dwai

I feel he's not relaxed in his shoulders and neck either. Also, his elbows are not bent (which is probably why he is carrying tension in his shoulders and neck). But just like you, what do I know?

Yes. When I used to practice Goju Ryu, we stood for significant amounts of time in kiba dachi...it is nothing like standing as done in taiji.Kiba dachi is a lot like what your idea of standing is... I was in my late teens to early 20s back then. I know suffer from the damage I did to my body back then (like walking in zenkutsu dachi on asphalt in my bare feet, climbing the steps of a stadium on my hands with a training partner holding up my legs, knuckle, wrist and finger push-ups on concrete floors, etc) till date. I didn't feel it then...I feel it now (after 2 decades).

where is the knee going beyond the toes in that stance? The knees are at ~ 90 degrees because his butt is lowered (low stance). As sung increases, the stance will automatically become lower. That doesn't mean one has to fight through pain and physical damage to do that. Standing is done for following purposes (ime, imho) -- * develop alignment * open up the kua * learn to root/ground * learn to suspend from crown point * separate the full and empty/substantial and insubstantial * increase qi flow in the body * beome sensitive to qi flow, especially in the mingmen, dai mai and lower dan tien In the style of taiji we practice (that is taught by my teacher and his teacher), we do lot of standing (sometimes for an hour at a time). And initially it was very hard because I didn't know how to relax and sink the weight into the ground (so it was hard on my knees and ankles). My teacher asks us to never over exert, never go beyond our comfort zone. The the trick it seems in knowing our limitations and not over-doing things (not too much, not to little, it has to be just right). Another thing we do (which I have never seen other stylists do, is to stand with the toes pointing inward 45 degrees), so we have a slight bend at the knee, but by standing with toes in (rather than splayed outward as in a v), the kua opens up and also the lower back gets rounded, the tailbone is dropped without exerting...

I think Buddha was silent on the topic of "God". And I'm not a Buddhist and that's okay, because the Buddha himself was not a "Buddhist". What get's lost in the claptrap of Buddhist teachings is that The Buddha's focus on anatta (or non-self) was to show what is not the Self. Not to prove that there is no self at all. But this has been beaten ad infinitum on TTB (and elsewhere) so let's not get into that. What I can say is this -- at the end of the day, whatever resonates with you is what you should practice and follow. Also, never give up your independence (ie the need for or ability to assess something and decide whether it makes sense or not). Advaita and Buddhism have a lot in common. I chose to not get trapped in dogma. And in my humble opinion, that is a great way to be and approach this subject.

Those bums who pratice master waysun liao's temple style taiji please stand up (if you dont mind). I'm curious as to how many here have learnt from either master liao himself or one of his senior students?

There are inherent differences in the eastern and westen thought processes. Western thinking tends to be linear and extremely driven by binary logic. Eastern tends to be non-linear and driven by fuzzy logic (more than one state of possibilities). Also in the west the role of science has atrophied general access of intuitive faculties to a large extent. In the east, the intuitive faculties are still relatively more accessible...albeit going fast with wetern culture & science growing their roots in the rapidly urbanizing east. As an "easterner" who has had access to both worlds i have often discussed this phenomenon with others like myself. Especially stark is the binary vs fuzzy logic paradigm. I am of course speaking from a professional perspective. Given a certain problem or situation, some one with my socio-ciultural background will be loath to give a definitive yes/no or good/bad response....while a westerner would generally tend to reduce the problem into two outcomes and be quick to give such a response. That is the reason why, imho, westerners find it hard to grasp fuzzy, paradoxical esoterica, often getting frustrated while at the same time being mesmerized...

Dzogchen didnt exist during shankara's time. He debated the sarvastivadins and the vijanavadins.

Yes templetao, it is a very effective system of tao cultivation. I find a lot of myth and rumors (fud) extant about master liao and his system on the web (perpetrated also due to the effects of one so-called student of his who purportedly teaches the "real deal"). I was hoping to exchange some views with fellow temple-stylists and build on some common concepts and ideas of the system and what is taught by various masters of master liao's system. I know cifferent teachers hve different approaches. My teacher focuses on meditation and cultivation, though martial aspect is also taught, but depending on his students' predilections to a certain extent. Another teacher i know of focuses on both martial and cultivation... As i get deeper into this system from outdoor to indoor, i find great depth which at times is at odds with a lot of other tai chi infomration out there (eg reading the tai chi magazine's latest issue on frme sizes in yang tai chi). The way i was taught is thT frame size changes from middle to large to small and internal cultivation stengthens from middle to large to small frames as well....

