dwai

Read this book on Neurobiology -- http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-I...s/dp/067003830X

Try reading this book -- Nine Nights with the Taoist Master

Greetings friends, I've been musing over the difference between knowing something intellectually and simply knowing. For example -- you are walking down the street and you look at the sky and see it cloudy and smell moisture in the air and intellectually know that it might rain. Or you might be walking on a bright and sunny day and suddenly something tells you it's going to rain (not a cloud in sight, etc). There is a difference between these two kinds of knowing. Similar knowing exists in esoteric practices and spiritual traditions as well. We can read a sutra or a classic and ponder over it intellectually (and thus think we know it), but then the actual form or asana is practiced and suddenly the true meaning of what a sutra or tai-chi classic referred to becomes clear as day (my Aikido sensei used to call it a Zen moment). I would like to read your (all who bother to read this thread and want to respond) opinion on this matter. Regards

Hi Rain, Beautifully put! Thank you. It is this "knowing" that I am trying to track down/understand (albeit that can be a bit of conundrum, given that it is something that cannot be intellectualized). When the intellectual knowing stops, is when the intuitive knowing starts (i like to call this second knowing the intuitive knowing). When doing your practice, do you use the intellect or the intuition then? I find it hard to reconcile between the intellectually "inferred" and the intuitively gleamed. Regards

How does Ego affect our Meditation? Is it the Self or is it something distinct and disparate?

Hi Taomeow, Thanks for your response. It was very illuminating... I have a few questions based on your description. Note, however that I might not make any sense at all, since I'm just a novice. And my apologies if that is the case. So what drives your meditation? Your left brain or your right brain? Is it your left-brain Interpreter module? Or is it your Heart? Or is it your Lower Dan Tien/Te? Based on what I have understood of the process, Ego is our "Self-image" and it keeps "waking up" every once in a while to re-assert itself. It is not just an intellectual limitation that we place upon ourselves, but also a societal one. This Ego is the barrier that differentiates us from the unlimited one. I know it is very easy to talk about it intellectually but not sense it experientially. But for those rare instances when it drops... My meditation is in trying to learn what my teacher teaches me, physically as well as energetically. Get as close to the description as I can, hopefully to go beyond the description eventually. But the problem is with this darned Ego which throws a monkey-wrench in my plans. Maybe I'm imagining it, but my self-description seems to be my limitation. Thanks Todd. That was an extremely intriguing elucidation. My teacher tells us about syntax and it's limitations. I guess to experience the Dao, we need to first go beyond syntax (which is what Lao Tzu refers to in the first aphorism of the Tao te Ching)... But my problem has been with the separation of the intellect from the experience. I believe (from my reading, etc) that this is a primary problem with many of the "Rational" kinds. We tend to "interpret" everything and find an explanation (even when there might not be any definition or words to explain such phenomenon).

But there is an Ego problem involved. Everyone has to deal with it -- no matter what your level of practice. It (ego) raises it's ugly head. Everytime we meditate and think about our "accomplishment", we are feeding the ego. It is frustrating, but the first step I think is in detecting it. You are right about the Fundamental One-ness of existence. But the Tao and the Brahman are not the sun or the moon, they are the same sky. Just like you call "Sky" - "Sky" in English, you call it "Aakaash" in Samskrit. But the end result is that you are referring to the same thing, only your syntax has changed. But when it comes to Tao and Brahman, what is to describe and what can be understood? Doesn't the Tao-te-Ching say if the Tao can be described it is not the real Tao? Similarly, the Vedantic literature does everything but try and describe Brahman. Here is a little article on Brahman that is Shiva or Sat-chit-ananda (or Existence, Consciousness, Bliss) -- http://medhajournal.com/columns/philosophy...liberation.html We have to get to that Undifferentiated One slowly by integrating the pieces that is us, weaving together the individual threads of our consciousness and energy. My Tai Chi Master refers to how "the Te has to be found before connecting back to Tao".

