doc benway

I find the above to be an insightful and accurate statement that is equally applicable to the Mahayana path that I'm familiar with. "The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature." I find some faults with his criticism of the Mahayana perspective. He is conflating the doctrine of emptiness with a doctrine of nihilism. The inability or refusal to reconcile a common basis for nirvana and samsara is a consequence of this misunderstanding, and would lead to a similar disagreement with Daoism. Yes, emptiness implies a lack of intrinsic "selfness" which is different than saying it implies a lack of intrinsic reality. The idea that "all dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature" refers to that lack of intrinsic "selfness" not to a lack of intrinsic reality or existence. In my view at least, the Daoist approach to ultimate reality (Taiji born of Wuji) is much closer to the Mahayana view. The sage would be equally at home in samsara or nirvana, recognizing each as defining each other in a never ending play of Yin and Yang. Furthermore, the validity of conventional dualities is not denied in Mahayana, hence the doctrine of the Two Truths. It's ironic that what I agree with in the snippet from your quote, "the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative" is precisely the antidote to what I find at fault in his argument agains the Mahayana approach. At the end of the day, there has been this sort of debate in Buddhism since its inception. I'm not, and have no interest in being, a Buddhist scholar. Bikkhu could no doubt argue (and meditate) me under the table. I prefer to follow his implied advice of following the pragmatic path. I suspect I could find myself equally at home and make my way in either tradition, Mahayana or Theravada. I know the Daoist path is also a very supportive and effective one, although finding expert support and a connection to a lineage is much more rare. I have enormous respect for all of the above and karma has brought me to where I am today. I feel very fortunate to have the opportunities I do. Rather than debate the various views, far better for me to dig in deeply to the path unfolding in front of my feet and see where it leads.

For anyone interested, here is a detailed talk on the Bönpo view of soul. I find it fascinating. Dmitry Ermakov, the author, is a Bön scholar, translator, and practitioner:

Not sure I buy into that statement...

This is one of many reasons why following a trusted teacher and a time-tested wisdom lineage are so valuable.

My friend and long time training partner, who is also on the path, moved about 1700 miles away... We chat on the phone sometimes but it's not the same. I miss him. There aren't very many people around who can relate to these things. I guess that's why we're here!

We will have to disagree on this point. I think that the reaction we see from some folks, the raised hackles, is evidence that they feel as if their experience is being invalidated. For people who have known only duality, to hear that there is no need to do anything, there is no one to wake up, all is just as it should be... all of that makes no rational sense and negates their direct experience. They feel a powerful drive to do something, to change something, and yet they are not seeing the progress. It can be terribly frustrating, especially when others seem to be dangling this very special carrot in front of them and it stays just out of their grasp. Even doing nothing isn't working for them, they try for an hour, for a month, and nothing... I was first alerted to this by the fellow I quoted in the other thread, Peter Fenner, who cautioned against sharing these ideas without some degree of caution and sensitivity. They can create more problems than opportunity for some. I wonder if this is, at least in part, why these teachings were very secretive in some cultures? Do you really recall no time when you were living the dream and it was tangible, frustrating, and completely real? When you were searching intensely for something that was lacking? A time when the experience of non-duality was just an elusive idea that made no sense? While there may have never been a moment when you were not fully awake, there was a time when you did not realize that you were awake. You said as much in the other thread. It's not a matter of what is real, it's more a matter of what one can connect with and relate to. It's a matter of whether one has a basis for such an understanding, the proper perspective. Thinking about the meaning of being always, already awake is of little use, IMO, one either has the frame of reference to understand or not It is either there or it isn't. It either happens or it doesn't. And I can see how hearing that can be frustrating. All the work and study on Earth may have no effect. And yet it can dawn for no reason in an instant. For that reason, I consider it a Blessing, perhaps a matter of Karma. And for me at least, there was definitely a before and after. The after didn't negate the before, rather it informed the before from a new perspective that didn't previously exist in me. I also appreciate the conversation. Warm regards

I challenge the title of this thread in the following sense. While there is the experience from the perspective of waking that no one was asleep, the experience prior to waking is very real and every bit as valid. Furthermore, this sort of comment invalidates life experience and can lead to negative feelings towards self and others. A good analogy is lucid dreaming. The non-lucid dream experience is every bit as “real” as the experience of lucid dreaming although upon awakening we may look at the non-lucid experience as not being valid. Just some food food for thought. Not to give the wrong message, I am enjoying this discussion.