Hi TI Please dont get me wrong. After the buddhabum battles right here on ttb, i'm a little circumspect about engaging people on semantics. Like i pointed out, semantics are merely descriptors and the truth lies partially hidden behind them. I would say dr puligandla's article very succinctly articulates my locus standi. You werent bothering me...i just dont enjoy long winded debates any more

Whats important is what you think about this? There is no need to convince me of one thing or another. I know what i know and am comfortable with both what i knw and what my sources will teach me. I did not complete reading "i am that" because it got really terse for me, i guess i'm not smart enough to read it yet :\ Although i doubt whether the author of that book did not color nsdm's teaching with some of there own commentary.... And as far as buddhist teachings are concerned...i find all these layers of differentiations, distinctions, hair-splittingly tedious, im afraid. Why not just be, and know without "knowing"?

Rishis did not crete the vedas. They merely narrated what they learnt. Read subhash kak's book on astronomical code of the vedas to undertnd how accurate vedic astronomy and assoc. math was. These guys were far more advanced than most european mathematicians of the 19th century. And had invented advanced mathematics ....

Nisargadatta maharaj did not know english, so he would not have differentiated between consciousness and awareness. In indian languages they are not different words, one is root for another. And in english even they on have different meaning or implication, afaik. In fact one is a root for another In sanskrit-based languages - chitta (consciousness),chaitanya (being aware or conscious, a function of chitta). May i ask Why are you getting caught up on semantics?

not sure you understood what i was saying. Please read again... I say you are mistaken in saying there cant be consciousness without objects. Consciousness is the background. I think there is a fundamental difference in how you and i know consciousness.

It is a general agreement that Deep sleep is not Turiya. It is similar in that there is no memories formed, but in Turiya there is awareness none-the-less... After the fact descriptions can be attempted of Turiya, albeit they are futile, but an instinctual cognizance of that state (Turiya) is there. There isn't such a thing in deep sleep. Although it is recorded that Yogis have the ability to enter what seems like deep-sleep and yet retain their awareness of everything that happens around them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga-nidra). I post the wikipedia article, specifically wrt Swami Rama because I did extensive book research on the Menninger Foundation studies with Swami Rama in the past... From personal experience I can say that the transition to Turiya-like state is very interesting (especially for me in context of shavasana meditation). As I lay on the floor, slowly my muscles seem to melt like butter on a hot pan. As the muscles relaxed so deeply the chi/prana became pervasive (ie slowly integrated my whole body). And the mind slowed down gradually, with the thoughts becoming distant chatter, until i could discern the underlying consciousness upon which this chatter floated like debris on a flowing river. After a point, there was no chatter any more, no thoughts only clear consciousness (and time stopped, space didn't exist anymore). Until the the thoughts kicked in again. This is a repeatable process I have practiced. The key is to not "try" to get there. Just being patient, letting it rise on it's own. Fixating on this is counter-productive. But it is clear that a cognizance of the objectless consciousness remains albeit it is all after-the-fact.

Au contraire ... I'm saying that oc is ever present. Due to the effects of our limitations we do not always experience it as such. What this also implies is that oc is the underlying "reality" - that mundane reality is superimposed upon - technical term being adhyasa.

Please do not be too hard on yourself. Its okay to experiment. Now that you know the effects you will be careful next time. Do lots of stretches, go for long walks, breath, eat food that is comforting... When you start feeling better, first practice direct breathing (inhlae stomach expands, exhale contracts) till you feel your ldt stabilize before starting with the spine.

Maybe it's my conditioned response but I wince everytime I read luminous this, Jhanic that... Also I see mind as a field of objects...thoughts.... When these thoughts disappear, the object less consciousness is evident. When thoughts start again, oc is hidden. IMHO it isn't possible to completely stay in oc because all the things that this physical body needs to do has to happen with thoughts. Eg body needs food or water and a thought "I'm hungry or I'm thirsty" pops up. So much as we have to live within the limitations of our physical shells we can't be naive and expect a dreamy-eyed utopia.

