sean

We've been bouncing the idea around for a Chinese language forum for The Tao Bums and have decided to give it a go. Depending on it's popularity and other factors I may or may not move this as a subforum of Taoist Discussion. But for now I'm giving it it's own place. I am told the Chinese character title translates more or less to, "A forum where a community of Daoists talk to each other and learn from each other, resulting in a new body of knowledge that is connected to but not limited by the old traditions." Perfect. This is a bit of risk at this point since none of the core moderators here read Chinese. So anyone who can read/write Chinese that wants to pitch in a bit for moderation here I would really appreciate it, just pm me. And anyone able, feel free to translate this message for me. Thanks! Enjoy! Deep Bow. Sean

goldisheavy, you are pushing the envelope on the rules again. it will be a shame to lose your contributions here if you can't find a way to flow within this context. you don't have to agree with or like the rules. but if you want to participate in this forum you have to abide by them. consider this is your last warning. sean

i've just started running this style for about a month or so now. really enjoying it. sean

i think one of the issues here is that there are stages to this insight and xabir, correct me if i'm wrong, you are pointing to a rather subtle stage. an intermediary stage of insight might be the direct realization that, in a sense, the car does not exist (at least in "your" experience, if a "you" still seems necessary) before it is met with ("your") awareness. eventually a realization may occur where the components that comprise a sense of "you" are also seen as objects of awareness, arising and passing along with what is seen, heard, felt. now the sense becomes one where there is only awareness, swirling spontaneously through seeing, hearing, feeling, sense of a self, remembering, etc. all as a result of causes and conditions outside of the sense of self's control. as this settles, the realization may begin to dawn that awareness itself is not separate. awareness is not actually a separate "field" that objects arise within and are perceived by. objects themselves, in a sense, are awareness. the seeing of the car is one "event", objects themselves are self-luminous. this is "in the seeing only the seen". it's very natural. humbly, sean

no. and please chill with the direct insults or you are heading for a break from the forum. e.g. http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/18512-ruthless-truth/page__view__findpost__p__260070 "It's a paradox and you're a fool. " http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/18512-ruthless-truth/page__view__findpost__p__260098 "You have proved yourself to be a liar, ignorant, deceptive, and a fool [...]" etc. sean

it's been many years, but if i recall correctly the book "consciousness explained" by dennett does a decent job of pointing to an aspect of "in the seeing just the seen" (etc) from a scientific perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater xabir, nice to see you posting here. i appreciate your patience. *deep bow* sean ps - otis, is it possible you are attached to a belief/conviction that absolute truth cannot be directly realized.

supta baddha konasana, feet pulled up close to tailbone, relax for 5-10 minutes. then slowly begin raising the legs, stopping periodically to discover/allow waves of trembling, shaking. sean

i really wish i had this exercise 15 years ago! it's so simple and effective ime. really unwinding deep, core tension. i feel like like it is saving me hundreds of hours of, say, trying to dissolve this kind of tension through sitting meditation alone. like trunk i also do the last exercise before bed, sometimes for an hour or so. highly recommended. sean

i believe trauma releasing exercises to release the psoas helped me with this exact issue in longer sits. btw, i sit burmese now for anything over 45 minutes, great, solid sitting form from master meditators. sean

imvho: the actual practice of meditation involves attending to what is present, without generating additional attachment to any object, including ideas, expectations or attempted diagnosis of stages. and also there are roughly similar stages of awakening the human mind goes through when the conditions of a consistent, earnest meditation practice are applied. i've noticed different teachers and traditions put more or less emphasis on the practice vs the path, and there appear to be relative advantages and pitfalls to either emphasis. sean

i generally like his stance on war and drugs and he seems sincere and principled. but i don't like his views on corporate deregulation, abortion, healthcare, state's rights, evolution (lol). total deal breakers. sean

http://bit.ly/gemL27 sean

CAMERON! WOOOOOOT!!!! *jumping up and down* sean

con mucho gusto. sean

thanks for reporting this. *clickety clack* i just tweaked some things, please let me know if this helped at all. sean

