JM, Thank you for your explanation. Id on't fully understand your practice, but it sounds to me it is similar to the Hindu practice of 'in union with Brahma'. That is also a good practice. Brahma is also supposed to be the universe. Anthony
________________________________ From: 覺妙精明 （JMJM） <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012, 7:45 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: The Self Illusion Hi Anthony, Thank you for mention my name. Ah, I love you too.. :-) Then I better clarify a little more... Chan is the "essence/nature/characteristic" which manifest "everything" in the universe, which is not different from the "Buddha nature" within all of us. As our body and "everything" continue to recycle, this "essence/nature/characteristic" continues to manifest/dictate/influence. To witness/realize this "nature/characteristics" is to sync to it, with our "integrated body/mind/spirit", or as our school call it, our "spiritual entity". Because it is just a set of characteristics, study/understand/analyze/memorize are functions for our brain and not our spirit. Our spirit contains the same nature, which could be labeled as compassion, wisdom, kindness, etc. It just is. As K said Everything is just is. Value, objective, opinions, theory, description, practice, etc. etc. are for the human mind and not the human spirit. Not sure I made it clearer or more confusing. :-) jm On 6/13/2012 3:24 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: >K, your remark puts you on the same footing as JMJM who says chan is the >universe. ED, he also says things to no avail, but we can all benefit from >that. I like the kindhearted JM. > >Anthony > > >From: ED mailto:[email protected] >To: [email protected] >Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2012, 23:00 >Subject: [Zen] Re: The Self Illusion > > > > > >K, and that is why all this talk about compassion, idiot or otherwise is >to no avail? > >--ED > >--- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Kristopher Grey mailto:kris@... >wrote: >> >> There is nothing "in" Zen, nothing that is not an an aspect of Zen. > >> K > >> > Bill, >> > Is there such a thing in zen called 'compassion', as is there a >> > quality called 'hungry', or as from other categories you name it? >> > Anthony > >> > ED, >> > >> > 'Compassion' is a label a 3rd party places on someone else's >actions. >> > 'Compassion' as has been discussed in this thread is not something >you >> > 'do', its who/what you are. If you're dividing things up into >> > dualistic sets such as compassionate/not compassionate then you've >> > already missed the mark. >> > >> > 'Compassion' is not something you need to think about, much less >> > strive to cultivate - any more than you have to strive to be hungry. >> > >> > ...Bill! > >> > > Hi Bill and All - >> > > >> > > Three definitions of compassion from the Internet are: >> > > >> > > "Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of >> > > others." >> > > >> > > "A deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering. >> > > >> > > "The humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and >wanting >> > > to do something about it" >> > > >> > > What would a typical Buddhist or zen definition of compassion be? >> > > >> > > --ED > >> > > > Sheng Yen was a great monk. His word about compassion brings the >> > > question of the results of zen practice. Does it bring about >inhuman >> > > characteristics of no compassion? He also said, 'sit down and shut >up'. >> > > But that does not rule out the ensuing compassion. >> > > > >> > > > Anthony > > > >
