Apech

I've always had a problem with the Buddhist preference for the monastic lifestyle. I guess its a good idea to have the time and space to practice and study - but that detachment from everyday life seems to me more of a limitation than a benefit. But I do recognise that at the time of the Buddha being a householder was not the same as we mean today. It was not having a house, two kids and the 9-5 job. It meant the person responsible for an estate, with an extended family, workers and servants. It also implied a daily round of social and religious commitments which were onerous. Also to be born in mind is that we live in an age of unparalleled luxury, where we can usually make some time for ourselves - whereas for most of history mankind has lived struggling to survive (unless they were a member of an elite). In this environment it makes sense to create a monk lifestyle which removes you from the daily grind. But today, in the West certainly not so much.

Ancient swords are useless for suicide - you need a modern one.

No I am in duality but not of duality.

No I see them as two self-consistent systems.

Are you being deliberately difficult?

Buddhist ideas are consistent. Hermetic ideas are consistent. But if you try to read across it gets difficult - or a bad fit at best- This is my view.

I don't use the word illusory. I would say that anything like a world-soul would not be existent in any absolute sense.

Yes but its a kind of web of subtle energy isn't it? Anyway I would see them as different and any equation as forced.

No there isn't. The alayavinana is the storehouse consciousness.

Me? Well since you ask. If by the world you mean what the Buddhists mean by samsara then no you would not want to become one with it. But if you mean something like the world-soul of hemeticism then you would. Which is why I thought that it depends what you mean by world.

depends what you mean I guess.

This reminds me of 'in the world but not of the world' - which I think was Jesus (?) - some one will let us know.

Thoth is the Egyptian god which is equated to Hermes/Mercury - god of wisdom, mathematics, writing, healing and so on. He is a very ancient god whose worship was centred in Khemenu (City of Eight = Hermopolis). He is usually depicted as either Ibis or baboon headed - and has links to the moon. One of his titles is 'pa-wr, pa-wr, pa-wr' which translates as three times great - this title is reflected in the Hermetic figure of Hermes Trismegistus. (i.e. Hermes thrice great). As Michael has already pointed out the Hermetic Canon was largely attributed to him - but was written probably in the first few centuries AD in Greek. There's been a lot of dispute over the centuries over the attribution but I think most scholars would say that Hermeticism is a mix of Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian, Kabbalah, Greek mystery schools, early Christian mysticism and Gnosticism. This thinking flourished in places like Alexandria in northern Egypt. It is well known that Alexander the Great (who founded Alexandria) had an empire which extended into Afghanistan and Northern India. Not only that but the Silk Route to China intersected with his empire. So the chances of the Egypto-Greeks having contact with Daoism and other eastern thought is 100%. So no doubt there was some cross fertilisation between these cultures.

Nice bit of deception - we are not fooled.

Dunno.

Nice poem.

I'd forgotten about the dispute between Northern and Southern schools - and I think at least some of it is just that old human habit of rivalry. It seems to occur in all walks of life - people desperate to prove their way the best at the expense of the others - sometimes even leading to bloodshed and war. Sitting and forgetting about such concerns is probably the best practice. I think it is inescapable, that no matter what system/religion you follow at the end of the day, it's just you and your mind/energy/body and nothing more. You have to find your own path with that. People can spend a lot of time on ceremony, on thinking, on trying to be better and so on - some of which is very helpful (even if only later on and not immediately) - but in the end you're just back with yourself with no filters. So in the sense that 'non-duality' is something you might read about and study - it just falls into the category of possibly helpful ways of thinking, nothing more. If it is about an experience - say of giving up, falling away, suddenly realising there's no 'you' while doing the washing up. Well bravo for doing the washing up at least. Otherwise beware - if it leads to any sense of abstraction, of floaty non-being, of emotional (what would you call it?) attenuation - then beware - not only is this not the real deal but just a brief rest - it's not non-duality either. Non-duality, the real deal, is the goal of various yoga systems et. al. But it is called this because it is such a profundity that it goes beyond what we can conceive, what we can cling to or emotionally desire. The way to it is various depending on the person and the circumstances (including culture etc.).

Crap is gold.

No! I think I must be myopic.

I get where you are coming from now. But I would say that to 'do' non-doing you have to do some doing and to do 'doing' you have to be able to 'not-do' - maybe this is why the Northern and Southern schools merged. Actually it is a good illustration of the non-duality of the two approaches - and Xing and Ming.

That's very generous of you Steve but is there not such a thing as right and wrong?

Wiki is ok for looking things up but not for detailed guidance. I would concede that in the Song dyn. the way in which wuji was used may have changed slightly - and as is very often the case with these things they started to talk about it as a primordial state, probably the wuji diagram is suggestive of this - but I would argue if properly understood it had a consistent meaning throughout. That text is attributed to Laozi but it wasn't written by the Laozi of the TTC. Its an honorific attribution. Even with neidan (and also Nei gong and qi gong) stillness cultivation is the first thing you need to do and is vital as it draws qi into the body, its the way of getting power-up and without it nothing really works. Wu wei or strictly speaking wei-wu-wei is not stillness - it is spontaneous action which meets the needs of the situation. Where did you get this 'first you do you wei and then you do wuwei' from? Is it in a specific teaching you have learned? Just curious.

Confucianism and Buddhism have altered the meaning of wuji. Originally it meant infinite and boundless, without end, limitless. In the 11th century wuji was redesignated as 'stillness' where Wu = Nothingness, Void, Zero; Chi = Energy. Neidan doesn't lead to stillness or emptiness or void, it leads to refined energy and fullness and the birth of an immortal Self, and that Self continues to multiply endlessly. Is this philosophically speaking a non-dual or a dual outcome? No, sorry, the ji part of wuji is not the same as chi. It means either ridgepole or boundary. Thus wuji means 'without boundary' - the ridgepole idea is from the highest point of a roof - hence 'without limit'. This imagery begins with the Yijing and does not change through Buddhist influence. Neidan does rely on cultivating stillness as in 'Cultivating Stillness - a Taoist Manual for Transforming Body and Mind' - Eva Wong. (dated to the Six Dynasties Era 220 - 589 AD).

My point is that the right and left brain functions are not the unconscious and the conscious: http://brainmadesimple.com/left-and-right-hemispheres.html The earth in Chinese thought is not the physical as understood by science but more like a powerful nurturing force perhaps a little like 'mother earth'. I agree that the body is a microcosm but it is important to get the correspondences right.

I 'liked' your post because I'm not taking sides I'm just saying what I think. I agree. Duality is real. I don't truck with 'illusory' and so on. A chair is a chair and so on. Where would we sit otherwise?