Taomeow

A horse stance is one version of ZZ, out of many, and building up the leg muscles is one application, out of many. The main purpose, however, is to build up one's core. What I call "the diamond axis."

Open-eyed is neither superior nor inferior, just a different focus of awareness. It is, however, much easier. I have Master Lam's feng shui book, it is a very basic beginner level. Perhaps his open-eyed ZZ is also for the purpose of making the inroad easier for the beginner.

Here's a couple , since I'm trying to decide if I need this book (I am familiar with many versions of various applications of the I Ching, so I've grown a bit picky ) : 1. Why does this book associate Wind with Wood -- rather than with Metal, as is common in the taoist tradition? The Lungs are Metal, Wind/air/breath is naturally a function of the lungs, this has been my understanding and the approach of some lineages I've had some exposure to (e.g., maoshan). Is there an explanation the author provides for his different association? When you look at trees swaying in the wind you might think they are directly related, but qi-wise, it's deeper. Trees don't produce wind. It may seem surprising that metal does, but it does. E.g., the cosmic wind ultimately has iron as its source -- the formation of the stars via compression of the core into iron, which releases the qi of Metal, its Wind aspect. So... is there something I'm missing -- or the author? 2. Does it mention the Plum Blossom oracle by any chance?

They nestle under the scales of a ripe pine cone. If it's overripe, they fall out (or the birds and squirrels get to them first.) You crack them with a stone. I've done it in the center of Rome, not just in the forest. There are many large, old, fruitful pines around some of the most famous historic buildings in Rome. The pine cone (pigna) is an ancient occult symbol with the farthest out implications (tip: the pineal gland is related). Do you know what symbol exactly sits smack in the center of the Vatican? (tip: it's not a crucifix... it's this... used to adorn the temple of Isis... but now it's here:)

We are having a sacred-geometrical disagreement here. Jing in its material form (which is only a fraction of its overall function, that of ontogenic memory) is more or less the DNA, the genome, and zygotes; DNA and the genes propagate in all directions (in accordance with the expansive yang aspect of jing), while zygotes behave according to their yin or yang nature (that is, the yin ones sit still and the yang ones flow upward -- conception is not possible any other way due to the peculiarities of female anatomy. That's why the spermatozoons have tails and use them too, very vigorously. The egg doesn't -- she doesn't need it, she's not going anywhere, she's sitting there waiting for the prince's kiss to wake up. ) However, taoist alchemy the real thing is not aimed at reversing the flow of material jing, and is not after pumping any of it toward the head. This, transmutation of jing to qi to shen, is an upward-directed process that IS the "flowing downstream" metaphorically but "flowing upstream" directionally, the actual geometry of the process is upward-bound, jing fizzles out into qi and qi into shen by the very process of living (or at least "civilized" living taoism was designed to correct) -- we use up the jing this way, we die. "The whisk still burns brightly when it has absorbed the last drop of the oil from the lamp, not knowing there's no more, not knowing it's dead." The Western term that roughly catches this process of transformation of vital aliveness to some "higher" -- physically higher, in the head -- purposes and ideas and accomplishments is "sublimation." What do we "sublimate" when we write poetry, solve mathematical problems, or contemplate the mysteries of the universe? Our vital force. What do we turn it into when we do? Puff... into out-of-body stuff. So, the goal of alchemy is bring it back INTO the body. No more puff. Gather shen and direct it down, to qi. Gather qi and direct it down, to jing. This is very uniquely taoist, by the way. Everybody else is pumping the head with what-not. Taoists are after a lighter head, taoists work on reversing the process of getting top heavy... This is done with ALL taoist practices, not just alchemy. E.g., taiji. Ever wondered why there isn't a single high level taiji master in existence who's bulked up the upper body and arms, and instead they all have the legs of a horse? Nah, you don't drag things up in taoism, they've been dragged way up by the whole process of un-taoing as it is... So, you don't want stuff to go FROM the kidneys INTO the heart-head (or, the way they put it in translations, heart-mind... Li, in other words.) No. You want to do the opposite. You want to drag the Li DOWN to meet Kan, not vice versa... ...well, at least at the stage of alchemy that will take a minimum of the first decade... what happens next is different, but the common mistake of starting at the "next" stage, taking an alchemical shortcut, is one hundred percent unproductive...

