Unconditioned

I practice pranayama and a 'stare into total darkness' yoga meditation technique that really resonates with me almost daily. There are times when I get in really late from my second job (like 4-5am) and I just fall asleep when trying to meditate. In general I don't have a set "I must meditate x times a day" rule. If I'm not feeling it then I don't force it. Edit: Is it good or bad to turn meditation into a routine? I'm not sure either way on that one...

Intention implies an obvious goal so I see your point there... it creates a constant comparison with the desired state - "I'm getting closer/further from my goal". But if you don't have a specific intention, then what is your motivation/desire for doing that thing? Can we DO anything without desire? Doing also implies a doer, who/what is the doer? Is there even one that is doing? Hmm.

Welcome! No need to worry about posting too much, you're in good company if you do Meditation can mean a lot of things to a lot of people so here's my personal definition: Being in a state free from holding on to, pushing away, judging, and 'accumulating'. The goal not just having an empty mind but having the right condition (free mind) to experience Truth/Reality with absolutely no conditioning - in all honesty - just to see if it can be done and to see what happens.

Amen to that!

Oy what a mess!

Same here, I posted something that was from a different tradition and got reprimanded on that forum. I left the forum last week but Truth is Truth, why the need to suppress it? That's what I REALLY like about this place, ideas flow freely to be discussed, investigated, and sometimes dissected until there's nothing left And as my old music teacher used to say: If you're going to make a mistake, make it loud =)

I eat and others will eventually eat me. Such is life. Because I have respect for life itself, I do not try to make it something that it is not by adding or taking away intention when eating. I simply eat.

This is a tricky one to even try to describe, 'Self-knowledge' I mean. My personal practice is to be aware of my self but not to build up knowledge, create another image, etc. For me it's not a matter of understanding who I am or regonizing my personal patterns/habits (although that is important pragmatically), it's a much larger attempt to find out wtf am I? How am I able to even think? How is it possible for me to experience? Etc. So self-knowledge for me isn't part of my practice, it is my practice. Edit: The definition of self-knowledge that I like to use is of the absolute self, the everything, Te/Tao, etc.

Everything is everything, adding nothing and taking away nothing. Koan: What separates you from what you observe?

I find it helpful that the forums mirror the real world in this respect. I've at least as much from my reactions to know-it-alls and the like as I have from the more insightful posters. If someone makes you angry it's a perfect opportunity to watch what is happening at various levels - are they contradicting a belief you're holding on to? Are you reacting to their style which is counter to what you prefer? Etc. etc. etc.

And they were in business for a few years after that We used Apple 2E's at the time with a telephone placed on top of the modem to connect... then again the elementary school I was in at the time may not have been too up to date!

I found this article which gives an overview of the differences/similarities between Hindu energy centers and Taoist energy centers: http://taoism.about.com/od/internalalchemy...kra_Dantian.htm I'd be interested to get a taobum's take too..

I'm 27, and I definitely remember Compuserve, prodigy, telnet, etc. then again I've always had an affinity towards computers. As far as the question about 'why' young people are drawn to taoism, I can speak for myself very briefly: I was very depressed and tired of all the hypocracy I found with my previous religious experience. I didn't want to burden my friends/family so I wanted to figure out why I was so down and I was averse to taking a pill to make me 'happy'. So I started searching for answers and didn't know much about eastern religion/philosophy. I picked up a book on Buddhism and it's been quite the journey since over the last two years studying Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, meditation, etc. Spirituality in general I've always had an interest in... mostly a general curiosity about what life/living is and how it works and why. The short version: I was unfulfilled and wanted to know why.

Does that come with the tricked out car or is that extra?

Couldn't agree more but it's difficult to use broad strokes. I honestly feel very badly for them and frankly any other fundamentalist groups. I think a lot of them really mean well but go about it in a way that is counter to that intention. Obviously there are others with maligned intentions, some in the middle, etc. (aka the difficult of using large groups). But, if we watch our response to messages like these, it can be a real eye-opener... or the same with someone hitting me over the head with an inflatable hammer

Now don't beat me up here... but there's a hint of truth. The IDEA/conceptualization of Chi is just a thought, it's not 'the real thing'. Another way of saying that is Chi is real, it's label is just a label and not the thing in and of itself.

And what do you say?

I'm not sure if the idea of Braman is the same as a 'god figure' as seen in most Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim traditions. The idea of Brahman is a universal 'everything' (as portrayed through Advaita Vedanta via non-duelism). Now, on the other hand, all the tradition and ritualism could definitely create a religious idea of Brahman being an object which it obviously cannot be if it represents everything (everything can't have a 'something else' by definition). I just have a personal impression that Brahman is not seen as the same as monotheism as in western religion but at the subject-object level there is no difference, they're all just concepts/labels. Hope that made sense I'm not debating here, just adding my 2c I believe that both leaders have the students' best interests in mind. If the student finds something contradictory in the other schools teaching with what they're learning then this can cause confusion and potentially turn the student off to both schools. Also, if there are certain alchemical processes / changes taking place in the student it may not be best to flip flop between schools.

