Geof Nanto

Worth repeating! This is something I include it in my practise of Daoist Yang Sheng Fa (life-nourishing methods) along with food energetics, qigong and mediation. (As to the subject of the OP....Yes a random 'site down' outcome would certainly make Dao Bums less 24/7 machine-like. Perhaps if we manifest sufficiently strong Daoist de this new software may develop such a function 'self-so', like the random SQL error of the previous software version. )

Leonard Cohen died a year ago in his sleep in his house in Los Angeles. His son, Adam Cohen, crafted this poignant video collage as a memorial to his death. Leonard Cohen on the making of his superb final album, You Want it Darker……… “I want to acknowledge, with deep gratitude, the role my son Adam Cohen played in the making of You Want it Darker. Without his contribution there would be no record. At a certain point, after over a year of intense labor, both Pat Leonard and I, coincidentally, broke down with severe back injuries, and other disagreeable visitations. In my case, the situation was bleak, the discomfort acute, and the project was abandoned. Adam sensed that my recovery, if not my survival, depended on my getting back to work. He took over the project, established me in a medical chair to sing, and brought these unfinished songs to completion, preserving of course, many of Pat’s haunting musical themes. It is because of my son’s loving encouragement and skillful administration, that these songs exist in their present form. I cannot thank him enough.”

What exactly is “God”? Well, it’s just a word, albeit one that strongly connected with Abrahamic religions, usually defined something like: a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. Hence God as a term with a capital G is only meaningful within the context of the Abrahamic traditions; like Dao is meaningful in a special way for Daoists. As I don’t relate to those Abrahamic traditions, I’ll leave further discussion to those who do to either affirm or negate those theologies. (The reason I quoted Meister Eckhart’s insights above was because of their similarly to classical Daoism. His views are definitely not those of mainstream Christianity.)

I tend towards the notion that my brain, including its complex interconnections with my whole body, works like a receiver and amplifier of consciousness. Hence my practice includes my whole being, utilising, for example, Daoist Yang Sheng Fa (life-nourishing methods) such as food energetics, qigong and mediation. My environment is also important. See also https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/45429-the-divided-brain/#comment-789251 It's a vast topic though and I think a ‘don’t know’ attitude that allows total openness to new insight works well here, as it does with most all inner exploration. Hence, I think Marblehead was wise to limit himself to a couple of sentences.

Perhaps it's time for a song from someone who was certain in a way that I was until a greater reality showed me otherwise. (But I still very much like the song.)....... God is a concept By which we measure Our pain I'll say it again God is a concept By which we measure Our pain I don't believe in magic I don't believe in I-Ching I don't believe in Bible I don't believe in tarot I don't believe in Hitler I don't believe in Jesus I don't believe in Kennedy I don't believe in Buddha I don't believe in mantra I don't believe in Gita I don't believe in yoga I don't believe in kings I don't believe in Elvis I don't believe in Zimmerman I don't believe in Beatles I just believe in me Yoko and me And that's reality The dream is over What can I say? The dream is over Yesterday I was the dream weaver But now I'm reborn I was the Walrus But now I'm John And so dear friends You just have to carry on The dream is over ~ John Lennon

From Meister Eckhart….. Meister Eckhart's theology knows a "Godhead" of which no qualities, except unity and being 1, can be predicated; it "is becoming," it is not yet Lord of itself, and it represents an absolute coincidence of opposites: "But its simple nature is of forms formless; of becoming becomingless; of beings beingless; of things thingless," etc. Union of opposites is equivalent to unconsciousness, so far as human logic goes, for consciousness presupposes a differentiation into subject and object and a relation between them. Where there is no "other," or it does not yet exist, all possibility of consciousness ceases. Only the Father, the God "welling" out of the Godhead, "notices himself," becomes "beknown to himself," and "confronts himself as a Person." So, from the Father, comes the Son, as the Father's thought of his own being. In his original unity "he knows nothing" except the "suprareal" One which he is. As the Godhead is essentially unconsious so too is the man who lives in God. In his sermon on "The Poor in Spirit" (Matt. 5 : 3), the Meister says: "The man who has this poverty has everything he was when he lived not in any wise, neither in himself, nor in truth, nor in God. He is so quit and empty of all knowing that no knowledge of God is alive in him; for while he stood in the eternal nature of God, there lived in him not another: what lived there was himself. And so we say this man is as empty of his own knowledge as he was when he was not anything; he lets God work what he will, and he stands empty as when he came from God." Therefore he should love God in the following way: "Love him as he is: a not-God, a not-spirit, a not-person, a not-image; as a sheer, pure, dear One, which he is, sundered from all secondness; and in this One let us sink eternally, from nothing to nothing. So help us God. Amen." 31 Note 1. "Being" is controversial. The Master says: "God in the Godhead is a spiritual substance, so unfathomable that we can say nothing about it except that it is naught [niht ensi]. To say it is aught [iht] were more lying than true." (from C G Jung, Aion p193)

