Apech

Hi, Marblehead is right - ask one specific thing at a time and you will get plenty of answers on here. But you will have to chose which to follow of course. Forget about other people - do things for yourself - set yourself a few goals and give yourself rewards. Find an effective teacher in your area and practice gathering personal power. Good luck A.

Very wise. I wish I was better at this - I have had quite a bit of practice (!).

Thanks also - I am enjoying the teachings.

Which blog?

There's plenty of Taoist commentary on Lao Tzu ... and I guess Buddhism is elaboration on what Buddha said ... and we weren't there to hear that either. I guess I take your point that different people take it in different ways. Some do seem to regard the Tao as some kind of source. But to me the idea of a source just removes it from what is (or not-is) - abstracts the Tao. Its a bit like if you look at an ocean ... you might look at the waves and patterns on the surface or you might look into its fathomless depths. When looking at the waves you ask 'where did they come from?' ... and answer 'the ocean made them!' ... then look into the depths and say 'ah this is the source of the waves' ... but actually they are just aspects of the ocean ... you can't say it is waves, but you can't say its not waves, you can't say its just depths and you can't say its not ... you can't say the depths create the waves they are just co-present ... and so on. There's a story from 100,000 songs of Milarepa called Woman's role in dharma (from memory). He teaches a woman to meditate on various things including the sky ... and she says she gets on all right till clouds come along ... and he answers that the clouds are the sky. .. its late ... not sure where I'm going with this ... Hope you feel better soon Vaj.

Sounds like a football fixture. (and when I say football I mean real football not that rubbish with shoulder pads and crash helmets that you play over there). Mind you if you keep posting at such speed and regularity it will soon look more like the Vajina monologue. Everything arises dependently. But you don't say 'I am going to drive my collocated-dependent-phenomena-which-I-label-vehicle to work today'. You call it a car and it is a car. Unless you have reabsorbed your car in which case you take the bus. Taoism is not about (I stand to be corrected here by the more wise) escaping to some transcendent bliss state. That is the god realms of Buddhism. It is (perhaps) about understanding and becoming one with the changing processes of reality which are seen as a flow of energy (qi). The fundamental nature of this reality is mystery, formless and unspeakable. Here 'becoming one with' does not imply monism. Monism is concealed dualism - which for instance theist systems like Christianity are prone to. Becoming one means you have removed the apparent duality.

Oh yes the deja vu is strong now:( Ground of Being is an interesting idea. Starting from an experiential point of view you can say that you perceive things to exist ... that is to be. Then you can say that there is something about all the things ... the quality of their existence ... or their being which they hold in common. This 'being' is like something (not a thing actually) which sustains them in being. The being is 'Being' the sustainer of everything which could be called their mother. Then what is the underlying actual nature of Being? What does it depend or rely on? A ground of Being. A substratum of existence. The nature which you would uncover if you could strip away the outer form(s) of Being. It is this kind of thinking which tempts us into the monism which Vaj. critiques. This is because it is easy then to think - there is one underlying ground of being which is eternal and unchanging. This makes a 'thing' out of the Tao. As if to say it is something 'other' which stands alone behind existence and is unchanging. But actually this is only a problem of words and philosophy.

I second that! I have a strong feeling of deja vu though.

Stig, I think you are being a little harsh there. We have had this discussion before of course. But it is true that many Taoist refer to the Tao as a source or origin and this would seem from a Madhyamika point of view to be a distinguishing feature of Taoism making it non-Buddhist. That is not to say that this would be an obstacle to common practice or indeed empathy. Wang Bi says something (I would have to look this up if you want) along the lines that Tao as origin and Tao as mother (of the ten thousand things) arise together. In other words although the Tao is formless in itself (if you like) when viewed from a relative viewpoint i.e. a person looking for an origin ... it looks like a source and also a sustainer of all that is. Some of these problems come from the fact that when you read across from different systems then a confusion of terms can arise. It is better (in my view) to think Buddhist and think Taoist separately if you see what I mean. On more extreme example there is nothing stopping a Taoist and a Christian mystic sitting down and reaching common ground and respect - even though the idea of a personal god would still be there.

Ninpo, Look into my eyes .... You must not think that you have replied to my message while we are talking here. Its an idea which is rather like the layers of an onion. So how do you feel now? Yours, B. Obama.

Ninpo, Have you joined the Tea Party? Will soon deny being a witch? Have you lost your mind? I'm not hypnotizing you - just asking.

