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] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
覺妙精明 （JMJM） <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>
<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>
> > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill and JM,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do either of you perceive any substantive difference between
> > chan and
> > > > > zen?
> > > > >
> > > > > --ED
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
