Bill, No.... As JM says, and I also say, everything without exception is part of Buddha Nature and that includes thinking and the world of forms also...
Edgar On May 19, 2013, at 9:12 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > YES!, Yes and no, Not exactly, Not quite, Not exactly, and No and yes...I'd > give you an overall grade of C- or D+ for this post. > > You wrote: > > > Initially realization involves stopping thinking. (As in sitting Buddha > > Nature is directly realized) > - YES! Buddha Nature has been there all along. Thinking (dualism / > intellectualization) has been operating in the foreground and has obscured > Buddha Nature. The degree of opacity of thinking could be related to the > degree of attachment to thinking. When thinking is halted Buddha Nature is > revealed (realized). > > > But after that realization is brought BACK into thinking and thinking is > > realized as part of Buddha Nature. > - Yes and no. Thinking is reinstated but it is not part of Buddha Nature. > Buddha Nature and thinking now co-exist in awareness. Unless you've had a > very, very strong initial awakening thinking still operates in the foreground > and Buddha Nature in the background, but thinking is not now completely > opaque so Buddha Nature is not completely obscured. The degree of opaqueness > of thinking vis-a-vis Buddha Nature is dependent upon the strength of the > initial realization and the application of practice. > > > If that were not true Realized masters would be unable to think without > > losing their realization. > - Not exactly. This is just a nit pick point, but if "Realized masters" were > unable to think they would not necessarily loose their realization > (experience) of Buddha Nature, but I imagine they would not be able to > express it or function in everyday life. It's just hypothetical but I'd > imagine if this did occur the person would just be in a trance-like state > until they died of dehydration or starvation (unless they were a prisoner at > Gitmo and were being force-fed). > > > And Realized masters clearly DO THINK without losing their realization.... > - Yes. They do, and that's possible because the have learned (through zen > practice or some other discipline like maybe Chan) to maintain a BALANCE > between Buddha Nature and thinking (intellectualization). In a fully > 'Realized master' Buddha Nature operates in the foreground and thinking > occurs transparently (without attachment) in the background. As a > 'authoritative' reference (which must be 'true', right?) I offer: > > "It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the > consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced > object, and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated > while the person remains conscious. In Buddhism, it can also refer to an > abiding in which mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object > of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing > flow of experience." > - Samadhi: Wikipedia.com > > Not does this description must sound very familiar to anyone whose read my > posts! > > > Therefore thinking becomes part of realization..... > - Not quite. 'Realization' is realization of Buddha Nature. After realization > thinking is reinstated, but it is not a part of realization. It is a part of > enlightenment playing a secondary, background role. > > > > > Realization is the realization of everything without exception including > > thinking..... > - No. The term 'realization', is the realization (experience) of Buddha > Nature. Buddha Nature is not 'everything' as you constantly use this term. > > > Realization is the realization of the true nature of ALL things. > - Not exactly. Realization is the experience of Buddha Nature. Experience is > 'the true nature of things', and it is because it is devoid of illusion - > thinking. Thinking does not represent the 'true nature of all things'. > > > Realization is not just making the world of things and thoughts go away... > - No and Yes. No, realization is just experiencing Buddha Nature. Buddha > Nature does not include the 'world of things' and thoughts which are based on > dualism. Yes, realization (experience) of Buddha Nature does make "the world > of things and thoughts go away" - although I'd re-word that to be 'Experience > of Buddha Nature does dissolve the illusory world of things and thoughts' but > as I've said above these are then reinstated without attachments in a more > balanced manner. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > JM, > > > > This is correct but JM expresses only the first part. > > > > Initially realization involves stopping thinking. (As in sitting Buddha > > Nature is directly realized) > > > > But after that realization is brought BACK into thinking and thinking is > > realized as part of Buddha Nature. > > > > If that were not true Realized masters would be unable to think without > > losing their realization. > > > > And Realized masters clearly DO THINK without losing their realization.... > > > > Therefore thinking becomes part of realization..... > > > > Realization is the realization of everything without exception including > > thinking..... > > > > Realization is the realization of the true nature of ALL things. > > > > Realization is not just making the world of things and thoughts go away... > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Juemiao Jingming wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > As I said, your definition of zen, is also part of Chan. Not different, > > > just incomplete. > > > > > > If we go back to the origin, Chan is "Not cast in words. Transmit beyond > > > teaching." > > > > > > In other words, Chan does not involve with any concept or logic. Chan is > > > pure transmission, meaning synchronization. > > > > > > All practices are part of Chan. Just different routes, some more direct. > > > > > > The key is not trying to understand it, but to feel and sense it. Begins > > > by completely drop our logic. > > > > > > For your reference. > > > Jm > > > > > > On May 19, 2013 7:06 AM, "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > > > > JMJM, > > > > > > I've never insisted that zen and Chan are different. I've only pointed > > > out that some of your descriptions of Chan are different from what I know > > > as zen. > > > > > > I don't think there are any fundamental difference, but then again I > > > don't know for sure. Like I said below zen is not everything. It is a > > > practice. There are human activities that are not part of that practice. > > > > > > If that's different for Chan then they are different. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 覺妙精明 （JMJM） <chan.jmjm@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > You always insisted that there are differences in zen, Zen, Chan. I can > > > > accept all of that, because all of that is inclusive in Chan. They are > > > > all description of the same one fundamental thing, the universal life > > > > force and wisdom and all of its manifestations. > > > > > > > > JM > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/19/2013 6:52 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > JMJM and Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > I don't know about Chan, but zen is a human practice that assists in > > > > > balancing the interplay between Human Nature and Buddha Nature. I > > > > > went > > > > > on to describe it in more detail in a recent post. > > > > > > > > > > It is not everything. It is a practice. There are human activities > > > > > that are not part of that practice. > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > JMJM, > > > > > > > > > > > > That's my understanding too. That's how I use the word though I > > > > > usually refer to it as Zen. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not something confined to any sect, temple or teacher though > > > > > > it > > > > > may be recognized and taught therein. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chan or Zen is just a name for the fundamental reality of the > > > > > > world. > > > > > But the name is not the reality, it just references the reality... > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2013, at 9:08 AM, 覺妙精明 > > > > > > （JMJM） wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chan is the absolute and most fundamental dharma. Chan is the > > > > > essence of all and everything. > > > > > > > Chan can be expressed with any kind of word or no word at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/19/2013 1:00 AM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Would it be fair to say that Cha'n still retains more of its > > > > > original Indian Mahayana flavour than Japanese Zen? At least in it's > > > > > outward expression, if not in its stories. I can almost smell the > > > > > incense from here! ( meant respectfully). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> With cheeks together, on a chair, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Mike > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> From: Joe <desert_woodworker@>; > > > > > > >> To: <[email protected] > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>>; > > > > > > >> Subject: [Zen] Re: What is Enlightenment? > > > > > > >> Sent: Sun, May 19, 2013 5:26:17 AM > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> JMJM, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Well done. Well expressed. Be well. Please take good care. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Hands together, and with bow, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> --Joe > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > <chan.jmjm@> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Everything we truly seek belongs to heart, i.e. peace, > > > > > > >> > happiness, > > > > > > >> > etc. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Enhance the sensitivity of our heart. Accept all as is. > > > > > > >> > Surpass > > > > > the realm of desire, form and formlessness. Sync with the universal > > > > > wisdom through our heart is the key to enlightenment. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > with palms together, > > > > > > >> > jm > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
