Bill, Thai 'chi' also means an unordained nun. In that sense, of course, it is very sterile. In the sense you refer to, i don't think it is sterilized, unless you put antibiotic beforehand. anthony
________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 15 January 2012, 16:28 Subject: Re: [Zen] Illusory Concept Anthony, 'Chi' is never unclean. In fact it is very sterile. I assume you're talking about Thai 'chi'. *** pun intended *** ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > JM, >  > Can you see jumping from the top of a nine story building and getting killed > is an act of 'emptiness'? >  > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: 覺妙精明 <chan.jmjm@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, 15 January 2012, 1:27 > Subject: [Zen] Illusory Concept > > >  > Hi Ed, If I remember correctly, this is the second time that you have asked > this question and it is an important one. Let me address it again. > > In short, any attachment (insistence) of any concept, whether fore or > against, is the act of our discriminating mind working in the concept and > logic domain, which is emptiness by nature. In others dualistic, or illusory. > > Mike and Edgar both said in similar ways, "there is nothing except, majority > is in the formless (96% is dark energy and dark matter)" In other words, > all concepts, logic and words are emptiness by nature. Yet all are valid, > because they all are there serving the universe for some reason. > > By asserting one is valid or not valid, we are discriminating, categorizing > emptiness itself. > > "Just This" is "ontological energy", is "chi", is "Buddha Nature", is "just > sit", is "not thinking", is "...." They all serve the same purpose or > objective, though they may differ in the detailed instructions. > > I trust most of the people in this forum emphasizes the fact "sitting", is an > effective way to let our inner wisdom unfold, so that we could live in > harmony. And all discussions are really for awaking ourselves. All are > valid. Any instance or denial of any logic or concept is an "attachment to > dharma". Dharma is everywhere and in every moment, (Diamond Sutra) > > In short, Chan is One. One is ALL.(Hsinhsin Ming) Unless we "see" clearly > all forms (logic, concept) are valid as well as invalid(empty), then we are > not in sync with the wisdom of the universe. In other words, all "effects", > though impermanent and emptiness by nature, exist for a reason. > > We strive to live a life "as is", accept "as is", then we see "cause and > effect", as well as its "nature of emptiness". > > jm > > > On 1/14/2012 7:34 AM, ED wrote: >  > > > > > >Bill, > > > >To assert that 'cause and effect' is an illusory concept is dualistic - > >and so is denial that the concept is illusory ??? > > > >Thanks, ED > > > >--- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > >> > >> Anthony, > >> > >> I don't consider myself 'more advanced' than you. In fact if anything > >I would like to think I am 'less advanced' than you. In the case of zen > >practice the more you unlearn and the less advanced you are from your > >Original Nature the better. > >> > >> I believe the concept of 'cause-and-effect' (like all concepts) is > >illusory. ONE of the reasons I believe this is because the concept of > >cause-and-effect is completely dependent upon the belief in a > >sequencial, serial, uni-directional flow of time. Cause-and-effect > >requires at least two separate actions, one - the cause- which happens > >before the other - the effect. > >> > >> There is no sequencial, serial, uni-directional flow of time. There is > >only an ILLUSION of a sequencial, serial, unidirectional flow of time. > >There is only Now. The past exists only in our mind - we call this > >memory. The future exists only in our mind as a logical projection(based > >on our belief in cause-and-effect) of a concatenation of our illusion of > >Past and Now. > >> > >> And, to employ the also equally illusory power of logic I can state: > >since the flow of time itself is illusory any concept based on time must > >also be illusory. > >> > >> I hope this helps to retard you a little... > >> > >> ...Bill! > > > > >
