JMJM, Thanks for your reply. The zen I practice (and was taught) has no spiritual component.
I just thought from reading some of your previous posts that Chan does. Maybe I'm wrong. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], 覺å¦ç²¾æ ï¼JMJMï¼ <chan.jmjm@...> wrote: > > 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 [email protected] <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 [email protected] > > <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