I am glad I was able to shed some light on this topic. The topic of Brahman is greatly debated in the Classical Indic Philosophical schools. There were six traditional schools of philosophy, Vedanta (or Uttara Mimamsa) being only one of those six. Within Vedanta itself there are 3 schools with different interpretations/levels of understanding of Brahman. The Non-dual school (not Monist mind you, specifically Non-Dual) or Advaita Vedanta treats Brahman as One and there is none other. Everything that exists is Brahman as is all that doesn't exist. The Dualist (dvaita Vedanta) school stops at the level of Taiji (the concept) with the dualism. The Specific Non-Dual (Vishishta Advaita) school says that dualism is the commonly observed phenomenon, but at the end it is all one. That seems to be the observation by Taoists as well (or so it seems to me) -- with the One Chi, Yin and Yang and the Tao. The Tao, the way it was treated (or so I think) in Ancient China has parallels with the concept of Rta (or The Way or The Order) of Ancient India (as in the Purva Mimamsa school of Philosophy). Rta became Dharma with the advent of Vedanta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma#Proto-...ta_in_the_Vedas My purpose of posting these comments is because I saw SZ's original post (about Tao and Atman + Brahman) and it struck a chord. My intention isn't to belittle anyone else's opinion or to show off. The topics of Veda and Taoism and their similarities is a matter of great excitement for me. Regards, Dwai

I believe you speak of a different Brahman. The Brahman per Vedantic philosophy the undifferentiated One and everything is but a manifestation of it. The Brahman does not "create" anything -- since there is nothing that is not Brahman. The Brahman Simply is (too). The Indic way is to quantify this infinity that is Brahman in the form of more personified entities (deities). Like the old saying goes -- Do not judge a book by it's cover and don't accept anything you see at face value. There is almost always something deeper and more profound lying beneath the surface.

Hmm...that seems like an interesting "spin" to the term Wandering... As far as Atman and Brahman are concerned -- they are the same as Te and Tao (Microcosm and Macrocosm). There is little difference (mho) -- call it whatever you want to call it (Tao, Brahman, Great Eagle, Nagual, the list is endless). What it isn't is a personalized/personified God (which is also a distilliation, an abstraction of the Tao btw). East or South-East, the wisdom remains...we must not indulge in the Ego (my way is better than your way), but follow which-ever path the Tao leads us to...

The number 108 is an auspicious number in Indian Cosmology and thus a recurring concept. please refer to the bibliography provided in this url for some more detail on the concept of Marmas in the Indian Martial traditions -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_Kalarippayattu

Hi, a non-expert for sure (as sure as the day) that I am, somethings from my own experience tells me that the Universe will re-arrange for you when your intent is right. Back in 2002/3, I had started rigorous Tai Chi and pranayama/mediation techniques (albeit self-taught) and I had teachings via a series of dreams (most folks would consider me as being reasonably "sane"). Perhaps most folks don't consider "Dream teaching" as valid, but it was real as it gets and that was real meditation. Maybe the teacher is out there, right within your sight, but you are not able to see him/her? We sometimes close our mind to possibilities because of pre-conceived notions of what "should be". My Tai Chi Teacher tells us that we need to hold a beginner's mind, without which learning cannot happen (I'm not saying you aren't doing that, but simply that it is recommended). however, most of times, I don't know what the heck I'm talking about...

When you refer to meditation, what kind of meditation are you talking about? What have you been working on? What do you hope to achieve with the Meditation practice?

The problem is paradoxical. If you don't believe it, can you ever get to stage where you can do it? I guess it's a matter of patience -- in my limited practice I've seen if I dwell on phenomenological aspects of things, I lose them for days to come (don't dwell on the effects, just do the action). I've been spending quite some time trying to understand the conflict (if any) between Science and the Esoteric practices such as Yoga and Tai Chi. Here's a little article I'd written -- The Battle between Science and Yoga It deals with a related topic and the problem with Scientific Inquiry as we generally know it. Hard Science is too fixated with it's Materialist ideology, to the point of complete rigidity.

I've heard anecdotes of Master Liao doing rooting while sitting in a standard office chair (with rollers/wheels) and being pushed by different people. They were all unsuccessful in even budging the chair. One question that comes up is this -- When we are Chi practitioners, why this aversion to accepting the phenomenon of Chi? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I can feel a palpable energy while doing Tai Chi practice and have felt the Chi being projected by my teacher in a push-hands session. It felt like a very dense electric shock and the hand felt like it was a hugely dense object that simply absorbs all the force exerted -- it wasn't imagined -- it was very real sensation.

