Geof Nanto

Leonard Cohen - a great man whose life and works continue to inspire me. News of his death saddened me for sure, but somehow it also felt whole - like he had fulfilled his mission here on Earth to an outstanding degree. And to me it felt like his presence was still with us in more subtle form. So alongside my palpable sadness was a gentle feeling of contentment. I was holding off buying his latest album and only bought it after I heard of his death. Truly, it's a great album - one of his best! There's a Japanese tradition of writing a brief poem when at death's door. I bought a book of these poems expecting deep revelations as many are by Zen monks - but I was disappointed as most feel contrived to me. However, that's certainly not the case with Cohen's You Want it Darker. The whole album is excellent and contains the best death songs / poems I've ever heard. Totally authentic emotion from a master communicator - a magical weaving of darkness and light; of embodied humanness with its worldly desires interplaying with profound spiritual longing. But perhaps only deeply meaningful for few. I suspect he's too honest for most, for the many who seem to like their spirituality sugar coated.

Enjoying Existence 1. Water dragons and snakes haunt marshes while wallabies graze sparse grasslands. Possums sleep content in tree hollows while platypus delight in river waterholes – And I’m just like them, in love with my rustic cabin, my simple ways pure delight. Applebox trees out front, lofty Tallowwoods in back, I could idle away old age here with ease. Everything stays close to what keeps it content, no idea what others may crave. 2. I treasure what front eaves face and all that north windows frame. Eucalypt winds lavish out windows, colours exquisite, earth and sky. I gather it all into isolate mystery, thoughts fading into their source. Others may feel nothing in all this but it’s perfectly open to me now: Such kindred natures need share neither root nor form nor gesture. (After an early 9th century poem by Po Chü-i, adapted for my environment.)

To my understanding, Damo Mitchell is very much a proponent of indirect method. (Note: his teaching on indirect method is not the indirect method Dwai is describing here.) From his essay MASTERY OF FORM 1 (THE SIT)……. Over the years, I have travelled throughout Asia and studied various forms of Tantric (meaning 'works with energy') practice that aimed to raise energy upwards within the body. There are countless ways to achieve this aim, but I found many of these methods to be somewhat risky. This is because the majority of the methods I came across were based around forcefully lifting Qi upwards through the use of forceful breathing methods or strong mental focus. In many instances the energy of the base instinctual drive of sexual desire was used as a kind of mental 'fuel' for this lifting process — a method that has found its way into many Western schools of internal practice. In almost all of these methods there are many people who have damaged themselves both physically and emotionally, as they are using the wrong aspect of mind as well as a forced method. If you force something to take place, or use the lower aspects of mind, you go against what is natural, and thus there is always going to be an element of danger involved. Within Daoist alchemical sitting practice we never force anything nor use the mind to assist in the process. Instead we establish the 'pyramid' shape within the body and allow this structure to guide the movement of Qi according to a key rule of Qi flow: Q will move to where there is space. In this way it.can be thought of as being like water. Water will flow to fill any space, and Qi moves in much the same manner if it is left to move of its own accord. (From Damo Mitchell, Daoist Reflections from Scholar Sage.)

A problem with any web forum when it comes to spirituality is that the life-blood of such forums is new content, most often words; whereas the life-blood of praxis is inner connection through silence. Silence doesn’t transmit well here; those with many words, and intensity of discussion, tends to dominate. And although I like to search new content, it begins to feel like an endless merry-go-round of content for content’s sake – a trap of intensity. I’ve learnt from recovering from my time of heroin addiction that all intensity is potentially addictive. It’s easy to move into intensity – indeed it’s most compelling – yet it tends to become a trap that’s difficult to escape from. After any intense experience it takes time to readjust and regain the sensitivity necessary to feel into the subtle fullness of ‘emptiness’. And I seek to hone my sensitivity and grow my roots into that ancient, eternal ‘silence’ – into what has always existed; without beginning without end; without past without future. That’s where I find my inner peace, my innate belonging. For me when I first arrived, Dao Bums had an almost numinous presence. My time here has been deeply meaningful. I could expand my awareness through overt and more subtle interaction with other members. Although I suspect the site is much the same mixture of wisdom and folly - of seriousness and banter - as it’s always been, my needs have changed. Now it increasingly feels a little like visiting a soap opera. Dramas make for excellent new content – and to circle back to the beginning - new content is the life-blood of our human created media, but not spiritual praxis.