Hi Manitou, Nice to have some CC stuff on here. Thanks for reminding about the 'old seer' and 'new seer' differences. I kind of assumed the OP was talking about trad. shamanism but your comments are interesting. A.

Rational means 'with ratio' - that is there are formal relationships which can be defined within the subject. Rationality is a good servant but a poor master. That is once the subject has been given reason can be applied to help understand it - but if you ask reason for a 'why' or sometimes even a 'how' it can't supply the answer. Shamanism deals with ecstatic states and a kind of extra dimension to the world. Ecstatic means literally standing outside yourself or the bliss of release from the limitations of finite being. The closest idea that western science has to the shamanic realm is the sub-conscious and/or the collective unconscious. But the rational mind of scientists who generally study without practice is to put this part of ourselves (and the world) in a box. They regard the sub-conscious as a finite inner part of the mind of the individual (or some kind of shared inner core). But they are only allowing themselves to perceive part of what is actually an infinite field of consciousness. Because the shaman explores this infinite realm and goes beyond themselves they will always be beyond rational limits. But that is not the same as saying it is irrational. Far from it - in fact if the truths revealed are properly integrated into a person they would become super-rational if I can use that term. This is what I think anyway.

My path is mainly through meditation and it teaches me about myself and the world/ reality in a process which brings together energy/power and attention/consciousness. I treat it more or less as a practical tool to access real changes in consciousness. When I read back what I have just written it sounds like a load of words - so I would say in the end that the thing about meditation is that it allows you to discover for yourself - in your own way - the things that you otherwise just read or think about. You have to start with a pure heart of genuine inquiry and interest - put in the time and energy and you will get rewards. But its not easy that's for sure. Also good to find a good teacher who can give you a few pointers.

Well, I can only say that for me there is a lot more to it - in fact sitting around relaxing is a relaxation session and not meditation at all. But you just need to examine it in detail and decide if it is for you ... find your own way.

gunfighter's remorse there was one in the chamber! sorry mate, forgot.

Yes I think you are right. I can see that one energy pattern could induce (entrain) another given the right conditions. I think its their incompleteness which suggests they are not in harmony (generally or with each other)? ? ?

In Ancient Egypt they venerated and consulted (through oracle) the ka of the ancestor - which is exactly that a kind of sustained energy pattern associated with the body but not the body - which resides in or close to the mummy. There is also the concept of storehouse consciousness in which all that has existed is stored as residual forms. This all boils down to what constitutes a person anyway. For instance a ghost-like repeating energy pattern is that a person? I don't know if you can compare Taoist return to source and nirvana - as nirvana is at least in part defined in terms of liberation from samsara. I don't think that Taoist, Shamans or indeed anyone else seeks liberation from the cyclical world in the way that it is conceptualized in Buddhism.

Why do you do it then?

In my experience meditation is only actually enjoyable at certain stages - sometimes its hard work and/or uncomfortable or even painful. If your goal is chi generation (I think meditation as such has wider aims than this) then stillness, physical and mental is the key. Perhaps I should say inner stillness because you might actually be moving when still (if this makes sense) such as in Tai Chi or Chi Gong. Part of this is letting go of expectation - let go of images of what might happen and just do the practice.

If you can get away for 6 month or a year then that's helpful - but that would be impossible for lots of people. Also I think you will get more out of the retreat if meditation is embedded in your daily life anyway. Each to his own of course and we all need to feel what is right for us to do - its not the same for everyone.

I think it's partly a danger of doubting the power of meditation and teachings that makes us worry about the speed of the world. For me meditation is not about abstracting yourself from the world but is (partly) about being able to deal with it. You have to afford yourself space, time and some peaceful environment to have successful practice but a powerful meditator can do it in a chaotic environment also. In fact this is almost the point - that your mind/being is essentially free and not dependent on the objective world around it. Don't be subject to the object (is one way of putting it). Its not easy ... but it never was. The 'fashionable merchants' are just trying to sell you something that pretends to bypass the difficulties. Meditation works but you just have to stick at it and slowly, slowly make real lasting progress. Coffee? I tried to cut it out once. But I felt after a bit ... there was no real harm in moderate coffee drinking.

Surely you mean spectre!!!!! Dictionary

I am again full. Nothing can move me from here. Birds over mountains.

Research shows that the level of cancer has risen drastically in modern world by looking at mummies from Egypt and South America. Cancer in ancient world