Mike,
Thank you.
A bow to you.
JMJM
On 8/4/2012 9:59 AM, mike brown wrote:
JMJM,
Ok.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* 覺妙精明 （JMJM） <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Saturday, 4 August 2012, 17:57
*Subject:* Re: [Zen] Samadhi
Hi Mike,
Here comes the Kyosaku.... I hope your don't mind. :-)
You see the tree connecting to your mind. You miss the forest.
Please read the entire post addressing more than you, and not just
some phrases relating only to your post. Buddha or Chan is always the
WE and the WHOLE.
We don't have to be right or wrong. Defend or offend. Whether this
is Shikantaza or not, is not important. Though Shikantaza is only a
portion of Chan, it also serves its purposes and helps. Chan is in
Shikantaza. But Shikantaza is not Chan. Chan is just called Chan,
but not Chan.
Chan is ONE and ALL and it is not in logic or words or practice.
_/\_
JMJM
On 8/4/2012 9:44 AM, mike brown wrote:
>Sometimes, a real Kyosaku is necessary. :-)
Going by your own argument.. why? Surely a rolled up newspaper would
do? Or a piece of string? Why categorise anything if you're so
opposed to it? Why indeed go to a Chan sitting - surely a KKK meeting
would be the same? Categorising might not be an ultimate truth, but
it sure helps me when I go shopping for groceries. Sheesh!
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* 覺妙精明 （JMJM） <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, 4 August 2012, 17:34
*Subject:* Re: [Zen] Samadhi
Sometimes, a real Kyosaku is necessary. :-)
On 8/4/2012 8:49 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
On 8/3/2012 5:15 PM, mike brown wrote:
> Sometimes we have to categorise
Who says so?
Categorization happens, we are not bound to it.
Not a problem otherwise.
KG