Yeah... Well, here's a bit of corroboration -- check it out if you have an hour to spare:

What I've noticed is that talking of the Indo-European vs. East Asian cognitive paradigms is a deeper conversation than of "West's Judeo-Christian vs. East." To the Chinese, India had always been "West" (the famous Chinese novel "Journey to the West" is about a journey to India for to bring Buddhism to China) and the worldview of Buddhism, Western. Indeed, the differences between the Buddhist and the Judeo-Christian traditions are superficial vis a vis the main premise they share. Instead of the "original sin," Buddhism postulates "a state of samsara" --- essentially the same thing. Nothing of this kind is present in the East Asian tradition -- the human being is supposed to be conceived and born in a state of absolute perfection unless there's forces interfering with normal natural development. So, it is nurture and only nurture that is responsible for -- um, for thwarting a human being if it is the wrong kind, a kind of transmogrified agenda-driven nurture (instead of the natural feeling, emphatic competence, undamaged instinct-driven nurture), or for letting and facilitating the originally perfect human being to unfold her natural perfection if it is the right kind. "Nature" is fa, the law and pattern of balance and perfection, and true nurture patterns itself on this law without any need of any corrective action (tao fa ziran). No "evil nature" exists outside Indo-European paradigms. Not in taoism, not in shinto, not in bon, not in any of their precursors and derivatives before an influx of Indo-European religions (and their veiled but fundamentally identical in its main premises extension adopted some 150 years ago essentially to serve the same purpose by different means, commonly known as "modern Western science.") If nature is not allowed to unfold properly in a human being, it's solely "evil anti-nurture" that is responsible. (Including, of course, the kind that starts thwarting one's development before birth, even before conception -- for it has already been embodied in the parents and they transmit evil anti-nurture by virtue -- or vile -- of who it has made them into by the time they conceive a child.) The above view is also mine.

Cool topic, keep 'm coming. This yang line is a very interesting one indeed. It actually stands for zhi, or to be more precise, the yang zhi of the kidneys (they also have yin zhi -- the other two lines), the shen of will, willpower, intent, the goal-setting aspect of the human spirit. The idea that this yang is the source of all qi in the body seems far out until one considers that it is stored in the jing and is in fact the very mover-shaker aspect of jing that gets it to transform to qi. What it means, astonishingly enough, is that it takes will for jing to transform into qi. (The sperm swimming frantically upstream, toward the egg, against millions of competitors, on sheer willpower... picture this! ) Not surprisingly, when the opposite goal is set (as it is in taoist alchemy, i.e. the goal of reversing the flow and gathering qi back into jing), that will require the kind of willpower which is greater to the same extent that rowing your boat against the current requires many times the effort (will) of rowing with the current. (Just letting your boat float downstream is for non-cultivators, contrary to pop-spiritual beliefs.) Zen, for all its accomplishments, would be blind to the fact that a lack of will is a lack of kidney yang (a still worse scenario is a lack of kidney yin -- with kidney yang deficiency one must only go against fear, anxiety, anger, rage, apathy, and depression, while with kidney yin deficiency one must go against destiny!.. to get anywhere...) So they couldn't tell someone who needs a kick in the ass from someone who needs a needle in the mingmen and an oxtail and pork kidneys soup in her bowl...

I've been taught how to ask the oracle, so let me share a little bit of what I've learned. No yes-no, either-or, should-would questions. The oracle does not like the yes-no questions because there's an "it depends" built into most situations; can't answer the either-or questions at all (think about it -- how would you know whether the hexagram you get is the answer to your "either" or to your "or"? ); and she does not operate in the subjunctive mood -- "should I" presupposes you are appointing her to make your decision for you, something she refuses to do at all times. The best way to put the inquiry is proactive -- "I divine my best course of actions toward such and such (desired) outcome" or, alternatively, "in order to avoid such and such (undesired) outcome." This gives you pragmatic how-to instructions in the answer, i.e. you "hire" the oracle to be your teacher. She prefers this role to all others, in my experience. She is no crystal ball, much less a fortune cookie. She is not passive, and very, very seldom fatalistic. Any situation you anticipate she is more likely than not to describe in terms of what you are likely to get depending on how you participate in its development.

