JMJM,
From what you've described in your posts I do think Chan has
considerable spiritual components, but I do want to clarify something
just to make sure we're talking about the same thing when we talk of
'spiritual'.
In the zen that I practice Buddha Nature is everything your teacher
said, "...beginning-less, beyond knowledge and comprehension. It is
the truth with indescribable form, empty yet manifests all forms."
These qualities alone (IMO) do not make something 'spiritual'. These
just make it unknowable by the rational mind. To me 'spiritual' means
more than just unknowable. 'Spiritual' means 'unearthly' or
'other-worldly' and usually implies 'supernatural', 'sacred' or
'holy'. In other words it means something other or additional to what
can be experienced through what we call our five senses: touch, sight,
hearing, smell, taste. In fact these are only one thing, and that one
thing is what makes us sentient and is in fact Buddha Nature.
This quality (being sentient)is "...beginning-less, beyond knowledge
and comprehension. It is the truth with indescribable form, empty yet
manifests all forms." But I don't describe it as 'spiritual'.
Now I do think certain aspects you have attributed to 'chi' do seem to
be 'spiritual', and that is why I stated I thought one of the
differences between Chan (as you've described) and zen (as I have
described.
I can only add that I am sure you'll find more spiritual aspects of
Zen Buddhism, the spirituality coming from Buddhism not from zen.
That is my understanding anyway.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
覺妙精明 （JMJM） <chan.jmjm@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill, From you numerous posts, I did understand that your practice
> may not include spiritual component. My teacher said, "Chan is a
> spiritual practice. It is beginning-less, beyond knowledge and
> comprehension. It is the truth with indescribable form, empty yet
> manifests all forms." jm
>
>
> On 7/25/2012 3:00 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > 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>
<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>
> > <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>
> > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill and JM,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do either of you perceive any substantive difference between
> > > > chan and
> > > > > > > zen?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --ED
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