I've been on the forum a few months now and have been helped in many areas but there is one thing that I am still struggling with in relation to Taoism in general. Before I go into it, please do not read into what I am saying, I ask out of sincere curiosity and frankly because I 'just don't get it'. There are many forms of martial arts, internal arts, etc. and I have thought about pursuing one or another to see how it might work out. But, the fundamental question always stands as a road block for me. I don't know why I should pursue a martial art. I meditate regularly each night, yoga meditation. Throughout the day I am continuously 'trying' (using that word very loosely) to cultivate pure awareness/attention as to be in the state of Being - I can't think of a better way to describe it. I consider both forms of practice. My motivation for meditation is not the cultivation of anything except for Truth, pure experiential Truth. But with martial and internal arts I am not sure if they align with one another. I get the impression, and it's most likely wrong, that cultivation of Qi/Chi and pursuit of MA / IA is with more of a pragmatic use towards one's daily life or in some cases to boost the ego or for hobby/sport, etc. So, with all that said, perhaps some of the fellow bums could help me understand better what their motivation for MA and IA is. I have a hard time going after something if I'm unsure of the reasons. Call me a commitment-phobe

I think there are many similarities between the two but I'd like to chime in on one part of Hinduism that seems to push some people away from approaching it, specifically the use of deities. They can be used as a path and as symbols of different aspects of the material and non-material. I personally have a 'gripe' with a dogma due to some unpleasant past experiences but can see how it might work. The dieties can be used as a path in and of themselves in any religion/tradition. The path of complete surrender/devotion can generate an intense energy as well as removing 'you' from the equation - by surrendering EVERYTHING through your deepest core, you are left with just the essence in it's purest form and then can realize that there is no difference between you and the deity. Also, they are used as symbols or pointers. For example, the dancing Shiva symbolizes the ever present movement of life. This is very similar to the classic Yin-Yang symbol in Taoism. Shiva beats the drum that keeps the rhythm of life going. There are other ideas such as the Atman, the personal, purest aspect of your Self. Once you've realized what you are, then the aim is to merge with Brahman which is the universal Self, which would be the same as the Tao. The Hindi systems vary in technique but I believe the aim is the same. It has a physical (hatha yoga) and metaphysical aspect (raja yoga) similar to Taoist meditation and physical practices. It's another approach to liberation, enlightenment, unconditioning, whatever word you'd like. There are a lot of similarities actually just a lot of different naming conventions. Wikipedia has a lot of good info (look up yoga). Just my personal observations, I am by no means an expert on the subject!

Wow, this is a great discussion. Does anyone have a good approach for selecting a MA to begin with? Do different types suit different personalities? I'm assuming that each practice has a different flavor/outcome? Thanks for the explanations so far, I'm excited to learn more.

Wow, I get it now. You have GOT to be aware when you're 'fighting', lose your attention and it will cost you. Also, the spot checking, very nice... can learn a lot from any relationship. I'm still interested in other examples but this is a very helpful start. Thank you

Can someone pass me the butter? Wait is that good or bad Karma? Or is it not even ok to use a by product of an animal? *head explodes* Really though, at the end of the day if you live by your belief and it presents no conflict for you, I say go for it. Unless you like to eat white-guys from the north east In short, we should all lighten up a bit

Aren't we constantly dancing to the rhythm found in life itself? Birth, Growth, Decay, Death. Seen another way, the whole of life is one big dance with the Tao keeping the rhythm going endlessly. And less poetically, if you're really dancing can't you help but smile?

Personally I don't believe in the existence of Heaven or Hell except as an idea. I'm not sure how credible the blog post is, it's another person's opinion, I prefer to find out first hand. Doesn't mean their right or wrong, just means I don't know. That's an interesting translation of TTC 38. That's the first time I've seen it translated as virtue with compassion and wisdom. That's a tough nut to crack since those three things can be difficult to define. I think ethics serve to create a peaceful society but I suspect outside of that being a 'good person' is a sly disguise for feeding our egos. When I do something nice for someone else, I feel good about myself. But what does that really mean? Isn't that reinforcing the ego? Should we feel good all the time regardless of the circumstance? Hmm... I really don't know. Tao Te Ching 39 may shed some light: 39 The things which from of old have got the One (the Tao) are-- Heaven which by it is bright and pure; Earth rendered thereby firm and sure; Spirits with powers by it supplied; Valleys kept full throughout their void All creatures which through it do live Princes and kings who from it get The model which to all they give. All these are the results of the One (Tao). If heaven were not thus pure, it soon would rend; If earth were not thus sure, 'twould break and bend; Without these powers, the spirits soon would fail; If not so filled, the drought would parch each vale; Without that life, creatures would pass away; Princes and kings, without that moral sway, However grand and high, would all decay. Thus it is that dignity finds its (firm) root in its (previous) meanness, and what is lofty finds its stability in the lowness (from which it rises). Hence princes and kings call themselves 'Orphans,' 'Men of small virtue,' and as 'Carriages without a nave.' Is not this an acknowledgment that in their considering themselves mean they see the foundation of their dignity? So it is that in the enumeration of the different parts of a carriage we do not come on what makes it answer the ends of a carriage. They do not wish to show themselves elegant-looking as jade, but (prefer) to be coarse-looking as an (ordinary) stone.