" as well as maintaining a "clear mind without judgment" in 
>addition to "pure heart without various impulses, or without karmic 
>influence".
>
>These are the basis often for me to say "ALL". All includes the life 
>force and wisdom of the universal essence as well as all the transient, 
>relative and impermanent forms.
>
>Then we are whole and complete. Otherwise, we are still practicing a 
>incomplete practice.
>
>JMJM
>
>-- 
>Be Enlightened In This Life - We ALL Can
>http://chanjmjm.blogspot.com
>http://www.heartchan.org
>
>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
>database 5643 (20101123)__________
>
>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>http://www.eset.com
>
>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
>database 5643 (20101123)__________
>
>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>http://www.eset.com
>
>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
>database 5644 (20101124)__________
>
>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>http://www.eset.com
>
>
>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
>database 5644 (20101124)__________
>
>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
>database 5644 (20101124)__________
>
>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>http://www.eset.com
>
>
> 



      

Reply via email to