My participation here has helped me enormously with my personal practice. I take it seriously. I don’t come here for banter, although I appreciate that banter is an essential ingredient for forum cohesion. However, to my reading of the board, most everyone – if not everyone – takes their participation here seriously at a deeper level. If anyone doesn’t and cares to let me know, they will become my first entries on the “Ignore posts by this person” option.

I occasionally use the terms ‘left-brain function’ and ‘right-brain function’ in my posts – for instance, in this recent one – with emphasis on the importance of right-brain function for spiritual wholeness. Of course, I’m familiar with the research that shows we use both hemispheres for just about everything but my usage follows the more detailed work of Iain Gilchrist. His research, published as The Master and his Emissary, focuses on what each hemisphere does best…… “In one [the left hemisphere], because of the narrow focus, you're looking at things that you think are fixed and certain and isolated. And then the idea is you build the world up from little building blocks of things that are certain, putting one next to the other like building a wall. And that's a world that is mechanical and lifeless and linear in which you know for certain what you're dealing with, it doesn't change or shift, and that's helpful. It's a bit like a map of the world. The world is changing and moving all the time and it's got all kinds of complexity in it. But the map is simple and fixed, and it's useful because it's simple, because it leaves most of reality out. So that is the left hemisphere's world. The right hemisphere's world, at the same time is completely different. It is one in which there are no little fixed points, there are only massively interconnected complex systems. And the things that are in those systems are really useful heuristics ways of looking at it that help us, but they're not strictly separable from anything else. So you've got in that hemisphere a world in which things are interconnected, are not ever certain but ambiguous and have a number of meaning around them, in which things flow and change, and that is a much truer picture of the world. If you like, to compare them, you could think of the left hemisphere's world is a bit like what Newtonian mechanics told us the world was like; fixed objects that hit one another and cause things and so on. But the right hemisphere's view is more like what we now know from quantum mechanics, that it is uncertain, unstable, constantly changing and flowing, but much, much richer, this reality, although it's harder to grasp.” (Extract from a recent interview with him on the Australian radio program All in the Mind. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-divided-brain/8895804 ) According to Iain and many other people (including me), we are living in a world dominated by the left-brain’s representation (re-presentation) of reality. Hence, for those of us who are looking for the wholeness of direct connection, fostering right-brain function is vital. Interestingly, that exactly what many ancient teachings show us. For instance, the Daodejing gives a comprehensive ‘right-brain’ worldview.

Hi Aletheia I know nothing of Judith Butler other than she's a respected gender theorist. This is perhaps something for a separate topic? I'm about to turn off my computer for the day....will read more tomorrow. Yueya

Cheya once mentioned that Carlos Castaneda talked about the left and right brain hemispheres and that the corpus callosum was the "Sorcerer's Crossing" which had to be developed to become a person of power/sorcerer/enlightened. And I seem to remember McGilchrist making a reference to it used similarly in the Upanishads. He also says that communication across the corpus callosum favours the left hemisphere, and inhibits the right hemisphere. Hence it’s very easy to go into left-brain mode and difficult to escape from. I can vouch for that! But working directly with the corpus callosum it’s not something I’m in any way familiar with from my own practice. I’m a natural process kind of person; I just work on my overall connection to Dao in the ways I’ve previously mentioned and leave the rest up to nature. It may be slow but it’s thorough and makes for an enjoyable journey. I don’t like to do anything that seems like forcing internal processes to happen in predetermined ways. But I too would be interested to learn more of other member’s experience with this......a very important subject for me.

