doc benway

Perhaps, but only from the perspective of the one who judges. Each of us needs something unique to our circumstances to allow growth, be that right or wrong from another’s perspective. If I were a teacher and Bindi were a student, I might have responded differently. That is not the case. This seemed to me the best approach in the moment, right or wrong.

Wu wei is not alchemy but in many ways it is an important objective and result of alchemy. At very least it is a symptom of growth through alchemical practice. My point is it is effortless. The effort is the chaos, the natural balance is restored through letting go of effort. Certainly there are things that need to be done and when we get out of the way, they will happen naturally, when needed. Once again, wu wei. We can certainly disagree and I apologize if I come across as pushing my perspective on you. Your perspective is every bit as valid to you as mine is to me. Best of luck in your practice!

I respectfully disagree. The very point of Daoism for me is to allow the interplay of yin and yang to occur unimpeded. Yin and yang will always find balance, it is only my mind that suggests otherwise. Non-interference with the Way allows that balance. That is wu wei. Chaos and separation are the workings of the conceptual mind. Yes

I think it's reasonable to say that Daoism has elements comparable to all 3 paths in Buddhism - intellectual or causal and sutric (there are nearly 1500 texts in the Daoist canon; conscious intellect is engaged in yijing, geomancy, divination, and other aspects), energetic or tantric (neidan), and simple being or dzogchen (zuowang). They're certainly not identical but all elements are present in both.

The former meaning is far closer to the Buddhist concept of emptiness than is the latter. I respectfully suggest you not bias yourself with too many expectations or assumptions. Be open to what you encounter as your practice of neidan deepens. Neidan most certainly does include cultivation of stillness and emptiness, not necessarily in a direct and obvious fashion however. One must first be empty before the birth of genuine fullness and immortality is possible. The parable of the empty cup comes to mind. One could say both or neither and be equally correct, IMO. I don't find much value in such labels.

Perhaps this is what Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi meant when they said that no one "understood them." They were not lamenting failure but continuing to guide those able to hear in the direction of realization - away from understanding, away from the conceptual. They were not pointing to an understanding but to a profound shift in perspective. The Dao that can be told of is not the eternal Dao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.

Queens of the Stone Age at Red Rocks amphitheater October 2017 Red Rocks is a bucket list venue for any music fans

No, yin-yang is unashamedly and simultaneously dual and non-dual. It expresses polarity while always embracing unity. There is no yin without yang and no yang without yin. They define each other. Left is meaningless without right, male is undefined without female, heat always implies cold, up establishes down, etc... This fundamental interdependence is a critical point of yin-yang theory, IMO.

A useful and accessible illustration of non-duality can be seen in the contemporary approach to biology. Here is a link to the abstract from the first in a series of foundational papers on the subject. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975 Another good example of this line of thinking can be seen in the seminal social systems work of Niklas Luhmann (thanks Yueya!) Biological systems can be partially described by focusing on individual organisms and each can be said to exist independently but that is a partial and incomplete view. While any given organism can live and die as an "independent" entity, there is no example of any organism ever existing in the absence of its environment. The organism and environment are mutually interdependent. This is at the manifest level. One can make similar observations at levels of energetic processes and consciousness. Whether considering statistical thermodynamics or quantum mechanics, everything interacts with and influences everything else to some degree. Even the observer influences the observed in terms of mental processes. Regarding consciousness and mental process, we are influenced and conditioned by every conscious interaction with others, with nature, with ideas, imagery, etc... Duality is real but is only a limited perspective. Non-duality is real and is also a limited perspective. This is the basis for the two truths doctrine in Bön and Buddhism. Both are also inherent in the Wuji/Taiji model. As Apech points out, the Wuji/Taiji model is not at all time-dependent, to view it that way is an error. It's not saying Wuji was a long time ago and now is Taiji and in the future Wuji again. Wuji is the fundamental basis of being, similar to emptiness in Buddhism. Taiji is the infinite potential, the dynamism of polarity that manifests in experience as the 10,000 things. Returning to the void is analogous to realizing the empty nature of self. It is not that duality goes away, it is a shift in perspective that shows the validity of both dual and non-dual aspects of 'existence' At least that's one limited perspective on how these things seem to dovetail in my mind and practice.

While it may be important to understand what yin and yang are and to have a deep understanding of individuality, it is also important to understand that the foundational principle here is their mutual inter-dependence. Taiji theory is a profound exposition of dependent origination. Through your study and understanding of Yin and Yang, you understand mutual dependence more deeply than you think.

I also appreciate you taking the time to share this beautiful post.

