hey joe..we do the chi in tai chi...merle
Hi, Bill!, Good to catch you. Well, it was my post you replied to about Chi, not JMJM's. Maybe you know this, but you wrote "JMJM". Sometime, if you like, I will tell you my experience of Chi, over the years. I began early as a Yogi, before I can to Ch'an and Zen, and have always done physical practice in concert with meditation, so the body has had a good clarity over the years. But this did not prevent my needing to undergo a powerful purification, which happened spontaneously and automatically. The manifestations of Chi were very clear after this, and did a lot of work. I believe it was this rather thorough "scouring" of the body that the Chi carried out which allowed the open state to persist for so long in my case, upon and after the first opening with Sheng Yen (although I also continued practice after that first "Wu" opening). That period lasted 8 weeks, before the mind moved again. Chi is well understood and well identified by people who know about it. They can even help each other with it. But it is not fundamental to Ch'an, or to Ch'an teaching. It is just a fact of life. Taoists of course are "all about" Chi. But Ch'an-ists and Zennists tend to be mute about it publically, because it is a fact of life that simply goes with the territory, the territory being our Human body, and our energy. No mystery, and entirely real. More Western people will catch up, as more people experience it. No use my making a to-do about it. But if anybody is interested, I can offer observations and speak about effects. I've been a yogi a long time, and a Ch'an yogi, and Zen yogi, almost as long. I'm the same human, and have used the same human body in all kinds of practice. Chi will be quite a boon to western medicine and western science when it is experienced by more people. I laugh, remembering my observation earlier here about how western science is so well-equipped (literally) to study and monitor all sorts of things, but we can hardly produce ONE western subject worthy of study, when it comes to yogis or Ch'an or Zen adepts. In China and Japan, these things are well-studied by Science there already. For a while I might have been a good subject of study. I'm not sure, now. One grows accustomed to Chi and its movements. It's not a big deal anymore. As Dogen famously said about awakening: "It goes on endlessly, and leaves no trace". --Joe > "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > JMJM, > > I like you're characterization of 'inconsequential' or maybe we could say > 'moot' better than my characterization of illusory. In fact the more I chew > on this the more I think a term like that would be better for me to use most > of the time I have been using 'illusory'. The term 'illusory' seems to have > a negative connotation for a lot of people, and I don't intend it in that > way. I'll have to do some more chewing... > > Japanese Zen Buddhism does have the concept of 'joriki' and it is an energy > that is used in koan study to build up a critical mass of doubt (or just > plain nervous energy) to assist in kensho (initial experience of Buddha > Nature). I experienced it myself. > > However when I did ask my roshi later just what 'joriki' was I do remember > him telling me something like 'it's not important'. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > Bill!, JMJM, > > > > Chi is definitely not illusory. The fact that few Western people are > > trained enough to be open enough to sense it is something of a pity. That > > is changing. > > > > I will say openly that Chi is of no consequence in Chan, any more than > > breathing is. I know that some teachers may mention it or even help > > individual students with issues concerning it, but this is due to awareness > > of the matter being more common in China and probably in Japan than in the > > West, so far. Again, that is changing. > > > > We can practice Chan, just as we practice Zen, and never mention Chi, just > > as in Japan we don't need to mention ki. > > > > The more adept Chan and Zen yogis know all about Chi or ki or Shakti, and > > don't need to talk about it. > > > > It is *not* a fundamental part of Chan. > > > > JMJM may give me some heat for saying this, but I'll just give him some > > Chi, right back. Gladly. Chan is Chan. Chi is Chi. Breathing is > > breathing. > > > > --Joe > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > I know 'Chi/qi' is a fundamental part of the belief system in Chan so I > > > won't try to convince you it's just illusory, but that is my opinion. > > >