topic moved to forum and tech support. 666 banned for blatant trolling + direct insult in subtitle (Weak,Cry Baby,Spoilt Brat) and with two posts under his belt. *sigh* sean

just to clarify, i would say preferences arise and that this is natural and human and need not be resisted. but i would not say it is "correct" to "make" preferences. i see. i see. so this fluid quality of your ideal "known" suggests it is not separate in any ultimate metaphysical sense from unknown. but on a human level it does have specific qualities, e.g., maybe recognition, clarity, luminosity, balance, integrity, and these qualities are useful enough to point to this island (at least temporarily) as being distinct from the brutally inhuman "unknown" (impersonal ocean) that includes being lost, unclear, floundering, suffering, drowning. am i getting warmer? thanks for taking the time to clarify stig. will ponder this further. literally about to walk out the door to fly out to a 10 day silent retreat so i'll have plenty of time, hah. talk to you soon. sean

i "mean them" in the sense that i am being honest and reporting my experience of the inquiry i shared, yes. give it a try. simply ask yourself with complete sincerity and openness what you really know to be absolutely true in this moment. so why not just call the island preferences then? i'm just really not seeing how it's useful to refer to "fixated personal conceptual descriptions" as "known". because this seems like a better working definition of occlusions to what is known, blinders to clarity ime. sean

yes, very practical and common sense view and likely crucial to operating in the world. and at a more fundamental level (which i assume we are trying to investigate on a taoist forum) these are simply relatively safe assumptions based on accumulated stories. is that what is meant by "known" in this topic? if so, than yes there is a huge ass island of relatively safe-seeming assumptions arising at any given moment, agreed. to experience beyond that kind of knowledge i can only again suggest further inquiry along the lines suggested in my previous post. what is absolutely known to be true, directly, without any assumption or reference to concepts that can be argued? i humbly submit the "answer" is not what you (or i) think. and yet sitting in chairs will (probably) continue to function as expected, heh. there is a relative quality of continuity amidst our experience. but ime, directly realizing the groundlessness of 99.9% of what is generally assumed to be known (in the absolute sense) creates space for a stunning sense of wonder, even with "simple" things like "just sitting", otherwise sanitized of mystery via socially encouraged habits of taking concepts seriously. sean

can you also see that there is only awareness cycling from, e.g., sensation of skin and chair, sight of computer screen, sense of a something called me deliberately making a post (also merely an impression), etc. the statement "i am sitting in a chair", while a relatively simple, direct, and useful story for playing in this world, is actually quite a bold and questionable assertion. consider, how is the distinction between known vs. what is unknown experienced? iow, how do you know the difference between "what you know you know" vs. "what you know you do not know" vs. "what you are not quite sure you know or do not know"? not a word game, a real inquiry. is a sense of unshakable confidence = proof of known? a strong sense of logical consistency = known? neither are "wrong", either can be useful, but taking a backward step, i propose these are also merely impressions and can be rather easily challenged. unshakable confidence can be misguided. logical consistency can be missing a single piece of data. etc. ime this path of experiential inquiry is frightening to everything attached to imaginary islands of known. yet as the stories of islands erode, something unspeakable mysteriously still remains. sean

hmmm... i know this is just a model, but when i actually look for this "island of known", i can only find more swirling sea. i often operate habitually as if i know, as if there is an island. but what do i absolutely incontrovertibly know to be true in this actual moment that is simply beyond even the subtlest shred of doubt or argument? where is this island? for me, when i sincerely ask, nothing arises but silence decorated with what is. nothing known, nothing graspable, nothing i can articulate. this moment itself is utterly unknown. sean

likewise. i have yet to even try to talk about my experiences with mark. *deep bow* sean

i'm familiar with the debate in this topic as well as mahasiddhas. my point was not to dismiss wikipedia, i was simply laughing at the idea of coming to a fixed conclusion on a very open and complex inquiry such as this one via a wikipedia entry and no direct experience. sean

yes. based on wikipedia entry, case closed. lol. sean

dude, you gotta get out of your head. sean