I have experienced telepathic communication with an entity that had a divine sense of humor -- I almost came apart at the seams every time she cracked a joke. The nature of her humor, however, was completely different from what we are used to, from what we've been conditioned to perceive and experience as comical in our present state of consciousness. Basically, the funniest jokes of the entity I'm talking about were references to my past experiences presented from a different perspective. Certain experiences that had been painful or at least unpleasant, or refused to make sense, were put in a context where they suddenly made perfect sense and were absolutely hilarious at that. So, no danger of losing a sense of humor if we all become telepathic as part of the expanded consciousness drill -- on the contrary, an entirely new kind of humor might emerge. I think I posted in the past that 95% of all our current "funny" is about someone getting hurt, it's almost invariably "funny at someone's expense," that's our comedy. (Think about the jokes you know -- it might be a while till you can think of even one that does not use this method and is funny by some other means. The majority of jokes are "funny" reinterpretations of suffering, or of meanness and cruelty, or in the best case scenario some psychotic absurdity or other... have you noticed?..) So, don't worry.

Here's Livia Kohn's take on what it is: "As for the difference between zuowang, chan, and neidan, I see it in historical terms. Zuowang appears in the 8th century, under clear influence of Tientai Buddhist insight meditation (samatha vipassana) as a form of consciously reorganizing one's perception of self and world. It is not really, at the time, a sitting and doing nothing. I suspect that it becomes that gradually as it evolves in the 9th century. It is then that we also see the classic Zen radicalism of "meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha" and the rejection of all conscious content and aspiration as well as energy work. This continues in the Song dynasty in Buddhist circles and also spreads over into Daoism. Neidan evolves as a separate branch of all this, using longevity techniques, breathing, qi-work, and zuowang-style insight meditation, and combining these methods into a complex system that also uses alchemical vocabulary and a lot of I-ching symbolism. The energy work done in neidan, with however many methods, is thus both similar and different to the zuowang and chan methods. As with all Daoist practices, a lot depends on where the individual practitioner is coming from and what his/her specific strengths and needs are. You may find some quite expert at letting the mind go who need to focus more on physical transformation and whose practice will look completely different from chan/zuowang/insight. You may have others who have a good grip on qi transformation and cirulation who need to work on opening their conscious minds to the Dao and on letting go of preconceptions, whose practice will accordingly be more zenny in style. Are the end results the same? My inclination is to say no, since the underlying concepts of what the end result should be are so different. The chan immediacy is different from the immortal existence in zuowang which is again different from the ultimate neidan transformation. Each technique will get people to where it is geared to go. Krishnamurti is strong on emphasizing that point and working by leaving all techniques aside."

The carpenter, however, seldom drops that hammer on his toes -- unlike the amateur cultivator.

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19929-zuowang/

I was being taught what can be eaten in a forest since I was five, and when I was 13 or 14, I knew how to make quite a few dishes with that stuff. Not much of it is edible raw, you have to know the methods of preparation. (E.g., acorns used to be a staple food with many Native American tribes, but the preparation is laborious and you have to know what you're doing, or you wind up with bitter and barely digestible meals instead of the delicious pancakes that are your other alternative.) I have books on the subject of edible wild plants and suggest that everyone who is planning to live off the land learn everything (or as close to everything as possible) about what's edible in what form in their area. The worst mistakes are deadly (e.g., here in CA, there's hemlock that you could easily mistake for wild parsley -- please don't! ) Mushrooms too -- you need to study them very well or leave them alone. Pine needles are not the greatest food if you're in a decent forest, they are best served as a decoction -- high in vitamin C (which they happen to have in a stable form not destroyed by this method) and an all-around nice vitaminizing addition to your wild diet, besides its medicinal value (treats all manner of lung and bronchial disorders). I wouldn't overdo it -- pine needles are mildly toxic to the kidneys, so I would never think of them as a staple food in any shape or form. Pine nuts, on the other hand, are completely safe (except for some people who get a weird disorder from eating some varieties that makes all their foods taste bitter for a week or so -- I have a family member who has this strange reaction and apparently he's not the only one, though the condition is exceedingly rare.) And, Seth, since you mentioned earlier you've given up on buddhism... and authentic zen buddhism (e.g.) has no problem with fish anyway... I'd learn to fish, the most memorable forest meals I recall were fish soups with appropriate wild greens, fried fish (eel does not ask for any frying oil, for the rest you may want to have some unless you're a wilderness purist), smoked fish (you use dry leaves for the best flavor), every which way but raw (but the Japanese would disagree... ) Frogs are edible (and, unlike pine needles, are excellent for your kidneys.) Turtles... crawdads... wild boar...