The Song of Shadowy Radiance (Inner Light) The moon’s dark, night touches mystery. Sitting alone, a recluse opens to Zhuangzi’s song. Yin stillness, emerald-water clarities. And suddenly, as if gentle breezes were singing, Wordlessly, beyond knowing: Heaven’s Treasury, heart-deep harmonies, a timeless reservoir of belonging. Alas, those dark-bright ancients who could evoke a song of such warm depths vanished long ago.

I don't really get off on disputing interpretations of the Zhuangzi, but I do like to read alternatives. Hence a slightly different translation and significantly different interpretation of this paragraph that Taoist Texts references above….. From A. C. Graham, Chuang-Tzu: The Inner Chapters Now that we are one, can I still say something? Already having called us one, did I succeed in not saying something? One and the saying makes two, two and one make three. Proceeding from here even an expert calculator cannot get to the end of it, much less a plain man. Therefore, if we to step from nothing to something we arrive at three, and how much worse if we take the step from something to something! Take no step at all, and `That's it' which goes by circumstance will come to an end. From Brook Ziporyn, Zhuangzi: Essential Writings But if we are all one, can there be any words? But since I have already declared that we are "one," can there be no words? The one and the word are ready two, the two and the original unnamed one are three. Going on like this, even a skilled chronicler could not keep up with it, not to mention a lesser man. So even moving from nonexistence to existence we already arrive at three—how much more when we move from existence to existence! Rather than moving from anywhere to anywhere, then, let us just go by the rightness of whatever is before us as the present "this." Graham notes the following and Ziporyn emphatically agrees with him… NOTE Hui Shih [Huizi] had said that 'Heaven and earth are one unit' (see chapter 33). At first sight one might expect Chuang-tzu to agree with that at least. But to refuse to distinguish alternatives is to refuse to affirm even 'Everything is one' against 'Things are many'. He observes that in saying it the statement itself is additional to the One which it is about, so that already there are two (Plato makes a similar point about One and its name in The Sophist). It may he noticed that Chuang-tzu never does say that everything is one (except as one side of a paradox (chapter 5)), but rather always speaks subjectively of the sage treating all things as one.

Yes, he touches on the literary aspect of the Zhuangzi there, but I assume he's written in much more detail elsewhere. Those notes were written in 1994 and his reference in the Daoism Handbook comes much later. (Published 2000.)

I think Zhuangzi’s easy delight in all aspects of existence is a privilege of old age. That’s how it is for me anyway (for some of the time, at least). I’ve had to work my way through material struggles, love & loss, success & failure, words and concepts, in order to build a suitable basis – a small boat, to use a Daoist image – able to float and drift in harmony with the flow of things. And the flow of things I’m referring to is not congruent with the flow of human society – for me it’s outside and beyond societal conditioning. That’s the struggle – to free oneself from societal conditioning and the dominance of a personal ego. Only then do I have appropriate de to be able to spontaneously interact in harmony with the yin and yang forces of both human society and nature at large.

In the chapter of the Daoism Handbook contributed by Victor Mair, titled “The Zhuangzi and its Impact” he writes: “Since I have already treated the literary aspects of the Zhuangzi in a series of other recent publications, in this chapter I will concentrate on the significance of the text for philosophy and religion.” I’ve not found these articles. I’d like to read them and any clues to where they may be found are most welcome.

This is one of my favourite passages in the Zhuangzi simply for my delight in the way it's written. I love Zhuang Zhou's free and easy wandering (and wondering) through the landscape of words and concepts. His language is so alive; he delights in - and makes light of - all aspects of existence....... Mair 33:6…. Obscure and formless, ever transforming and inconstant. Are we alive? Are we dead? Do we coexist with heaven and earth? Do we go along with spiritual intelligence? How nebulous! where are we going? How blurred! where are we aiming? The myriad things being arrayed all around, there is none fit for us to return to—a portion of the ancient techniques of the Way lay in these practices. Chuang Chou heard of such usages and delighted in them. With absurd expressions, extravagant words, and unbounded phrases, he often gave rein to his whims but was not presumptuous and did not look at things from one angle only. Believing that all under heaven were sunk in stupidity and could not be talked to seriously, he used impromptu words for his effusive elaboration, quotations for the truth, and metaphors for breadth. Alone, he came and went with the essential spirits of heaven and earth but was not arrogant toward the myriad things. He did not scold others for being right or wrong, but abode with the mundane and the vulgar. Although his writings are exotic and convoluted, there is no harm in them; although his phraseology is irregular and bizarre, it merits reading. His fecundity is inexhaustible. Above he wanders with the creator of things, and below he is friends with those who are beyond life and death and without beginning or end. Regarding the root, he is expansive and open, profound and unrestrained; regarding the ancestor, he may be said to be attuned and ascendant. Nonetheless, in his response to evolution and in his emancipation from things, his principles are not exhaustive and his approach is not metamorphosing. How nebulous! How cryptic!—someone who has never been fully fathomed.