I had a similar experience. My neigong practice sort of spontaneously morphed into what I later found out was essentially Dzogchen meditation. In part, it was a natural outgrowth of the neigong practice. On the other hand, there were quite a few loose ends that came together when I met my current teacher. I like how Peter Fenner puts it about his many years of mostly Buddhist practice and making the transition to a more modern "non-dual" paradigm - 'If I didn't do what I didn't need to do I would not have known I didn't need to do it...'

I don’t think we have to accept anything. I feel like we’re just sharing perspectives. We can accept and reject as we please. In fact, I’d say we’re having a bit of a healthy debate here and now. There are some who suggest that the only time we learn is from our mistakes. I wouldn’t go that far, but I do find them valuable. In taijiquan pushing hands we are taught to “invest in loss.” Me too!

Just because you are not aware or familiar of comparisons and debates of these different paths, does not mean they are not compared. In fact, they've been compared for centuries. In the Bön and Buddhist world, this would be comparing the Dzogchen and Tantric paths. Nothing new there. The Tantric path is very similar to the Neidan path, not identical, but very similar. What if the assumptions and conclusions regarding energy cultivation are wrong? Similarly, you believe you've found truth and try to adapt to that paradigm. It's what we all do, is there another way? The one thing that is somewhat unique about Dzogchen is the definition of the view. it is not a statement, a philosophy, an explanation, or a conclusion of any sort. There is no truth to be accepted, not even any explanation of fundamental reality. The view is openness. All beliefs, preconceptions, concepts, paradigms, and expectations are completely abandoned. The view is resting in open, naked awareness. I guess it is possible that is "wrong" and it probably is wrong for the practitioner that does not find that supportive or conducive to growth. In maintaining that openness, I am continuously looking for truth; not in concepts or explanations, but in open, clear, uncontrived awareness. It's important for each of us to find the path that works for us, supports us in our spiritual goals and practices, and that is the correct path for us. No path is right or wrong, better or worse in an absolute sense, it is all relative to the practitioner at this particular moment in their lives.

The mind is a wonderful thing! Everything beautiful comes of it and everything painful. I think you are insightful to acknowledge both. I'm sure we could find some differences but I think they are pointing in the same direction, more or less. It's always a little tricky to mix paradigms. Even more than informing, it serves as the basis of all actions and inactions, including passive acceptance. In the Buddhist and Bön view, everything is mind - all experience. And the foundation of all of that is the nature or essence of mind, like water is the foundation of the ocean. In the non-doing practices, the understanding is that the very perfection you are looking for cannot be established or created simply because it is always already there, it's simply (but not easily) a matter of perspective. The imperfect IS perfect. Not a molecule is misplaced. This is a very difficult teaching to fathom and we can easily cite of examples of "how could ____ be perfect?!" Until our view is very deeply established, it is difficult to imagine how some things can be considered perfect. My instruction has been rather than discounting this path because I don't fully understand, simply allow myself to let go of what doesn't make sense trusting that it will become clearer over time. I recognize this is a big leap of faith and you will find that the Tibetans have enormous faith and consider it one of the most important resources on the spiritual path.

