Anthony, Anything metaphysical is illusory...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, > Â > 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. > Â > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2012, 13:51 > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > Â > 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. > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