Here is a Western interpretation of a key difference between classical Daoism as per the Zhuangzi and Buddhism from philosopher John Gray. I've quoted it before but I'll add it again here because I like its simplicity, and it's not too far off topic in that it references the butterfly dream passage that's at the end of this chapter we're discussing (Mair 2:14)….. Chuang-Tzu is as much a sceptic as a mystic. The sharp dichotomy between appearance and reality that is central in Buddhism is absent, and so is the attempt to transcend the illusions of everyday existence. Chuang-Tzu sees human life as a dream, but he does not seek to awaken from it. In a famous passage he writes of dreaming he was a butterfly, and not knowing on awakening whether he is a human being who has dreamt of being a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he is a human being. Unlike the Buddha, A.C. Graham explains, Chuang-Tzu did not seek to awaken from the dream. He dreamt of dreaming more lucidly: 'Buddhists awaken out of dreaming; ChuangTzu wakes up to dreaming.' Awakening to the truth that life is a dream need not mean turning away from it. It may mean embracing it: If 'Life is a dream' implies that no achievement is lasting, it also implies that life can be charged with the wonder of dreams, that we drift spontaneously through events that follow a logic different from that of everyday intelligence, that fears and regrets are as unreal as hopes and desires. Chuang-Tzu admits no idea of salvation. There is no self and no awakening from the dream of self: When we dream we do not know we are dreaming, and in the middle of a dream we interpret a dream within it; not until we wake do we know that we were dreaming. Only at the ultimate awakening shall we know that this is the ultimate dream. We cannot be rid of illusions. Illusion is our natural condition. Why not accept it?

An excellent opening, Smallsteps. The great Zhuangzi appears Flowing from Dao Dao in action – Only vague and intangible. Zhuangzi in words – Obscure and ambiguous. Ambiguous and obscure, But within it there are images. Obscure and ambiguous, Within it there are stories. Profound and unbounded Within it there is de. De so real, That within it there is trust. For last two millennia its message has not been lost But remakes itself with every new reading. How do I know this? Like this!

Thanks for your up front reply Kar3n. Whilst I agree that such affiliations as you mention don't necessarily affect your ability to impartially moderate here, this is what I'd like Dawei to explain further..... An independent moderator here raises concerns about certain practices related to a particular group. Subsequently, said moderator is dismissed and replaced with a moderator from the group in question. Have I got this completely wrong? I'm only going on what I've read in this thread and a few other hints and concerns that have been raised in other threads in the past that I haven't been interested enough in to closely follow.

Yes Michael I think you have valid concerns. After reading Tibetan Ice's post I googled Living Unbound and found that as well as Jeff's involvement, Karen is a moderator there. I know nothing about this group or AYP, and haven't been reading the sex capades threads on Dao Bums or anything else directly related to these issues, but even so I don't like this close overlap with another group. I'd very much like to hear Dawei's explanation of what's going on behind the scenes with this Dao Bums forum I value and respect.

Thanks Daeliun for your perspective. Clearly there's much more going on here than I am aware of. However I do think it's important for people to air and discuss these issues which obviously have significant emotional content - that's how we gain the insight necessary to be truly able to move on. For me personally, noting any strong emotional reaction is one of the most significant guiding signals I have. It can take me a significant period of time - even years - to fully gain insight into what the underlying issue is. And with real insight the adverse emotion falls away completely. (And reading of these very human undercurrents makes me more comfortable with Dao Bums, not less.)