I think the problem is with expecting too much. When one approaches a "Spiritual" quest, one has to have certain amount of open-ness to the experiences, without expecting anything specific -- just be receptive. That being said, it is a paradox, since one should necessarily research well before starting the journey. I guess the difficulty in learning is in the "Un-learning". At the end of it all, things might very well turn out to be "Dog-s#1t" or whatever one deems to call it, but the learning one does while "un-learning" is the experience, it is the wisdom and is what is a part of the "mystical" experience.

The key I believe is in whether a proper base has been created or not. ie, whether there has been sufficient introspection/study/research done by the seeker before embarking upon such an arduous journey. While Pop-practice is well and good, a sincere seeker will get sincere results and a casual seeker will get only superficial results.

Dear Friends, Firstly, my warm greetings to you all. Hope you are all doing well. I've been drawn to this website in course of some searches on some specific topics. Needless to say I found the answers I had been looking for and that's why will refrain from what these searches were (for). I've been practicing Tai Chi (sans it's Taoist underpinnings) since the past 5 odd years (with earlier background in Hard Martial Arts) -- first via (Dr. Paul Lam's) videos on the 24-forms and then later from my present teacher George Bolger (who is a student of Master Liao, Oak Park, IL). I've been following the learned conversations here on this forum with great interest and am learning a lot. My special subject of interest is in the phenomenon of Chi (and the various camps about what it is) from an academic perspective. I also study the similarities between Taoism and India's (my country of origin) Vedic traditional philosophies (needless to say, I see a huge volume of overlap). This comparative study helps me understand each of the two systems better (complementary) and hopefully helps me navigate the often confusing waters of the Spiritual aspirant a little better. Regards, Dwai

Hi Cheya, I have indeed read Master Liao's books (Tai Chi classics, Nine Nights and How to feel your life energy). I have to check the tutorial you mentioned though -- thanks. The biggest drawback in studying the Vedic traditions is that there are miles of debris of unqualified people (non-practitioners such as the "famous Indologists") dumping silly literal translations from an ancient language (Rig Vedic samskrit) and leading to misunderstandings. A very good place to learn something about what the Vedic traditions mean is here -- http://medhajournal.com/columns/indic-clas...lf-brahman.html My own experience (relatively new at both rediscovering my Indic roots, as well as learning Taoist concepts) leads me to believe that the Chinese "Tao" is also the Vedic "Brahman", the huge body of overlaps in the esoteric details of the pranic system and the Chinese meridian system, practices of Kriya and similarities in the Microcosmic orbit practices, etc are phenomenal. Unfortunately, the understanding of most things Indic is tinted with an outsider's (mis)understanding of these (thereof and/or literal translations). My Tai Chi practice has helped me bridge that knowledge gap (from an Insider's perspective -- since both types of practices are in essence similar). Warm Regards, Dwai

I believe one of the aims of both Tai Chi and Yoga is to overcome Ego. I had written a small piece on the similarities between Tai Chi and Yoga (http://medhajournal.com/columns/articles/tai-chi----a-path-to-samadhi.html). I currently practice both Tai Chi and Yoga. Each of these practices are helping me with the other (Tai Chi increases Chi awareness, Yoga enhances and vice versa). I think it's very important to understand one's limitations (physically at least) before embarking on any practice (of course I don't know much about anything, so perhaps it doesn't matter what I think). Yoga books and teachers (see BKS Iyengar's Light on Yoga) will tell you to always "Listen to your body" and "don't over-exert". Similarly, my Tai Chi master tells me to always follow the Tai Chi Classics rule - "Not too much, not too little". I guess that's the most important thing. Both these practices should be done for personal improvements, not to compete. So if I see someone do a intense backbend in a yoga studio, it shouldn't mean I should try and emulate the same -- instead, wisdom prevails when we work within our limitations and try to grow our horizons slowly. Regards, Dwai