Hi Bill,
The key in KG's post was "Taoist soil". Well known Taoist practices are
fengshui, Qigong, Taichi, acupuncture, etc. They all cultivate or
channel qi(chi) in different ways. In other words, Sitting Chan is
Taoist, but the explanation is more Buddhist. The reasons for
utilizing Buddhist terms, when Chan suppose to be taught "without
words", is for the convenience of the practitioner. It is convenient
especially in the spiritual domain, and you were right in your
understanding that Chan could be more spiritual than zen, or more
accurately in your understanding of zen.
Perhaps it is a good time to discuss Sitting Chan, since it seems to be
the key difference. We say, Sitting Chan is to sit in the "life force
and wisdom of Chan". As you recall, we define Chan to be the "universal
life force and wisdom". As our mind quiets down, our awareness and
focus to our body and mind enhances. We can then feel/channel/direct
the chi circulation in our body and similarly, we "know" how quiet is
our mind. When that happens, we could integrate our body and mind and be
one with the ONE and be in sync with its energy and wisdom naturally and
automatically.
Academically, Chan categorizes the ability of "knowing" the states of
our mind, "awareness" and "focus" to be in the spiritual domain, which
resides in our "heart", while categorizes "thoughts, logic, words," in
the mental domain or "mind". This is so, purely for convenience of
teaching, especially cross language barriers.
I suspect "mindfulness meditation" or Zazen emphasizes the same
principles -- awarenesss. Would you not agree that to be "aware" of
what we were thinking would be logically easier to explain, if it is NOT
the functions of the same mind which does the thinking? Therefore, in
our school, we say "enhance your spiritual awareness to notice and quiet
your mind."
If you agree, then zen and Chan are not different in the spiritual sense.
I wrote a bunch of words purely trying to communicate.
Thank you,
jm
On 7/23/2012 1:37 AM, Bill! wrote:
Kris,
All you say is okay but please clarify that when you say 'zen' you at
least mean 'Zen Buddhism'. 'zen' no sects. Only religious have sects.
Buddhism has sects, and one of those is Zen Buddhism. Zen Buddhism,
being a religion, also has sects, but 'zen' is not dependent upon (as
in being a sub-set of) any of these.
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote:
>
> Ch'an, sprouts from Buddist seed planted in Taoist soil. It's fruit was
> eaten by a Shinto bird spirit, who's shit bore the the seeds to Japan
> that spouted the sects of Zen. ;)
>
> KG
>
>
> On 7/22/2012 9:32 PM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > ED,
> >
> > My response below assumes by 'chan' and 'zen' you mean 'Chinese Chan
> > Buddhism' and 'Japanese Zen Buddhism'. Anyway, my response below is
> > limited to my knowledge of those...
> >
> > I only know of Chan from what I've read and the excellent information
> > JMJM has given us through his posts. From these I do think there is a
> > little difference between Chinese Chan Buddhism and Japanese Zen
> > Buddhism, but most of that I see are due to the different cultural
> > wrappings of each. There are many more parallels and similarities
than
> > differences. They are both from the school of Mahayana Buddhism. If I
> > were to grab any one difference to emphasize I would say Chan
Buddhism
> > is a little more mystical than Japanese Zen Buddhism but that's
about all.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill and JM,
> > >
> > > Do either of you perceive any substantive difference between
chan and
> > > zen?
> > >
> > > --ED
> > >
> >
> >
>