It doesn't. That's because Objectless consciousness is precisely that -- Consciousness without objects in it's field. Where it stands apart from objects? It doesn't because it never was part of the objects. It's role is like that of light -- it illuminates.

Kali yuga is a 25,000 year cycle that begun in 3112 bce. Not happening in 2012 or 2025

More likely are their ego

Many ways. My experience is to meditate in the gap between thoughts. Shavasana is a great way to access the gaps and elongate them. Taiji, yoga, washing dishes ....

Not sure if we are though. You seem to be suggesting (and forest of emptiness agreeing) that there is a transition of subject into object. I am suggesting that the subject cannot become the object when standing on it's own (Objectless Consciousness). But the fact is also -- that which we consider the "subject" is not really a subject at all but a response to the objects that interact with it. However, it is also a fact that when these objects are removed, what remains is not "nothing" but "no thing" -- i.e. "no object, no phenomenon, etc". Since it is not a "thing", we can't really make it an object of inquiry. But since it is not nothing, it has it's own existence, as it is not dependent on any other thing to exist (albeit someone might argue, if it can be experienced if we die...to which my answer would be i don't personally know...but there have been other reliable testimonies of sadhus who have said it does). Since it is not a phenomenon, it does not have a beginning or an end. Since it has no beginning or end, it is beyond time. Since it is not a thing or a phenomenon, it exists beyond space. Since it exists beyond space and time, it is also called eternal (perhaps wrongly so, because syntactically, eternal means forever...but something that is beyond space and time cannot remain forever, because forever is in the time domain). we can extrapolate further and further. But the problem with the intellect is that it too is bound by the same rules of space and time (and no matter how much we can "imagine" no thing, atemporal, non-spatial, that too is in contrast to "thing", "temporal", "spatial") -- so we discard all that it isn't (neti neti), and then just be (for varying periods of time, we make time stop, we make space not exist, we are it...but then space and time kick back in, and we are back to intellectual rumination. That is the meaning of Upadhi or the limiting adjunct. The mind, the body, the law of causality. These three are the upadhis we have to deal with and there is no escaping that. Some great ones have the ability to transcend the upadhis for extended periods of time, but they too are subject to it's finality (in the physical sense). PS - It is also quite plausible, that in retrospect, there are various explanations that can be made wrt what "it" is...like infinite streams of consciousness (alaya vijnana) interconnected in an infinite matrix. But if you ask me, i would say that too is within the constraints of upadhis (or in certain traditions, called skandhas) for they are in contrast to these thereof...

Why ruin this old chinese saying with so much intellectualization? I consider it like a zen-koan...

Perhaps we should first come to an agreement regarding what being an object entails. In my opinion, an object is basically an item of inquiry, that can be inspected, categorized and described (sometimes one or another) using the sensory faculties such as vision, hearing, taste, touch, smell or the intellect. Objectless consciousness is nothing of that sort because only thing we can describe about it, is that it is not consciousness with objects. There are no specific characteristics except the lack of characteristics. So, in short, it is a state in which there no more subject or object...and even that observation is only reflective, retrospective. Is a lack of characteristics a valid description? Or is it in fact not a description at all, since a description entails details, not a complete lack of them, thereof.

True. But to find objectless consciousness you don't need to make the subject and object. Objectless consciousness is ever present, and the knowing in OC is different from the knowing of dualistic mode. That's why sadhus recommend that you simply be, not over-think things. Albeit, Advaita vedanta IS jnana yoga, so there has be "some thinking", but at one point the thinking needs to be discarded. If not, all we get is a hot head and upset stomach Also, I pointed out "Upadhi". There is no escaping the limiting adjunct of this physical body. Even those who are sthita-prajnas still need to shed this body at some point, and the body will bring them back to consciousness that is not objectless. There is an over-romanticized, over-exaggerated emphasis on Non-duality. The role of Advaita is to make the process of Maya apparent and eventually unnecessary. For whom and for what purpose is something that cannot be answered. Non of the jnanis do answer it...why? Because they cannot. And for those who think that "because they cannot, they must be somehow inadequate or incomplete jnanis", that is a fallacy. Because we can see the other extreme of taking non-dualism to intellectual OCD levels in some Buddhist and Neo-Advaita paradigms. To quote an all time great -- "Those who know, do not say; those who say, do not know"...