A brief detour... This thread has helped me to better appreciate the value of faith in spiritual disciplines. When something does not make sense or work for me in a particular system, I can approach it as if: - the system is wrong, or - my understanding of the system is imperfect. If I am able to have the latter relationship, I will have the openness to learn and grow within that system. If the former, I close myself off and the system will not be supportive of spiritual growth. If I recognize this and move on to a different system that is a better fit, that growth can continue. I think it's important to work with a system that inspires the confidence, the faith, to question my own understanding rather than the validity of the system. This is not to say that belief is necessary. That confidence is only genuine and transcends belief when I actually put in the time, do the practice, and see if there are positive changes in my life. I think that confidence is more important than the specific system, as no system is right or wrong in an absolute manner but rather in relationship to the practitioner's needs and proclivities. I brought up in another thread the concept of superior, middling, and inferior practitioners. Similarly, that is not an absolute but simply applies to the relationship between the practitioner and the practice. If I can have that openness of faith in the system, there is the potential for me to be a superior practitioner of that system - when the going gets tough, rather than question the system, I question my understanding of it. I remain open to the possibility of developing a better understanding some day which is different than blind belief. Continued study and practice will eventually lead to a deeper and more nuanced understanding. Just some thoughts that came up this morning. Peace

I didn't think it was a Zen practitioner. His understanding of shikantaza is dramatized and inaccurate. Concentration is necessary early on in meditation practice (shamatha, for example). By the time you reach a practice like shikantaza, which is similar though not identical to what I practice, the effort must be released.

Would you mind sharing the source of this quote?

Thanks for sharing this Bindi. Regarding the earth/heaven duality, if you are earth what are you referring to as heaven?

Not in Buddhism but in a misunderstanding of Buddhism. The self is an illusion but that does not mean it does not exist. Illusions exist (in a relative sense) or we would not be discussing them. Buddhism does not posit whether or not things exist, the point is that they do not appear in the manner in which we assume. Sure, a Buddhist might deny the existence of the river but that would be a misunderstanding of Buddhism. That's the point I want to make.

A Buddhist would not deny that the river exists. Someone misinterpreting Buddhism might. It's interesting how pervasive this misunderstanding is about Buddhism.

After a very long hiatus, my brother convinced me to get back into running. In doing so I read a book called Born to Run by Chris McDougall. Amazing book whether you like to run or not. Among other things, the book discusses the principles of 'barefoot' running. Some take this quite literally and run barefoot in nearly all conditions. Others apply this more as minimalist running and wear running sandals or minimalist shoes (no heel rise or arch support). I've taken this to heart not only in my running but my day to day life. I've always been one to remain barefoot whenever at home and whenever possible out and about. I'm expanding that, going for long walks barefoot, running barefoot. I've now found some minimalist shoes to wear at work. I'm astonished at how good I feel. The foot was meant to feel the ground and experience physical stress to remain strong and healthy. We have been conditioned to lock our feet in cushioned boxes that cause them to weaken profoundly and take away all tactile relationship to the earth. I think there are many physical ailments that are related to our use of shoes (plantar fascitis, Achilles tendonitis, neuromas, flat feet, back pain, knee pain). Anyone else embrace this? I'm interested in your thoughts and experiences. Peace

This is an important point and thank you for bringing it out, ST. I will assume guilt in this as well. My sincere apologies to any who feel my comments are demeaning or arrogant, that is not my intent. When discussing experiential and conceptual matters in a spiritual context, this often comes up. Peter Fenner speaks well of this, as do the Bön Dzogchen teachings. Well said

Very nice to hear your position and thank you for sharing that. If you feel that your intellectual and psychological grasp of non-duality is working for you, I certainly will not dispute that. Intellectual and conceptual realization do have value but I don't know that they bring one closer to the "grand experiential realization" as you put it. Some can study and practice for decades without direct realization, others have spontaneous realization with no preparation. As mentioned elsewhere, I have a friend who had such an experience at 8 years of age. To me there is an element of grace or karma involved. My suspicion is that when you have a direct non-dual realization, the "shock" will be no less for your current understanding. I've not yet met anyone who did not consider such an experience earth shattering and life-altering, even folks well versed in the conceptual dimension.

For Gerard - Even Aboriginal Australians occasionally wear shoes... These are actually ceremonial slippers worn by shamans on occasion, not terribly functional. But I love the look and they seem comfy!

Explaining non-dual realization to someone who has not had the experience is very much like explaining the color green to someone who was born blind.

Common sense is valuable. I would never go barefoot in an operating room or construction site. I would also never volunteer for Naked and Afraid! I once had several hundred pounds of sheet metal drop on my foot - the steel toes caved in a bit but save my toes. Flexibility is important, not only in the feet and shoes...

You do not need to claim anything, your words betray your depth of insight. _/\__/\__/\_

The conceptual mind can never approach non-dual realization. It can circle and poke and prod and, like bobbing for apples, it just pushes away. Perhaps it is best to dismiss non-duality as bullshit, in that way at least we are not pushing away. Time spent thinking and discussing the topic is far better spent in the garden or on the toilet.