Bill, Chi can be classified into two areas: metaphysical and physical. The former is associated with your feelings of 'light' or 'warm currents' flowing in your body. I am not clear about that. If you say it is makyo or illusion, I don't agree or disaagree. But the latter classification of chi, which can be detected by modern instruments and used to cure diseases, is definitely physical and worldly, not at all illusion. Anthony
________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2012, 13:51 Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen Joe, I think "...entirely Empirical and Experiential..." describes what I am talking about. I would not use the word 'mystical' or 'spiritual' to describe that though. Again I would say there's nothing 'spiritual' or 'mystical' about the zen I practice. It's quintessentially mundane. I associate spirituality and mysticism to religions, and I do not consider zen a religion - like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc... These religions all have varying degrees of belief in spirituality and mysticism - and a lot of rules too! I do believe 'chi' is makyo (illusory). I have 'experienced' it myself in many ways, but most especially as associated with my early zen practice as 'joriki' - but I do believe it to be illusory like my 'experiences' of good and evil, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly. I know this is one of the more important areas that my zen practice diverges from Zen Buddhism but most especially Chan. ...Bill! --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Thanks, Bill. Those are GREAT teachers who you worked with. > > I knew Maezumi, and he was our first teacher in Tucson, before the sangha > here early-on decided to become aligned with Aitken Roshi and the Diamond > Sangha. We became the first affiliate of the DS, and there are now about 21 > such around the world. > > Maezumi came to Tucson once or twice and held sesshin here in the earliest > days of ZDS (Zen Desert Sangha). > > But I was not here (in Tucson), then. > > I knew Maezumi Roshi in New York City and sat with him at Bernie Glassman's > place when Maezumi finally came to visit Bernie after Bernie set up a place > of his own. Maezumi "kept away" from Bernie's for at least a year, so Bernie > and his sangha would not be distracted by a more experienced and older > teacher. I remember Maezumi Roshi fondly, although I did not have dokusan > with him. I sat with him on a few nights when he was at Bernie's first place > in NYC, in Riverdale (before they later bought the Greystone Mansion), while > I was Sheng Yen's student. It was 1980, and I was Sheng Yen's student since > Feb., 1979, and became Sheng Yen's Disciple in May, 1979, on a 7-day Ch'an > retreat. > > I became good friends with John Daido Loori, who, like Bernie, was also given > transmission by Maezumi. I did not join John's fledgling Zen Arts community > at Mt. Tremper NY because I was leaving the USA to do research in radio > astronomy in the Andes, but I was there at the start. My friend, the late Lex > Hixon of the Pacifica Network of radio stations, station WBAI-FM-99.5 in NYC > was hugely instrumental in getting Bernie and John lots of publicity on his > weekly Sunday 3-hour radio program, "In The Spirit." > > All the literature of ZCLA was very influential on me in the 1970s and very > early 1980s, and to this day. I continued to receive THE TEN DIRECTIONS > regularly when I lived on a mountain in Chile, through the Diplomatic Mailbag. > > Koryu Roshi, I did not know, but I love his photograph which I saw in some of > the ZDS literature. I think in the ON ZEN PRACTICE series, by Maezumi and > Glassman, in 1978 and 1979. His kind face made a very memorable impression, > but I have not seen it in years. I think Glassman studied with him, too, and > said that Koryu Roshi only worked koans, and Bernie worked koans with Koryu. > > You and I use "spiritual" in very different senses now. I consider everything > about our practice to be spiritual, even the most mundane and everyday > things, all the way up to and through realization. For you it seems to > connote something different, maybe something not noticed by Science or yet > verified by scientific instruments. > > I'd say that "Chi" is not to me spiritual in the sense in which you say > understand spiritual: to me it is instead entirely empirical and physical. If > one has not experienced chi and its circulation and its effects, then perhaps > it is just magical talk. But even as a scientist I can assure you that it is > sensed by the practitioner. Not because we cultivate it, but because it goes > with the territory when we are practicing well. And it is *not* Makyo. > > I think that by "spiritual", you personally may mean something like > "magical", and "manifestly-false", or "naive", for we Modern folk. I'd say > that Chi is not so. Nor are the powers that are often remarked on upon > awakening. These are experiences, not hidden suppositions. > > On the other hand, I'd say that all of our practice is Spiritual, yes, all, > even the most mundane and "everyday" aspects. It's not that I am here trying > to trivialize the "Spiritual": it's that I am, with all respect, going about > elevating the mundane to the miraculous, ...but only because that is the way > I see and experience it, even after 60 years. > > It's not an EFFORT of mine. It's an Appreciation: A word I learned from > your/our Maezumi! > > Hail, > > --Joe > > PS By the way, "Mystical" means entirely Empirical and Experiential. This is > to distinguish it from "REVEALED" religion, which is through texts, > scripture. Mystics are Empiricists (or, Experimentalists). > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > All of it (zen/Buddha Nature) is not spiritual - IMO. > > > > > (If you will, who is/was that teacher who taught in such a way?) > > > > I've had 2 formal teachers in my life and neither taught me that zen was or > > was not spiritual. That topic just didn't come up to the best of my > > recollection. These teachers were first Koryu Osaka Roshi and second Taizan > > Maezumi Roshi. My involvement with these two roshis began in the late 60's > > and continued through the 70's, but I kept in contact with Maezumi right up > > to his death in mid-1990. >