Continued… These are not different ways of thinking about the world, they are different ways of experiencing the world. Hence the saying, familiar to those of us on a path of wholeness, that words can only ever be like the finger pointing to the moon. For me, the most effective ways to foster right-hemisphere experience are qigong, meditation, silence and – most importantly – spending considerable periods alone in areas where the natural environment is still strong. Left-brain function is so pervasive these days that it permeates the whole atmosphere of our cities and extends right through the inhabited countryside. BTW Strong left-brain function is necessary to prosper in academia and in business! (And to a lesser extent, to effectively interact on this forum.) It’s also essential to cut through all the crap in spiritual circles - and in society in general.

Edit: I've deleted my original comment after the reading Chá Rén's posts below because I don't want to get involved in that type of discussion.

That's actually also a very Daoist perspective following the rule of three..... Mountain, no mountain, mountain.

In The Red Book, Carl Jung relates an encounter within his psyche between himself and Satan. He tells Satan, "Listen, something has just happened to us; we have united the opposites. Among other things, we have bonded you with God..... This unification is an important principle. We have put a stop to never ending quarrelling, to finally free our hands for real life" Needless to say Satan finds this to be foolish nonsense, and comments it smells of monism. Jung counters: "You're mistaken. Matters are not as rational with us as they seem to be. We have no single correct truth either. Rather a most remarkable and strange fact has occurred; after the opposites had been united, quite unexpectedly and incomprehensibly nothing further happened. Everything remained in place, peaceful and yet completely motionless, and life turned into a complete standstill." In other words, life manifests through polarity; polarity is needed for energy to flow. Consciousness would not be possible without polarity, without yin and yang interacting with each other in constant motion. But it’s a matter of continually finding what is an appropriate amount of polarity, neither too much or too little; the balance between peace and conflict. And finding that balance is something that’s fluid, different for everybody; a dance that’s continually being played out everywhere, including on this forum. Too much conflict destroys any community; too little and it lacks vitality, stagnates.

This topic is very relevant for people on a Daoist path….. In the past I’ve had strong political opinions and spent much time and energy in debate. However, now I’m well into the second half of my life my journey is showing me a path of homeless wandering – homeless not in a physical sense of not having a permanent building to live in (I have a very comfortable home), but without a permanent conceptual home. And it doesn’t mean I’m without the shelter of meaning – rather meanings (beliefs, conceptualizations) are like places I wander through. I accept all meanings as cultural constructs. They are fluid, continually evolving. It's been important for me to build my own beliefs and concepts, my own house – and I value all those people now and throughout history who have helped with their own efforts at concept building. They have given me my raw materials for my own sense-making; and given us all our extensive constructs of cultural values. This ongoing effort is hugely important. I suspect we must all participate in this building of our culture before we can validly become homeless wanders. And there’s no reason to leave home if you are comfortable there. Zhuangzi was the great homeless wanderer of ancient China. Ironically, we now make a home – a philosophy, a religion – out of his free and easy ramblings through vast landscapes of sense making and mystery. I have no problems with this – what’s meaningful for each of us is different and changes over time.

Hi Liminal, I like what you wrote but my ironical sense of humour said, "Ah! he's trying to be right on a deeper level." Oh, the insidiousness of wanting to be right! Am I right! I hope you stick around but that's entirely up to you, of course. I can only stay with something when it’s personally meaningful. Otherwise I feel inauthentic.

It seems to me yours is just a slightly different perspective on the same thing. In this particular passage Scott talks about prioritizing because he says, "the view from Dao is not our default perspective." Hence we need to remedy our normal conscious human-centred (anthropocentric) perspective by cultivating connection with Dao. (He expands his meaning greatly in the book.) We all have our favourite conceptualizations. For me, this "walking two roads" perspective resonates with Jung's ego / self theory that I recently referenced in my Zhenren thread. Ego, as defined by Jung as our centre of conscious, is our human-centred perspective; 'self' (as Jung defines it), is, using Daoist conceptualization, the view from Dao.