PS - I'm looking forward to reading that pdf in full, thanks Bindi

I think your quotes regarding Zhuangzi capture non-doing quite well. It is not 'non-thought meditation' really and it also not quite correct to say it is not engaging the thinking mind in activity. It is not silencing the mind either. The mind can still be used for practical affairs. It is most definitely quite special. By special, I mean that it is a very subtle and tricky business and it is very specific and unambiguous. I also mean it is priceless and such a gift that we have access to these teachings which were once quite rare and secret. The quotes you shared about Zhuangzi are wonderful for me. While I have been slowly seeing deeper and deeper into the similarities and connection between Dzogchen and Daoist meditation, these quotes have really struck a chord with me. I've not previously seen this precise usage of the word spirit and it really opens my eyes to understanding the Daoist concept of spirit in a deeper way that connects with what I'm currently practicing. One of those AHA moments... So thank you for that! I'll try to describe the non-doing principle. Please forgive me for any errors, I'm a beginner and am constantly trying to refine my understanding. In the Dzogchen tradition, the first step is to recognize and develop absolute certainty in what is called the Nature of Mind. One of the most important functions of the teacher is to help the student develop this in a very precise way. If you don't get it right, everything else is just a waste of time. A commonly used metaphor is water - The mind is like waves and swells in the ocean, currents in a river, sweat on your skin, snow, and morning dew. The nature of mind is the essence of water that is common to whatever form the water takes but transcends form; characteristics like wetness, fluidity, flexibility, and so forth. This is just a metaphor and there are lots of them used in the teachings to describe the three basic characteristics of the Nature of Mind. The other thing worth pointing out is that it is often described in terms for three characteristics - the empty aspect (or space), the aware aspect (or clarity), and the arising of dynamic energy from the inseparability of these two (warmth or bliss). Once the student develops certainty in this, she needs to develop stability. In the beginning, this connection or what is called "resting in the Nature of Mind" is quite fragile. The Mind is constantly entering in and carrying the awareness away. With practice, stability is possible. Once stability is cultivated, it is possible to remain in this state of resting while beginning to engage in activities. This is taught in the context of body (physical activity), speech (words, concepts, communication), and mind (thought, emotion, imagination, creativity). So in each of these 3 categories we exercise our ability to rest in the Nature as we engage in these various areas of physical and mental activity. With enough practice, the accomplished yogi can maintain this resting in the Nature throughout the day in all activities, during dream, during dreamless sleep, and, most importantly, during the transition of death. This resting is very much analogous to non-doing but I prefer to think of it as non-interference. It's not that you don't think. Thoughts come and go but at an advanced level do not disturb this rest. One can engage in activity and still maintain this "non-grasping awareness," also referred to as naked awareness. This is called integration and is the next step after cultivating some stability. I don't know if I"m making sense, it gets easier to understand as we actually experience it. It's not quite the same as mindfulness. In mindfulness, there is the observer. In these practices, the observer and that which is being observed merge, this is the non-dual experience. Our relationship to thought, in fact our relationship to all life experience, is referred to a "rang shar rang dröl" which means self arising and self liberating. The accomplished yogi is like the sky in which anything at all can freely arise and spontaneously and effortless liberates since there is no grasping. It's likened to writing in the air or throwing a bucket of paint in the air - nowhere for it to stick. The shine that is being referred to in your quotes is the spontaneous arising of what is referred to as dynamic energy. It is considered the source of all creativity. It is the source of true compassion. Whatever needs to happen does so effortlessly and what arises from this pure openness is always precisely what is needed in the moment. This is analogous to Wu Wei and the unimpeded flow of Dao or what may be called "merging" with Dao. Merging is probably not the best word either here or when I used it above referring to the non-dual experience. I think it's better to think of it as self liberating. The one who tends to get in the way, the thinker, or perhaps better to say the thought or tendency that claims itself to be thinker is allowed to liberate and the Dao simply is as it is. I hope that makes some sense.

Tsa lung exercises are used in Bön (not sure about Buddhism in general) to clear blockages of the chakras and channels. One of the areas focused on corresponds closely to the lower dan tian. Edit ... sorry, I'm not referring to Thervada or the suttas

Both paths are equally valid in my opinion and I work with both. I really respect and appreciate you sharing your feelings on this. I think this is a very valid criticism. The "pop spirituality" appropriation of non-duality and dzogchen is often as empty as the emptiness they misunderstand. There's a lot of misunderstanding and misapplication of these things and there's a lot of spiritual materialism and ego out there. I see those tendencies in myself, including many misunderstandings, and try to be very aware of it and address them whenever I can. Your post is a great reminder so thank you! One of the teachings in the Bön dzogchen cycle I'm currently studying, called the Oral Transmission of Zhangzhung, cautions against feeling superior because of practicing dzogchen. It's considered the highest vehicle but it is not the "best." By highest, what is meant that the view of dzogchen encompasses, the views of all the other "vehicles" in the Bön system. It does not exclude any of the other views. This egotism related to practicing the "highest" path is one of many pitfalls we need to navigate in the practice and it's very real. One thing that helps me avoid this pitfall is being honest with myself as to how much farther I have to go and how weak my practice it. I think this is, in part, a Western phenomenon. We are always infatuated with the best, the fastest, the highest, etc... It doesn't matter if it is real, or effective, as long as it satisfies the ego's cravings. So when we see dzogchen is the "highest vehicle," well then that's the one for me! I think knowing where I am and what's working with that, being honest with myself about that, will take one much further than the folks you are referring to. Many of them get an intellectual glimpse of things like non-duality at a conceptual level and don't really do anything with it. They are stagnant, in part because they think they understand something that cannot be intellectually grasped and also because they are following a path that is not legitimate. And they're fine with it, they're not really working on themselves, only collecting a trophy. Your sincerity, on the other hand, will serve you well and I think you'll see meaningful growth as a result. Not sure how to quote the quote within the quote.... I was a "doer" on the Neidan path for about 15 years in my meditation practice before getting a glimpse of the non-doing path and beginning to follow it in a dedicated way. I'm still a doer in very many ways, including my formal and informal practices. We never stop doing. If we think or claim that we have, it is evidence of a serious lack of awareness in our practice.