I quite agree. There's a difference between "belief" and "faith" (despite erroneous interchangeable use in common parlance) and they are in fact opposite approaches. "Belief" does rely on 信, "what people say to me." Faith relies on "what I say to myself." So "faith," unlike "belief," is not removed from "co-creation." Co-creation is the way a taoist interacts with tao, learning her pattern and her power and aiming to "ti," embody, become part of that, become that. This requires cultivation, practice, and "faith." "Belief," on the other hand, is the way to forfeit one's own creative power to someone else in its entirety. In other words, the goal of "faith" is freedom, the goal of "belief" is enslavement. They are as ill-fitted to go together as "octopus milk" or "vitriolic frolic.

"Between Heaven and Earth, isn't it like a bellow?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ2ZcmMxehk

I've met people in the rain forest who didn't believe in Russia. Never heard of it. I've met people in the United States who believe what their TV tells them to believe. I've met people in China who believe there's a health disorder called "curly hair" which should be treated with herbs and acupuncture. Taoists do not form their inquiry into the nature of reality in terms of beliefs because beliefs are simply beside the point. "Believe" actually means "get by on insufficient information (or information that is not obtained first hand -- hearsay)." Taoists may have information as insufficient and second-hand as everybody else, but what's different is, this state of affairs is not glorified, is not placed as the cornerstone into fundamental ideologies, cosmologies, or everyday activities. "Beliefs" you may hold or refuse to hold matter little to you... about as much as what your third grade teacher told you regarding what is or isn't important or true. I.e., yeah, whatever. Not important under the new conditions. The important part, for a taoist, is accurate assessment of the conditions and acting (or refraining from acting) accordingly. Beliefs? Who cares?.. This, however, means taoists operate from a platform of information unencumbered by "insufficient information carved in stone, aka beliefs," which consequently is more accurate and up-to-date than any belief (or nonbelief) driven one. They don't believe, and that's why they get it when they encounter it. Whatever "it" happens to be.

I know exactly what you're talking about! Thomas Cleary translates everything that moves! "Vitality, energy, spirit" -- sheesh, what's wrong with jing, qi, shen? But the worst is (in my experience) dealing with a book translated in China by multiple translators, different ones having worked on different chapters. I own a book on a subject of great interest to me that drives me nuts -- it has one author but seventeen (sic) translators and not one of them seems to have been even slightly interested in how any of his 16 peers are rendering this or that term. So for the same Chinese words pertaining to the same notions and phenomena, I have seventeen versions of what they call it in English -- go figure if they're referring to the same thing or to seventeen different ones!

Indeed. In fact, I would leave xiantian untranslated, and explain the concept in those footnotes (e.g.). Likewise, houtian. They are habitually translated this way and that way -- "earlier heaven" and "later heaven," "before manifestations" and "after manifestations," "prenatal" and "postnatal," "pre-heavenly" and "post-heavenly," etc., but lose absolutely everything in the translation. What, exactly, does "pre-heavenly" mean to an English speaker without an explanation? Absolutely nothing. So why offer any translation at all, if an explanation is necessary anyway no matter how one translates it? Why not call it what it's called -- xiantian -- and then explain what it actually refers to in the taoist classics? Just as no translator could/would/should translate "yin" and "yang," xiantian and houtian are fundamental taoist notions with no English counterpart available at all, and should be treated as such. They are proprietary concepts of the system. As are many, many other idiosyncratic taoist terms. I think proficiency in one's own language (or a second/third/fourth one etc. one is fluent in) asks, as a minimal requirement, for some familiarity with the way words of foreign origin are acquired by this language. In English, the best of them are traditionally left untranslated -- yet are understood perfectly via use. Everybody knows what a "computer" is and has no problem with the Latin-derived term (computus and computare) but would indeed have a problem with an "English translation" -- how do you "translate" what it is?.. Naming it is enough. Most taoist alchemical terms ask for this courtesy too -- and then some.