But what is the origin other than mystery? I'll leave it at that because I actually don't like to to pursue these sorts of discussions which, to my mind, go beyond what's expressible in words - indeed, beyond what I know. What I experience are deeper levels of mystery and at the same time deeper levels of connection. (I can see in retrospect that my search has always been for wholeness, not 'truth'.)

A .......And the truth is that there is no truth; rather mystery upon mystery.

Along with many “Thank You’s” the response was…………silence. It seems that many of us who relate to Daoism love silence; or at least shy away from extensive analysis. I personally like both - which is exactly what this topic is about. “Standing in two worlds” as you've described it is, in part, what Scott Bradley in his excellent commentary on the Zhuangzi calls "walking two roads". But the totality of his usage is far too nuanced for me to summarise. Hence I highly recommend his book All is Well in the Great Mess. (It’s available at minimal cost as a digital download.) Here’s a very small sample from his book....... In a nutshell, walking two roads suggests that we can simultaneously participate in two points of view, the view from Dao, a ‘higher’, more transcendent perspective, and the view from humanity, a more circumspect perspective. The view from Dao is to “understand the piping of Heaven”; the view from humanity is to “understand the piping of earth and man” [ZZ chpt 2]. One does not supersede the other, but since the view from Dao is not our default perspective and is remedial, it becomes necessary to prioritize it so as to allow it to inform our ‘normal’ everyday perspective. Contrasting examples of these two points of view are: the amorality of Nature versus the morality of humanity; the ‘all is well’ of the Whole versus the dysfunction of humanity; the indifference of Nature versus the caring of humanity; the goodness of death versus the desire to live; the happiness that depends on nothing versus the happiness that depends on circumstances. In each case, the human is affirmed while opened-up into the freedom of the all-affirming Totality.

Hi Dwai, Carl Jung likened his concept of ‘self’ to ‘atman’ but I know very little of Hindu conceptualization. What to think of this analysis? THE “SELF” IN CARL JUNG, ATMAN IN THE GITA AND ANATTA IN THE DHAMMAPADA The noted psychoanalyst Carl Jung has contemporized the concepts of soul and spirit with his theories of the “Self.” His work on individuation and the “Self” have amazing parallels with atman of the Gita and anatta of the Dhammapada. Jung studied the working of the human mind with meticulous detail and declared that the majority of us do not have complete knowledge of our mind. Workings of the human psyche, (conscious and unconscious mind) is as complex as the workings of our body. When we say ‘I know-myself’ we mean we know our conscious (ego) self only; we do not know our unconscious. The ego is only a small part of the psyche. The unconscious mind is hidden from us. It is hidden the same way as the anatomical and physiological workings of our body are hidden. Jung recommended that we pay all the attention we can to our unconscious. According to Jung our psychic system has an organizing center, the inner source. He called it the “Self.” When our life is out of balance the “Self” sends signals in dreams in the form of symbols so that we can do something about centering ourselves. We also receive the signals from the unconscious as instincts, hunches, intuitions and synchronicities. Each is a spontaneous product of the psyche with which the “Self” hints at something we need to pay attention to. When the ego (conscious) is willing to listen to the messages of the “Self,” the “Self” becomes more real. In order to progress spiritually an individual must train his ego to “listen” attentively to the “Self.” The individual who is attentive to the signs and signals from the unconscious feels guided by them. He develops an ability to find his way not only in the inner world but in the outer world as well. At some point, in the life of the self-aware individual, the ego encounters the “Great Man” within, blissfully merges into it, and becomes a national hero or a spiritual teacher. Throughout the ages men have been intuitively aware of the existence of the “Self.” It is represented as an “inner companion,” “intimate friend,” or the “Great Man.” In Buddhism the “Self” is projected as the Buddha, in Hinduism as Krishna. According to the Gita, at the core of each individual is a spark of the divine-atman. Through its eighteen chapters it discusses atman as dormant deep within. Hidden and unknown to most people, it is unsullied by the activities of the body. It is always at peace with whatever storms go on outside. An unwise person is unaware of atman, and has no spiritual guidance. He follows his ego and thinks he “knows” himself. With uncontrolled mind and untrained senses he is like a wildly flickering flame in a storm. The wise person, on the other hand, is like a steady flame in a windless place. For such a person atman is a friend and a guide. Just like Krishna is to Arjuna in the Gita. In the tenth chapter Krishna says, I am atman, the “Self” seated in the heart of all beings. He calls himself the inner guide and companion that can be experienced by deep devotion and by plunging deep into meditation. The Buddha contradicted the basic principle of a divine core within humans. When asked about atman, he kept the Golden Silence. He simply said to look within and explore for yourself what you will find. He taught to put an end to the ego with the earnest effort in meditation and to rely solely on oneself and seek no other support. He taught that self-reliance is a practical spiritual tool and that one’s permanent ground of being is one’s own self. The Dhammapada says that what lies deep within each one of us is untapped source of great energy. By staying in touch with it, it puts us on an inner path of spiritual growth. When our rational mind and the guide within work in unison, life becomes meaningful. The twelfth chapter of the Dhammapada says, “Guard yourself diligently,” “Before trying to guide others, be your own guide first. It is hard to learn to guide oneself,” and “Your own self is your master who else could be?” This teaching of the Buddha is called anatman or anatta meaning no-atman. Here the Buddha is talking not about traditional self such as in ‘yourself’ and ‘myself’ but about what Jung meant by the “Self.” The principle is strikingly similar to that of Jung’s “Self.” The Buddha had intuitively figured out that self-understanding, self-will and self-development leads to self-maturation. “With yourself well controlled, you gain a master very hard to find.” In summary, Jung’s “Self,” Gita’s atman and the Buddha’s oneself ultimately mean the same thing. The significant teaching is that we must pay heed to this ground of our being. Some time when we think logically and are ready to make a decision a feeling urges us to do otherwise. This is our unconscious sending a signal to follow our heart. The concepts of atman, individual self and psychic “Self” suggest that in humans there is an unchanging, everlasting and absolute inner source that is interdependent, that guides us on our life’s spiritual path. Stop and listen! The survival of the self depends on “Self,” the spiritual source of being. When we meditate, pray or worship we may address a being outside ourselves but the “kingdom of heaven” is within us. The divine power dwells in the depths of our consciousness. It is our true nature. (from http://www.madhubazazwangu.com/2010/08/jungs-self-hindu-atman-and-buddhist-anatta/ )