The Tree on the Mountain The Full Understanding of Life Both are Outer Chapters, so there's that. For me, that doesn't lessen their brilliance and value. It's certainly possible to accept a simple interpretation like "the boat thing is about blame of other" and leave it at that, but I think there is far more to it. Here is a bit longer excerpt than what we would normally see quoted, as in Merton. This translation is by Legge: "The ruler rejoined, 'The way to it is solitary and distant, and there are no people on it - whom shall I have as my companions? I have no provisions prepared, and how shall I get food? How shall I be able to get (to the country)?' The officer said, 'Minimise your lordship's expenditure, and make your wants few, and though you have no provisions prepared, you will find you have enough. Wade through the rivers and float along on the sea, where however you look, you see not the shore, and, the farther you go, you do not see where your journey is to end - those who escorted you to the shore will return, and after that you will feel yourself far away. Thus it is that he who owns men (as their ruler) is involved in troubles, and he who is owned by men (as their ruler) suffers from sadness; and hence Yao would neither own men, nor be owned by them. I wish to remove your trouble, and take away your sadness, and it is only (to be done by inducing you) to enjoy yourself with the Dao in the land of Great Vacuity. If a man is crossing a river in a boat, and another empty vessel comes into collision with it, even though he be a man of a choleric temper, he will not be angry with it. If there be a person, however, in that boat, he will bawl out to him to haul out of the way. If his shout be not heard, he will repeat it; and if the other do not then hear, he will call out a third time, following up the shout with abusive terms. Formerly he was not angry, but now he is; formerly (he thought) the boat was empty, but now there is a person in it. If a man can empty himself of himself, during his time in the world, who can harm him?'" Zhuanzi suggests we must empty ourself of ourself and what is there to harm? Here is a longer excerpt including the archer parable, also translated by Legge: "Yan Yuan asked Zhongni, saying, 'When I was crossing the gulf of Shang-shen, the ferryman handled the boat like a spirit. I asked him whether such management of a boat could be learned, and he replied, "It may. Good swimmers can learn it quickly; but as for divers, without having seen a boat, they can manage it at once." He did not directly tell me what I asked - I venture to ask you what he meant.' Zhongni replied, 'Good swimmers acquire the ability quickly - they forget the water (and its dangers). As to those who are able to dive, and without having seen a boat are able to manage it at once, they look on the watery gulf as if it were a hill-side, and the upsetting of a boat as the going back of a carriage. Such upsettings and goings back have occurred before them multitudes of times, and have not seriously affected their minds. Wherever they go, they feel at ease on their occurrence. He who is contending for a piece of earthenware puts forth all his skill. If the prize be a buckle of brass, he shoots timorously; if it be for an article of gold, he shoots as if he were blind. The skill of the archer is the same in all the cases; but (in the two latter cases) he is under the influence of solicitude, and looks on the external prize as most important. All who attach importance to what is external show stupidity in themselves.'" Zhuangzi suggests that we only have all of our skill when we are not attached to the result, to me that is also letting go of the self - the one who is concerned with winning. This parable also addresses the common theme that certain things transcend the intellectual, cannot be taught or learned. For me this is an exposition of Wuwei and Ziran, letting go of self and allowing the natural flow of the Way. I freely acknowledge that whenever we interpret things, particularly spiritual and philosophical, we bring much of ourselves to our interpretation. So my own bias will clearly show through my interpretations here.

No, but that self we all experience is all we have to work with until we have a deep realization of its empty nature. And that self is the source of our various challenges, hence the cleaning. I think there is alot of similarity in Daoism. While the self is not a subject of much discussion in the classics, subjugation of the self in the Way lies at the heart of fundamental ideas like Ziran and Wu Wei. This is well illustrated in Zhuangzi's parable like the Empty Boat and the Archer, for example.

You misunderstood my point, sorry for not being more clear. I quoted you because of the precise and concise explanation of the scientific method provided by your graph. I was not referring to how scientists use the word energy (or science), that is (should be) precise and consistent. I was referring to the way 'energy' is used on this forum and by lay-people in general, which leads to poor communication.

That is my approach and it sounds like yours as well. It doesn't work for everyone. Some can simply rest into the nature of mind. Some need to actively clean. Some need to pray and chant. We all need different things at different points in our lives. That's why there are so many different paths, most of which have validity.