I knew nothing of any of these undercurrents until I read this thread. To me, it's important to know of this stuff. Vulnerabilities are being revealed, and that's something I wholeheartedly support. I particularly thank Michael for his candor. Although my involvement in this discussion may well be a case of "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread," I've never been one to shy away from helping to crew the ship of fools...... To my reading of the above posts, Michael has been unjustly treated. Whilst I have a great respect for Dawei and the awesome job he does in keeping this Dao Bums ship from floundering, in this case I think he may have allowed too much of his own emotional bias to dictate his course. Whatever the case, the abruptness of his dismissal strikes me as unfair. And whether or not the 8 month limit is a good idea, to retrospectively invoke it against Michael comes across as far from ideal. (The ship of fools must ultimately be guided by the Dao, and before the Dao we are all foolish, prone to error.)

The knowledge of the ancients attained the ultimate. What was the ultimacy that it attained? They realized that there was a stage before there were things. This is the ultimacy they had attained, the utmost to which nothing can be added. Next, there were those who recognized that there were things, but that there was a stage before which things were distinguished. Next, there were those who recognized that there were distinctions among things, but that there was a stage before there was right and wrong. Now, the manifestation of right and wrong is what diminishes the Way. What causes the diminution is what leads to the creation of preferences. But, after all, are there really diminution and creation? Or are there, after all, really no diminution and creation? That there are diminution and creation may be seen from clansman Chao's playing the lute. That there are no diminution and creation may be seen from clansman Chao's not playing the lute. Chao Wen played the lute, Maestro K'uang beat the rhythm with a stick, and Master Hui commented philosophically beneath a parasol tree. The knowledge of these three masters was virtually complete, so they practiced it till the end of their lives. However, they believed that they were different from others in what they were fond of and wished to enlighten others about their fondness. Yet, try as they may to enlighten them, others were not to be enlightened. Thus one of them ended his life in muddleheaded discussions of "hard" and "white." And Chao Wen's son carried on his father's career his whole life without any accomplishment. If this can be called accomplishment even I, who am without accomplishment, can be called accomplished. But if this cannot be called accomplishment, neither I nor anything else is accomplished. Therefore, the sage endeavors to get rid of bewildering flamboyance. For this reason, he does not use things himself, but lodges in commonality. This is called "using lucidity." Notes: clansman Chao: Chao Wen, the most famous lutanist of antiquity. Maestro K'uang: A famous music teacher of old.

Thanks Cheya.

@ Karl One of the main objections I have to your propagation of Randism on this site is simply the way you insist on ramming it down our throats whenever the smallest opportunity presents itself. You come across as someone who’s been swallowed by a philosophy, and lives in a world where concepts are like gods. That suggests to me – and I may well be wrong – that you’re hiding from your own inner emptiness; armouring yourself with a strong philosophy against vulnerabilities. Perhaps you’re holding on to rational knowledge like a crucifix to ward off your fear of losing yourself – that illusionary wholeness you so prize – in the vastness of mystery? Further, whilst a small amount of Rand may well be a good thing, such a strongly political agenda is, in my opinion, out of place on this site. And I don't think Dao Bums needs to be a place where someone like you who repeatedly misrepresents meditation and mysticism is given a free reign to air their views. Whilst I welcome informed critique, the strongly voiced and largely ignorant opinion of someone who opposes such a life path and advocates political action is best discussed in other more appropriate forums. As to your political agenda, I say go for it. Explore it to the full. Do you have your own website? If not, why not? I can see how such views as Rand’s are a necessary counterbalance to the excesses of the strands of humanism that dominate contemporary society. There are aspects of your philosophy - but not your bigotry - that I somewhat agree with, though your binary black or white world is a tad simplistic for me. I’m not a great believer in the battle of good against evil – but from that perspective I’d say we all are a mixture of both. Hence, the battle is not primarily an external one, but an internal one against our inner shadow – our own hidden darkness. There you go – I’ve given you plenty to rally against! – all of it sincerely meant.

I've browsed this thread and can see nothing in it that adds to discussion on the themes that Dao Bums promotes. Simply out of interest in keeping some integrity to the focus of this forum, I'd like to see the moderators acting more strongly in deleting such topics. There is plenty of space on the web in other forums for such views to be aired.