Daoists traditionally map our stages of life in terms of how jing (精) is used up as we get older. For women seven year cycles are important and for men eight year cycles. A detailed account of these cycles can be found in various Daoist sources such as Damo Mitchell, White Moon on the Mountain Peak pp40-3. I personally relate more to how Jung expresses the aging process; in key ways his descriptions parallel the Daoist stages but to my mind are more applicable to our contemporary lives...... In his essay The Stages of Life, Jung describes consciousness [as in the conditioned mind / acquired mind] as the source of our “problem,” contrasted with nature and instinct. For modern times, the “problem” disrupts the psychological progression of the life stages but also challenges the function of culture, which is individuation and self-development. The cultivation of self that ought to logically be the provenance of maturity, experience, and wisdom, is undermined and overthrown by the artificiality of consciousness, not only the continued adolescent behaviour of older people as an example but more deeply the modern failure to cultivate value. Thought, like desire and achievement, does not address the problem of consciousness but exacerbates it. The tendency of our thinking is rigidly linear.We only understand that kind of thinking which is a mere equation from which nothing comes out but what we have put in. That is the working of the intellect. Jung laments how few people are aware of the character of the stages of life, how many enter them successively neglecting their significance and failing to make the necessary and healthy transformations. Jung uses the sun to illustrate the stages of life. Visualize a circle, then place a cross within it to create four quadrants, which, from the lower left clockwise to the lower right, represent the sun’s progress across the sky, and our human stages of life from infancy to old age. The first quadrant is childhood, when our consciousness emerges from nowhere to begin its progress. Youth should not be impeded but allowed to grow, experience, and learn. In the long midday and afternoon span the adult years of career, profession, social obligation, and self-image, conforming to the many responsibilities of the ego and the instincts of the species. Then the sun begins to set, and new lessons by the aging must be observed and taken to heart in order to appropriately derive the lessons of this last stage. Jung draws out these lessons: Aging people should know that their lives are not mounting and expanding, but that an inexorable inner process enforces the contraction of life. … For the aging person it is a duty and necessity to devote serious attention to himself. After having lavished its light upon the world, the sun withdraws its rays in order to illuminate itself. Instead of doing likewise, many older people prefer to be hypochondriacs, misers, pedants, applauders of the past or else eternal adolescents — all lamentable substitutes for the illumination of the self, but inevitable consequences of the delusion that the second half must be governed by the principles of the first. … Money-making, social achievement, family and posterity are nothing but plain nature, not culture. Culture lies outside the purpose of nature. Could by any chance culture be the meaning and purpose of the second half of life? (The above is adapted from an article written by Meng-hu http://www.hermitary.com/thatch/?p=1787 )

