Anthony, No this instead... > Ontological energy = Tao = reality = consciousness = chi.
There is no 'unclean chi' because chi is formless. Various types of forms arise and may be perceived as clean or unclean or any other way but this is a mental impression of the form. The substance in which they arise is neither clean no unclean... Edgar On Jan 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: > > Edgar, > > The Yogacara school of Buddhism says 'mind' is the only thing that exists in > the universe. So can we say: > > Ontological energy = Tao = reality = mind = unclean chi? > > Anthony > > From: Edgar Owen [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2012, 22:05 > Subject: Re: [Zen] New to Group > > > Bill and JM, > > Tao is the universal life force that is and moves the universe. My name for > it is ontological energy, the energy of being. This is the single substance > of the universe. All the individual things of the universe are empty forms > that arise in ontological energy as waves and ripples and currents arise in > an ocean of water. Just as waves are forms only of water and have no self > substance, all the things of the world have no self substances but consist > only of the sea of ontological energy in which they arise. > > Chi is this Tao or ontological energy manifesting as the life force of some > individual being or thing. Buddha nature is another name for the same thing. > These are words we use when talking about individual manifestations of Tao. > It's like saying the real underlying substance of this being or thing is > ontological energy; the substance of this wave is water. > > The present moment is the same thing as ontological energy. They are both the > living substance of the universe = the universe. > > Consciousness is an individual observer's participation in this reality from > the perspective of its particular singularity. > > All that exists is the underlying sea of ontological energy and whatever > forms arise within it in the present moment. It defines and creates the > present moment because for something to be real and actual it must also be > present. > > This is reality. Realization is the direct experience of reality. Illusion is > experiencing the forms as things in themselves rather than manifestations of > ontological energy. Illusion arises because the mind constructs a simulation > of the actual reality in which we think we live. This simulation models the > world in terms of its individual things and fleshes them out with qualities > such as color and hardness and meaningfulness and attachments and desires, > none of which actually exist in the external world of forms which consist > only of information. > > The world of forms is not a physical world but a world of forms which consist > only of in-form-ation. The actual being of this form world is not at all like > our mind's simulation of it. It has no colors, sounds, attachments, meanings. > Those are added in our mind's simulation to make it easier and more > meaningful for us to function within even though they are illusion. > > The world of forms evolves according to the innate logical rules of > ontological energy just as water waves can evolve only according to the > nature of the water in which they arise. This is called causality but there > is no causality in the sense of prior states determining subsequent states, > there is actually only the evolution of forms according to rules in clock > time. > > I'll stop here as I suspect people are getting bored... > > Only one last note: The observer (you or I) is also just another empty form > that arises in the formless sea of ontological energy = Tao = reality = the > present moment.... > > Edgar > > > > On Jan 13, 2012, at 10:19 PM, 覺妙精明 wrote: > >> >> Oh, I need to be careful here, Bill. Please note there is this word of >> "universal" also in the definition. Some chi are localized and not >> universal. Some chi are dirty and unclean... :-) >> >> On 1/13/2012 7:03 PM, Bill! wrote: >>> >>> z*** Repost to correct typos *** >>> >>> JMJM, >>> >>> So...without any intention of trying to trap you with words and terms >>> because I know how difficult it is to explain things like in text... >>> >>> You described 'Buddha' as "universal life force and wisdom". I think (I >>> didn't go back to check) that I've seen you describe 'chi' as 'universal >>> life force'. That would lead me to believe the difference between 'Buddha' >>> and 'chi' might be the 'wisdom' part. >>> >>> Is that right? Or am I reading these defintions too literally? >>> >>> And if that's not right, what is the difference and relationship between >>> your concepts of 'Buddha' and 'chi'? >>> >>> ...Bill! >>> >>> --- In [email protected], 覺妙精明 <chan.jmjm@...> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Bill, Chi means energy in general, or life force. That's all chi >>> > means. In the Chinese culture, Fengshui, acupuncture, Taichi, etc. are >>> > all based on chi. Perhaps ask some China men in Thailand may give you >>> > more detailed examples. In short, most China may tell you that, without >>> > chi, the world is dead. jm >>> > >>> > On 1/13/2012 6:16 PM, Bill! wrote: >>> > > >>> > > JMJM, >>> > > >>> > > As always, thanks for your contribution. >>> > > >>> > > How does "Buddha in the general term is the "universal life force and >>> > > wisdom"" differ from your concept of 'chi' - or are the two just >>> > > different terms for the same thing? >>> > > >>> > > Thanks...Bill! >>> > > >>> > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, >>> > > 覺妙精明 <chan.jmjm@> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Bill & Mel and All, >>> > > > >>> > > > All the interpretation so far are close. Let me say a bit more. >>> > > > >>> > > > Buddha in the general term is the "universal life force and wisdom". >>> > > > When someone is "in sync" to it, this person is honored with the title >>> > > > of Buddha, such as Guatama Buddha, Guanyin Buddha, etc. >>> > > > >>> > > > Because it is the "universal life force and wisdom", it is everywhere >>> > > > and in everything, because it manifested all. >>> > > > >>> > > > And this universal life force and wisdom possess certain >>> > > > characteristics. Or in ordinary language, it functions by following a >>> > > > certain set of laws. This set of principles is also called the Laws of >>> > > > Nature, the Nature of the Universe, or Buddha Nature, or Self Nature. >>> > > > Everything in the universe functions according to this set of >>> > > > principles. My teacher has identify seven of them. If you are >>> > > > interested, I can share with you. >>> > > > >>> > > > Therefore, meditate to enhance our chi is critical to be in sync with >>> > > > the universal life force and wisdom. Like a radio receiver, it >>> > > > requires >>> > > > power to be sensitive. As our energy enhances, then we can witness >>> > > > spiritual healing, karma transfer, the TriKaya, etc., phenomena in the >>> > > > spiritual domain. Then we could intuitively witness our own Buddha >>> > > > Nature and its manifestation in everyday life, without having to >>> > > rely on >>> > > > external teachings through unreliable words. >>> > > > >>> > > > Yes, we are able to "just get it" within ourselves. >>> > > > JM >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On 1/13/2012 2:02 AM, Bill! wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Mel, >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks for your reply. You said a lot and I don't want to comment on >>> > > > > every little thing, but one thing you talked about is worth a few >>> > > words: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > The word/name 'Buddha' is confusing to many because it is both the >>> > > > > name (title actually) given to Guatama Siddartha after he became >>> > > > > enlightened - or so the story goes. I think 'Buddha' is a title that >>> > > > > means 'one who has awakened'. This historical person is called >>> > > > > 'Buddha' or 'the Buddha' by many, but he was not the first or >>> > > > > certainly only Buddha. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 'Buddha' is also used as a shortened version of 'Buddha Nature' or >>> > > > > 'Buddha Mind'. You'll hear many people say things like 'everyone is >>> > > > > a >>> > > > > Buddha', or 'everyone has a Buddha inside him'. What they should be >>> > > > > saying (IMO) is 'everyone has Buddha Nature' and it is just a matter >>> > > > > of realizing or becoming aware of Buddha Nature which you already >>> > > have. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Mel or anyone else, let me know if you understand these terms in a >>> > > > > different way. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > ...Bill! >>> > > > > >>> > > > > --- In [email protected] >>> > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> >>> > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, >>> > > > > Mel <gunnar19632000@> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Hello Bill and all >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > People refer to that Great All out there as 'god', and yet Taoists >>> > > > > have come up with TAO...and many involved with Zen in today's world >>> > > > > have referred to it as 'buddha'. I suppose it really depends from >>> > > > > which religious background the individual comes from. I have not >>> > > > > succeeded yet in going through the whole Bible(both Old and New, >>> > > > > plus >>> > > > > the Apocrypha) but I do believe that Christians at least have >>> > > > > enquired(judging from what I had read so far in online scriptural >>> > > > > discussions) whether the One and Supreme Creator has hands, wings, >>> > > > > feet, etc....in other words, an actual, physical being or make. >>> > > > > Being >>> > > > > so, the atheist camp would then say things such as,"If so, then >>> > > Yahweh >>> > > > > can't possibly be in more than one place at the same time"....and >>> > > > > yet >>> > > > > all of the Big 3 Faiths teach their followers that the Holy Father >>> > > > > sees all, and knows all. This then brings the question of....how big >>> > > > > is God exactly? Huge to the point that he sees and knows all? Is >>> > > > > this >>> > > > > about >>> > > > > > size? How is He exactly...everywhere? