JM,
Be careful about Bill's generalization. It may wipe out all your
'spirits'.
Anthony
--- On *Thu, 7/4/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
/<[email protected]>/* wrote:
From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Does Zen contain spirituality?
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, 7 April, 2011, 2:33 PM
Hi Bill,
Very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I
enjoyed reading it.
From you input, it seems to indicate that in the western culture,
the word "spirit" and "spiritual" are not part of everyday life.
These two words are in the supernatural domain and beyond everyday
conversation. Is this true? Or is it just in Zen_Forum?
In the Chinese culture, spirit or spiritual states are very common
in everyday life. Usually if I say that I am happy or sad, it
also means that my spirit is high or low. Nothing supernatural
about it. I would say to the majority Chinese, mental state is
spiritual state. I don't know whether Anothony agrees with this
or not. It could be just me. Besides, my Chinese is not very
good either.
Please respond. I do understand that generalization are risky.
But this could be important to know.
Thank you,
JM
Be Enlightened In This Life - We ALL Can
http://chanjmjm.blogspot.com <http://chanjmjm.blogspot.com/>
http://www.heartchan.org <http://www.heartchan.org/>
On 4/6/2011 7:00 PM, Bill! wrote:
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!