Quite on the contrary. The whole idea of alchemy is based on another one -- that of corruption, alchemical processes being the antidote, offering (if they work) incorruptibility. One starts with a corrupted state, the state of loss of innocence, and works alchemically to reverse it and restore the original innocence. Innocence (like that of a child, an infant, even an unborn child, a fetus in the womb) is what taoism equates with one's original nature. In other words, unlike in, e.g., Christianity where you are supposed to be weighed down by an "original sin," taoism presupposes "original purity." So "innocent" and "original" both convey this idea, while "celestial" hints that we are not talking any "mundane" definitions of "innocent and original."

You are doing a great job, methinks. The version of "tianzen" I offered is from other alchemical translations I've seen (e.g. Livia Kohn uses "original/celestial" -- i.e. both, with a slash.) Just for a private perspective, I'll tell you what a perfect translation of an alchemical text looks like to me. It has the closest English equivalent the translator could think of, a few other possibilities in brackets, the Pinyin rendition of the original word (very important -- I profoundly dislike translations that give you only the translator's choice of an English word that may or may not have anything to do with the intended meaning of the original and no other options... i.e. the majority of translations ever offered ), and the Chinese character under scrutiny. This caters to all levels of Chinese/alchemical proficiency, from zero to hero. (An example of such a translation is the Riksema/Sabbadini (Eranos) I Ching.) This gives the reader a chance to choose the level of immersion in the original, i.e. just go along with the translator's own take, stylistic preferences, ideation -- or not. But of course it's a helluva lot of work.

How about "original/celestial reality"?

You are right! Yes, the truly stable practitioners actually rebutted them and were trying to tell them they are to mind THEIR stability, not mine.

Master Wang's method requires a kind of total surrender to stillness I have never experienced with other types of meditation. Not move means not move in the sense no li involved -- qi will move of course, and your spirit will move, that's the whole point. It will move down. It will move back where it comes from -- inward. It will move back home. It will move from the habitual too much movement/dispersion way to a settled, gathered, let-go-of-all-interference state. (Interpretation mine, I'm not quoting Master Wang, I'm explaining my take.) I didn't get it at first. I joined a group of seasoned practitioners (or at least more seasoned than me -- I was the new cat on the block) and "not moving at all" was something I didn't, well, understand quite literally at first. So, my diaphragm contracted at one point and I, um, how shall I put it gently, I -- this is really embarrassing -- I burped. Twice, I think. Not obnoxiously, you know. Just discreetly. But, um, I let the muscles of my diaphragm move, I did. Also, when you sit like that, all kinds of fluids start flowing -- saliva, tears, and your nose starts running too, so I, um, blew my nose at one point when it became too much, and also wiped the tears a couple of times. So then. When the sitting was done. This is Moscow, they take no prisoners. Two fierce-looking women approached me and said, don't do this, you are shaking up the whole energy of the whole room, when you move, you move everybody, it's a connected unified field, get it? Don't move. Ever. Again. OK? I was defiant for a while -- I didn't move, I did not!!! Yes you did, and made those sounds too, you blew your nose and wiped your tears and, oh horror, you burped? And you are saying you didn't move? You shook up the whole field. Next time, sit way back in the back and try -- no, not "try" -- just do or die. Don't move. Well, the next time, I did better, but it took me the whole of the first seminar to learn to sit like a rock, which is what you are supposed to sit like. Very difficult. And very different from all those other ways to sit that you've described. Different goals. Different directions of where you want your spirit to go. That's what it's about... at least at this point of my discernment.

That's a theory I'm familiar with. To my knowledge, no one has any definitive proof, but it does not seem impossible, sure thing. What do you mean by "traditional shaman" -- in what tradition? I have studied shamanism, been exposed to several traditions and initiated into one, they are pretty different... Yes, a shaman can write a book, 'tis true... I read every book by every shaman who cared to write one I could lay my hands on, but it's like an auto mechanic writing a book about the car transmission -- the book does not transmit the spark... or like a candle maker writing a book about all kinds of flames candles can produce but not giving you the matches... catch my drift?