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Buddha. The world knows he was just a man. According to the late >>> > > Zen >>> > > > > teacher Deshimaru-sensei, there are sources to indicate that he died >>> > > > > from eating poisoned food, or pork. However, we do not worship(in >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > religious sense) the man who lived long ago. I personally do not >>> > > > > know >>> > > > > yet where the idea of 'buddha' being the same as 'god' or 'tao' >>> > > > > being >>> > > > > all and one...and the same thing. I personally accept it(minus the >>> > > > > Yahwe part). Let me first point out however, that my only source for >>> > > > > the moment is Zen Mind Beginners Mind...and TaoTeChing(trans., John >>> > > > > H >>> > > > > McDonald) to a very limited extent. With Buddha, there are no arms, >>> > > > > legs, eyes...and so forth...to mention, and yet the late Zen teacher >>> > > > > (Shunryu) Suzuki-sensei say that Buddha is everywhere. One may then >>> > > > > conclude...does Yahweh rest within Buddha's realm? If Yahweh has an >>> > > > > actual physical form, does He then exist within Buddha's embrace? I >>> > > > > personally do not know, but I can only speak of what I believe, or >>> > > > > > what my personal interpretation(s) is >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > I have 2 'buddha'-like statues in my room that I bow to before and >>> > > > > after zazen, or when I leave. However, this bowing is no more >>> > > > > different to me when I bow to my meal before I eat, and afterwards. >>> > > > > With this in mind, there is a parallel here with the Christian and >>> > > > > Jewish faiths(I'm lacking on info for the moment with Islam on this >>> > > > > one). But, these little 'buddhas' I own are not representative of >>> > > some >>> > > > > Being out there. They are worthy of respect because they represent >>> > > > > something much higher and worthy than my own dualistic >>> > > > > desires...especially greed and attachment >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Having said the above so far, is Buddha then made of air that that >>> > > > > travels around the planet and therefore sees and knows all, and >>> > > > > therefore everywhere? To me personally, Buddha has not got the >>> > > actual, >>> > > > > physical form I had described above...and yet Buddha is everywhere. >>> > > > > People new to Zen will not comprehend this easily, nor will it sit >>> > > > > easily with them if they understand, because there are no actual >>> > > > > descriptions, instructions, directions of faith or worship...and so >>> > > > > on >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > In Buddha's grace >>> > > > > > Mel >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > PS. I have mentioned the need for sincerity when it comes to >>> > > > > Zen...or Buddha if one prefers. What this means for the new seekers >>> > > > > is....how badly do you want Buddha? For my part as a Karate student, >>> > > > > the only way I can get through works such as... >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > - A Book of 5 Rings >>> > > > > > - Hagakure >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > ...is through Zen/Buddha. No goal, no attainment...if one must >>> > > > > > die, >>> > > > > then one must die. It's all about living this moment, and the next, >>> > > > > and the next, and the next.... >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > ________________________________ >>> > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> >>> > > > > > To: [email protected] >>> > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> >>> > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> >>> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2012 6:50 PM >>> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] New to Group >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Mel, >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Just to get you to share a little more with us I'll respond to >>> > > > > > your >>> > > > > post below: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > 'God' is supposed to be everywhere too, just like you said >>> > > Buddha was. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > So, do you think they're both (God and Buddha)in the same place >>> > > > > (everywhere) together? Or do you think they are the same thing? Or >>> > > what? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > ...Bill! >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> > > > > >
