Anthony, I and the machine are two.
Buddha Nature is one. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, >  > You and the machine are two or 'one'? >  > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2012, 17:05 > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > >  > > Anthony, > > EXCELLENT QUESTION! (an interesting one for me,anyway) > > Computers (finite-state digital computers)operate with pure logic. Software > is purely logical,and although it can't really 'breakdown' unless it is > corrupted, to answer your question when you develop or make changes to > software it definitely has to 'make sense' logically. It doesn't have to > 'make sense' to a human. In other words the results don't have to be > explainable to a human. The software only has to 'make sense' as in being > compatible with a pure logic machine. > > ...Bill! > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > Bill!, > > à> > I understand you are a great computer professional. When you repair a > > software breakdown, do you do it so that it makes sense, or not? > > à> > Anthony > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:59 > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > à> > Anthony, > > > > If you're looking for things that 'make sense' then you've come to the > > wrong forum. This is the zen forum, not the logic forum. > > > > I don't know why you always take things to the extreme. The justice system > > in the US and our medical system have are not designed with Buddha Nature > > in mind. They are somewhat logic-based institutions. They operate in the > > world of Maya (illusion) and will continue to do so. And yes it makes no > > 'sense' for them to close down because of Buddha Nature. Buddha Nature is > > not a 'making sense' proposition. > > > > If you think there are instruments that can detect 'chi' (or that you can > > detect 'chi') and that 'chi' can cure disease then go for it! Many people > > think killing snakes and drinking their blood cures diseases. Or making > > dolls and sticking pins in them causes changes in other people not present. > > Why ask me if you already 'know'? > > > > May your 'chi' be helpful and bright; and may all your Christmases be > > white... > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill!, > > > Ãâà> > > You may have answered the questions in more than 3 ways, but the only one > > > that 'makes sense' is that everything is illusion, so Holmes in Colorado > > > should be acquited. All doctors should shut down their clinics as it > > > makes no sense to deal with illusion all the time. > > > Ãâà> > > Physical chi can be detected by modern instruments and can cure diseases. > > > However, you can say that the instrument only 'feels' it, so that kind of > > > chi is also illusion. > > > Ãâà> > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 12:48 > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > Anthony, > > > > > > It amuses me that you've accused me of 'sidestepping' a difficult > > > question. I answered it 3 different ways. I'll try one more... > > > > > > [Anthony] "My question is whether or not you say the physical chi is also > > > illusion. How does illusion cure a disease?" > > > > > > If this think you call 'physical chi' can indeed be 'felt' as other > > > 'physical objects' are (and not just perceived to have been felt), then > > > it is not an illusion. If it is only perceived then it is, or at least > > > part of it is, an illusion. > > > > > > Illusion can indeed 'cure' (make it go away) disease because 'disease' is > > > also an illusion. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill! (not Bill), > > > > I envy your capability of sidestepping a difficult question. However, > > > > it dawns on me that Holmes in Colorado did nothing but illusion, so he > > > > should be acquitted. In particular, he announced the illusion, before > > > > he did it. > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 11:31 > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if you know what a very difficult question you've asked. > > > > At lease trying to answer it logically is very difficult. It's a deeply > > > > nested question. > > > > > > > > [Anthony] "My question is whether or not you say the physical chi is > > > > also illusion. How does illusion cure a disease?" > > > > > > > > The best answer to your question was given by Joshu many years ago and > > > > it is "Mu!". > > > > > > > > My poor (and very curt) attempt at answering it now follows: > > > > > > > > - Dualism is illusory, therefore... > > > > - Physicality itself is illusory. > > > > - All things such as 'chi' and 'you' and 'me' are illusory. > > > > - The concept of 'disease' is illusory > > > > - The concept of cause-and-effect is illusory > > > > - ...so when you strip all that away you get Just THIS!, or "Mu!'. > > > > > > > > Or using dualistic (logical) terms to answer: > > > > > > > > - if we can sense something it is real - not illusory. It is Buddha > > > > Nature. This includes things we can detect by 'extending' our senses > > > > with scientific instruments - like binoculars. > > > > - 'disease' is a state (of health) that we don't like. We can if we > > > > choose try to influence the environment so this state of health changes > > > > (or of course we could choose to stop disliking it and accept it for > > > > what it is). > > > > - if the state we don't like changes or even disappears frequently when > > > > we also perceive some other factor (like 'chi') then we might choose to > > > > believe there is some kind of cause-and-effect relationship between > > > > these two (illusory) events. > > > > > > > > Okay? ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > I don't contradict your statement, nor do I agree with, as tht is a > > > > > wide spectrum topic. My question is whether or not you say the > > > > > physical chi is also illusion. How does illusion cure a disease? > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 18:18 > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > Anything metaphysical is illusory...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > 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. > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2012, 13:51 > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ 'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬à ¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