I’m 63 years old and hence a good way into my second half of life, and even though my life has fallen well outside what’s considered normal, in retrospect I can see how my progression has still loosely conformed to the stages as delineated by Jung and Daoism. Both Jung and Daoism have been awesome teachers for me. I like to acknowledge that; to honour that gift with posts such as this one. I greatly weakened my health when I was younger through a period of heavy heroin addiction. Daoist Yang Sheng Fa (life-nourishing methods) such as food energetics, qigong and mediation have been absolute life savers. Hence I take discussions here on such subjects very seriously. I don’t post stuff that’s not personally meaningful. I started this topic because there’s so much pressure in our contemporary society for older people to continue with attitudes and lifestyles that are appropriate for younger people. “Thoroughly unprepared, we take the step into the afternoon of life. Worse still, we take this step with the false presupposition that our truths and our ideals will serve us as hitherto. But we cannot live the afternoon of life according to the program of life’s morning, for what was great in the morning will be little at evening and what in the morning was true, at evening will have become a lie.” Such insights strongly resonate with my own feelings and help reinforce the validity of my path.

Welcome to Dao Bums, Wisdomkeyz.

Although his is not conventional Daoist usage of the term Zhenren (真人), there's much I like in these thoughts on authenticity from Scott Bradley...... Zhenren: The Authentic Person Zhenren, a term apparently coined by Zhuangzi himself, signifies the fully realized human being. It is variously translated as "True Man", "Genuine Man", or "Real Man". Roger Ames prefers "Authentic Person" (Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi; Introduction). Among his reasons, is his belief that it more faithfully conveys the root meaning of zhen which implies authorship and transformation. In other words, the Authentic Person is someone in the continual process of creative self-disclosure (ziran) in relation to the ever-transforming world. "That is", he writes, "whatever the exemplar might be, he or she is one who is able to express personal integrity and uniqueness in the context of a transforming world." If there were more than one Authentic Person in the world, they would be very different expressions of the same authenticity. This is because such a person would not have realized some pre-existent, fixed and ideal 'original nature' common to all, but the unique expression of her own particularity. And not only this, her expression would also be a consequence of her transforming along with her particular and unique environmental context. Human authenticity is not static, but ever-dynamic. It is not conformity to some ideal norm, but the creation of an absolutely unique, entirely self-specific norm. Nor is it accomplished in a self-contained vacuum, but in relation to the world of personal experience. We are called upon to emulate and aspire to Authentic Personhood. To do so is not to imagine being like someone else, but to apprehend the dynamic — creative and relational — that facilitates that transformation. The test of authenticity is integrity with respect to one's own particular expression of personhood. The Authentic Person, moreover, has not "arrived", but is ever-evolving. Authenticity is ever-dynamic; if we can speak of possession, then this person is in possession of this dynamic, not of some imagined, fixed 'state of being'. Yes, there are common, normative precipitants that manifest from this authenticity. Chief among these is freedom from the egoic identity, a presumption of a static, insular, and fixed self which must be protected from the transforming world at large. And this manifests as freedom from the fear of loss, there being nothing to lose, and freedom from the acquisitive desire for merit and name (thinking oneself and being thought to be someone special), there being no aspect of self requiring support. These are the signs of authenticity because they are also what make it possible. Authenticity is always possible just as and where we are. No ideal is required. To be honestly engaged with the mess that we are, to be sincerely at work in the process of self-cultivation, is itself authenticity. Being human is authenticity, where that humanity realizes itself as self-creative and dynamic. (from http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/zhenren-authentic-person.html )