The use of the word science is almost as loose and imprecise as the use of the word energy. If the scientific method can be applied in some reasonable form, it is science. Otherwise the word is probably not applicable.

IMO, Laozi and Zhuangzi are referring to nothing less than transcending our illusory view of who and what we are and connecting to a much deeper and pervasive understanding. This is not trivial and the changes that can occur to us can be quite profound. What I was referring to in my post was based on the training I've received in Daoist meditation. It is sophisticated, detail oriented, and highly dependent on personal instruction and support from a master. Since no one really knows much about what Laozi and Zhuangzi may have practiced, I can't comment on that specifically. The other important point to make is that the simplest possible forms of meditation (eg Dzogchen, which is very much like "sitting and forgetting" from the Daoist perspective, there is nothing 'simpler' than that), still require expert guidance, support, and instruction if you are doing it for anything more than a simple relaxation technique. Simple does not equate with easy when it comes to meditation. In fact, the more complicated visualizations are easier in some ways than sitting and doing absolutely nothing at all. It's not only a matter of the methodology but the effects it has on us if we pursue it deeply enough and for long enough. It is very easy to get off course, to develop bad habits, even for the meditation to enhance negative characteristics in us or open us to psychological, emotion, spiritual, energetic, even physical harm, depending on our conditioning, constitution, and cultural influences. Effective meditation can open us up to some deep, dark, and challenging experiences. I recently read about a young woman who killed herself shortly after a Goenke style vipassana meditation retreat. My Daoist teacher once told me that he felt one of the most important reasons to practice is so that we can work through our repressed and suppressed garbage while we are young and healthy. It otherwise sticks with us and we end up facing it when we are old and frail. That may be part of the reason why there is such a high suicide rate in the elderly. Even the wonderful experiences can take us in the wrong direction, such as developing an infatuation with personal power, taking advantage of others, etc... I see this a lot in people who practice without guidance. You see it quite a bit right here on this forum. FYI, when referring to meditation, I never concern myself with things like magic, siddhis, wizardry, etc... I refer to transforming our minds and our lives so that we live better and healthier and enhance our relationships with others. That is where the magic is for me and there is some potential for landmines along the way. The "supernatural" stuff that turns people on, even the 'immortality' are side effects of good practice (and sometimes simple parlor tricks). All of this is just my personal bias based on personal experience with Daoist and Bonpo meditation practices.

No, I don't discount it at all... Hui Neng had realized primordial perfection but that is only the beginning. He was acknowledging that he was not yet a Buddha, therefore even though he had such a realization, he was still accumulating karma and had cleaning to do.

Perhaps you can too? Or maybe start another thread if it's important to you to carry on this discussion? Peace

😆 You’re a smart guy, you understand me, you’re just trying to hold on to your desire for this to be a good study. It’s not. If you remove the people with <3 months of pain, you need to redo all the calculations. In this small a sample size, removing a few subjects could make all the statistical significance disappear and completely change the results. That may well be why they were included... there’s no way to know without crunching the numbers. Bottom line, including people with acute pain is not even one of the serious flaws of this study. More obfuscation. You simply can’t remove any subjects unless you redo all calculations. The results and statistical significance don’t apply if you simply look at 95% of the subjects. That’s not how science works. See above. Yes Yes, the Mayo clinic is a very big place and some very good science comes out of there. I’ve taken some courses there and it’s where my mentor trained. Unfortunately, this study is not one of them for all the reasons mentioned. You’re welcome to buy into it if you wish but it is the very junk science you like to ridicule. I would love to see some better research on the subject and I’m open to whatever conclusions come of it. Moral of this story - don’t ridicule the masses that are hypnotized by junk science and then offer a deeply flawed study as the “gold standard.” This is not a gold standard study no matter how much you want it to be. Weak studies are published all the time. After reading them for a few decades, it gets easy to pick them apart. I’ll let it go now out of respect for Wandelaar.

This controversy regarding whether we need to clean or whether we are always already pure seems to arise from a failure to acknowledge the two truths. The two are not mutually exclusive. To the extent that we are able to rest in the nature of mind, accruing no karmic traces, in every waking, dreaming, sleeping, and dying moment, what is there to clean? Hui Neng's poem was an indication that HE had realized the primordial, stainless perfection. It was not an instruction that there is nothing to purify for those of us who are not yet there. To the extent that we continue to live in the world of cyclic existence, there is plenty opportunity for cleaning and purification.