We and all of life are part of a hyper-complex web of interdependencies. We are both separate and joined - and this joining exists on subtle, invisible psychic levels as well as more obvious ones. If it was truly possible for a human to rationally understand and work through the all the possible implications of a given action, then rational self interest would be the only sensible course. As it is, it's just one strand of many that determine the course of life. In other words there is vastly more to life than we are conscious of. A purpose of meditation and mysticism is to explore and expand the horizons of human consciousness outside and beyond what is implied by rationalism.

Is there anything new in these ideas of Rand’s? For those with some interest in history it’s worth examining the prominent philosophies of ancient China that arose during the turbulent times of the Warring States period; specifically, Yangism, Confucianism, Mohism and Daoism. Yangism Yangism (Chinese: 杨朱学派; pinyin: Yángzhūxuépài) was a philosophical school founded by Yang Zhu, existent during the Warring States period (475 BCE - 221 BCE), that believed that human actions are and should be based on self-interest. The school has been described by sinologists as an early form of psychological and ethical egoism. The main focus of the Yangists was on the concept of xing, or human nature, a term later incorporated by Mencius into Confucianism. "What Yang Zhu was for was self. If by plucking one hair he might benefit the whole world, he would not do it." — Mencius on Yang Zhu, Mengzi (4th century BC) Yangism has been described as a form of psychological and ethical egoism. The Yangist philosophers believed in the importance of maintaining self-interest through "keeping one's nature intact, protecting one's uniqueness, and not letting the body be tied by other things." Disagreeing with the Confucian virtues of li (propriety), ren (humaneness), and yi (righteousness) and the Legalist virtue of fa (law), the Yangists saw wei wo, or "everything for myself," as the only virtue necessary for self-cultivation. Individual pleasure is considered desirable, like in hedonism, but not at the expense of the health of individual. The Yangists saw individual well-being as the prime purpose of life, and considered anything that hindered that well-being immoral and unnecessary. The main focus of the Yangists was on the concept of xing, or human nature, a term later incorporated by Mencius into Confucianism. The xing, according to sinologist A. C. Graham, is a person's "proper course of development" in life. Individuals can only rationally care for their own xing, and should not naively have to support the xing of other people, even if it means opposing the emperor. In this sense, Yangism is a "direct attack" on Confucianism, by implying that the power of the emperor, defended in Confucianism, is baseless and destructive, and that state intervention is morally flawed. The Confucian philosopher Mencius depicts Yangism as the direct opposite of Mohism, while Mohism promotes the idea of universal love and impartial caring, the Yangists acted only "for themselves," rejecting the altruism of Mohism. He criticized the Yangists as selfish, ignoring the duty of serving the public and caring only for personal concerns. Mencius saw Confucianism as the "Middle Way" between Mohism and Yangism. Mencius incorporated the Yangist concept of xing into his own philosophy. Some sinologists have argued that Yangism influenced Taoism, and can be seen as a "precursor" to later Taoist beliefs. (From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangism)

That all sounds good Marblehead. As to the pace, I'd say just add another section whenever you feel like it. Hopefully other people - perhaps some of those who originally said they wanted this section by section discussion - will help you out by adding sections of Mair's translation as well. Even if there is little or no discussion on some sections it doesn't mean people aren't reading and gaining from it. I find it a difficult text to discuss because it's so multi-layered and thereby open to many interpretations. There is much hidden meaning. Hence for anything but superficial discussion a person needs to read at least some of the vast body of commentary that's been written on this foundational text of classical Daoism over the past two millennia. (I adapted those lines from the poem Coyotes by Lori Lamothe.)

Thanks Marblehead. Are you including Mair's notes to his translation as well? I too would like to see this discussion continue but I'm OK with a slow pace. To my mind the Zhuangzi is not to be rushed - a week or so between sections is fine by me. A comment of section 2:7........ Fold words into cranes. Knit sound into sequence and hold its shadow up against tomorrow’s blank slate sky. Watch how the dark flutter of notes makes meaning seem bigger than it really is. Watch how night washes time clean. Follow the words to their source and emerge into a clearing of complete emptiness.

If we follow our prejudices and take them as our guide, who will not have such a guide? Why should only those who are intelligent make such mental choices for themselves? The foolish do the same thing. If one claims that right and wrong exist before they are established in the mind, that is like saying one sets out for Viet today but arrived there yesterday. To do so is to make something out of nothing. Even Holy Yŭ couldn't make something out of nothing. How could I alone do so? Notes: Holy Yŭ - The third sage-king of high antiquity.