Anthony, WHY ARE YOU SO ANNOYED? (...or is it ANNOYING?)
As usual my comments are embedded below: --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, >  > 'Chi' has a widespread meaning. When it is referred to as 'cosmic chi' it is > spiritual. But when it comes down to bodily chi flows along the 'jingluo' > system, which is widely studied in Chinese medicine, and borne out by > electric resistance devices, it is physical and real. It can be felt and it > heals diseases. [Bill!] I have no reason to doubt you, but I don't want your statement about "...widely studied in Chinese medicine, and borne out by electric resistance devices, it is physical and real..." to set some kind of precedence as to what is indisputable evidence on what is real. (Physical is another matter which I won't go into here.) If as you say "It can be felt..." (sense of touch) then I would agree with you that it is probably 'real' (as opposed to being an illusion). Whether or not it '...heals diseases.' is your opinion. This opinion may be based on direct observations, but assigning a cause-and-effect relationship between these two concepts (chi and healing disease) is a relationship created by your discriminating mind, in my opinion. > Your statement about spirit is in conformity with zen literature I read. > However, literature, including your idea, never explains what spirit is. Does > it exist? [Bill!] There is nothing to explain. 'Spirit' is a concept. It's illusory. It may exist for some as a concept, a belief, but it is an illusion - maya. >Furthermore, what is consciousness? Does it exist? [Bill!] This is a harder question to answer. Edgar (not ED) has as you know written a very weighty tome on this. But be careful when reading it. I think it actually gathers information about consciousness from you when you read it. I know when I tried to read it I frequently lost consciousness. My opinion is consciousness is simply a term we give for the awareness we experience that is the total aggregation of our senses. In other words it is Buddha Mind. All sentient beings have it - not COULD have it, or MIGHT have it, or MAY SOME DAY have it. They all have it RIGHT NOW. Is there anything more than 30 cane beatings from you, and Joshu, perhaps? [Bill!] I have met Joshu face-to-face without any cane beatings. (There were a few blows from from the head monk when I dozed off during zazen, but no actual cane beatings.) > Gotama also avoided reply to the question of 'is the world finite, > infinite, either or both?' But he showed ways of overcoming suffering. What > is zen for? [Bill!] I already responded to that question. I'll respond again. Zen is for Bill! What is Anthony for? ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, >  > 'Chi' has a widespread meaning. When it is referred to as 'cosmic chi' it is > spiritual. But when it comes down to bodily chi flows along the 'jingluo' > system, which is widely studied in Chinese medicine, and borne out by > electric resistance devices, it is physical and real. It can be felt and it > heals diseases. >  > Your statement about spirit is in conformity with zen literature I read. > However, literature, including your idea, never explains what spirit is. Does > it exist? Furthermore, what is consciousness? Does it exist? Is there > anything more than 30 cane beatings from you, and Joshu, perhaps? >  > Gotama also avoided reply to the question of 'is the world finite, > infinite, either or both?' But he showed ways of overcoming suffering. What > is zen for? >  > Anthony > > --- On Thu, 7/4/11, Bill! <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > Subject: [Zen] Re: Does Zen contain spirituality? > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, 7 April, 2011, 10:00 AM > > >  > > > > > JMJM, > It's about 8A here. I've been up since 6A and have had my moring cup of tea > - my personal favorite caffeine delivery device. > I'll embedd my comments in your original post below: > > > > JMJM: > > > > I have heard many people say, "I am spiritual but not religious." > > > > > > > > What does "am spiritual" mean? > > To answer this question we need to know what 'spiritual' and 'religious' > means, and especially what the differences are. We also have to assume that > the people you quoted are using the words correctly and all the same. > That's probably not true, but without interrogating each of them we'll just > have to assume they are. > *** All definitions are from Merriam-Webster Online *** > SPIRITUAL > The root of 'spiritual' is 'spirit' , which is defined as: > "1: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms > > 2: a supernatural being or essence" > So now we have to find out what 'supernatural' means: Again, according to > Merriam-Webster it means: > "1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable > universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or > devil > > 2:a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to > transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost > or spirit)" > RELIGIOUS > The root of 'religious' is 'religion', which is defined as: > "b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural" > Since 'supernatural' is used in both we should find out what 'natural' means: >  "a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : > essence" > So...from all of the above I'd say both 'spiritual' and 'religious' have to > do with things that are 'supernatural' - above or beyond the essence of > things. And the difference is 'spiritual' only implies belief in the > supernatural, where 'religious' implies service or worship or the > supernatural. > > > > > > > > In your opinion, does Zen contain spirituality? > > > > > Zen Buddhism I think does include 'spitituality' from the layers of Buddhism > in which it is encased.  In my opinion zen (lower case 'z' which for me > implies zen practice devoid of Buddhism or any other religion) is only > about 'essence' (in fact the term 'Buddha NATURE' is often used - which > just means 'pure essence' or 'raw awareness') and does not recognize > anything above or beyond that, such as anything 'supernatural'. The zen I > pracitce does not depend or refer to anything 'supernatural'. Therefore > in my opinion zen is not spiritual. >  > > > If yes, then what is spirituality? What is a spirit? Is there such a > thing? > > > > > I've given the definitionof spirituality and spirit above. In my opinion > these are illusory. > To put it into the perpective of Chan (from what you've taught me about > Chan) I think 1) the concept of 'chi' would be an excellent example of > 'spirit' ; 2) the belief in 'chi' would be an excercise in spiritualty; and > 3) the service or worship of 'chi' would be a religious act. From what > you've said about Chan I think it incorporates 1 and 2, but not 3 above. >  > > > If not, then what is Zen for? Live a better life? If so, does it mean > a > > > > happier life? If so, then is happiness a spiritual state? Is our mental > > > > state a spiritual state? Is there a difference? > > > > > The answer to 'what is Zen [Buddhism] for?' is up to each individual. I'm > sure for some it's practiced for peace-of-mind or health or ??? Maybe some > Zen Buddhists on this site will add their opinions on what they think 'Zen is > for'. The zen I practice is not 'for' anything, anymore than a tree is > 'for' something - or a river or the moon. It isn't 'for' anything > (although I'm sure 'men of science' could come up with lots of roles that > trees and rivers and the moon play in our enviornment, and therefore could > extrapolate of what they're 'for'. The zen I practice just 'is', in fact it > is my essence - or more correctly stated 'just essence' , Just THIS! > What is JMJM for? > Labels, valuations such as 'happier' or 'happiness' are illusory, and as such > are transitory. You can't have happy without having sad, and you can't have > either until you create 'self' so there is 1) something that can be or feel > happy/sad, and 2) other NOW's (Just THIS!) that you could compare to this > NOW in order to make the judgement as to whether this NOW is happier/sadder, > better/worse, etc... than the other NOW. Why bother? > > > > When we reach samadhi, kensho, satori, etc. is it a spiritual state? > > > > Mental state? Or just a state without label? > > > > > It is not a spiritual state, nothing supernatural. It is the quintessencial > natural act. It is 'essence'. It is called Buddha Nature. It exists > before labels are created. >  > > > > You could say, Zen can not be described, then I have not asked this > > > > question.:-) > > > > > I'm certainly glad to have not asked this question, and to thank you I have > not responded. >  > ...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: [email protected] [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/
