Yonyonson, A good quote but why do you think it applies to my post? If you disagree with it the valid approach is to give actual reasons why, otherwise it comes across as just your opinion....
Edgar On Jan 18, 2012, at 12:54 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > LET US NOT MAKE ARBITRARY CONJECTURES > ABOUT THE GREATEST MATTERS. -- Heraclitus > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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! >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> > > > > >
