doc benway

The camera is not an observer at all. It is not capable of sight or interpretation. The camera operator is the observer and is most likely partial. Perhaps, but not good enough to call it scientific or proof of anything. That’s an assumption you may be willing to make, not me. I suspect they were biased observers anticipating a particular outcome. You’re underestimating Chris

No, you are claiming that and ignoring all the other problems I listed. The study is fatally flawed. Even the < 3 month subjects are more of a problem than you may think. Removing them after the fact invalidates the results. Removing them before hand may completely invalidate the already borderline statistical significance. That doesn’t make it any less flawed. That’s a gratuitous assertion. The pain levels were quite low to begin with. None of these conclusions have anything to do with science or proof. You’ve already reached your conclusions and are trying to use flawed data to support it. Fake scientism tripe. Randomization alone does not constitute the scientific method.

As we've discussed before, objective and anecdotal are not mutually exclusive. A single video (even a few), may be objective under the right circumstances, but is (are) certainly anecdotal. The word anectodal in the scientific community refers to a limited number of measurements or observations, too small to draw any statistically significant conclusions. Scientists and medical doctors have no training in and are not experts in exposing fraud, they simply have no idea what to look for. Far better to have a street performer or magician on hand to do that. You could take a whole team of scientists and doctors to a Chris Angel show and it's highly unlikely they could expose his tricks...

This "proof" is certainly not good enough for me. While this study may be randomized and controlled, it is worthless. 23 participants reported an average subjective improvement in pain for 3 weeks compared to 20 "controls" The standard deviation of each measurement was far greater than the magnitude of benefit compared to controls! By 8 weeks, there was no significant benefit. Many problems with this study - - very small sample size - 23 vs 20 subjects completed the study - statistical analysis of such small samples is meaningless, especially when evaluating something as subjective as pain - if you look at the results, the standard deviation is far greater than the difference between pain levels in the two groups, in a sample size this small that means there is no way to conclude that there is any difference between the 2 groups pain levels - 74% were receiving other treatments simultaneously and none of these were controlled for between the groups, multiple participants had medicines added, subtracted, and dosages changed during the study - the diagnoses were widely variable and not matched - demographic factors were not matched - to call pain chronic after 3 months is ridiculous, eg. a sprained finger is normally painful for 4-6 months - no standardized treatment for the qigong group, the practitioner did whatever they felt like with each subject - the non-qigong group knew they were not receiving any treatment, hence would be more likely to report no improvement - qigong patients received a 50% discount ($200) off the fee (!) which essentially means they were paid $200 each to say the treatment helped - there was a significant difference between prior awareness of qigong between the two treatment groups, this could certainly influence outcomes There are probably other more subtle issues, but these are more than enough to dismiss this study entirely. You've got to do far better than this to "prove" external qigong is an effective "pharmacotherapy adjunct." I'm not saying it is not effective but offering this study as "proof" simply makes you a victim of

One teaching yesterday was from the Dzogchen tradition and focused on distinguishing between mind (sems) and the nature of mind (sems nyid). Very useful for meditators. The other was on healing practices associate with Sherab Chamma, Wisdom Loving Mother, a Bön deity very similar to Tara in Buddhism.

I don't take advantage of it very often, just don't have the time. And I agree, far better to dedicate our time to practice. One good practice is all we need.

Quoted for emphasis, I couldn't agree with you more. We see ourselves far more clearly when we see ourselves through the eyes of others.

Laozi, Lao-tzu, and Lao-tse sound exactly the same. The letters are just approximations of the correct pronunciation. For accuracy and communication, having a standard is quite useful. The communists did a few things right, this was one of them.

The current standard is Laozi and Zhuangzi. Pinyin is the current standard for Romanization of Mandarin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Chinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chinese_transcription_systems

I always considered myself a secular thinker as well and my answer is YES! If you are not opening yourself fully, you are missing out on some wisdom. Wisdom is openness. Wisdom is connecting with a much deeper, more subtle, pervasive essence that is only achieved through profound openness. Not really. I had brief run-ins with spirituality as a youngster, often in the form of entheogens and writers like Castaneda, Osho, and Watts. Then I encountered internal Chinese martial arts and qigong which led to Daoist meditation which opened me up to the full potential of spirituality. That subsequently led to my current study and practice of Yungdrung Bön. Not me, it was a combination of reading and Daoist practices - meditation, martial arts, and qigong. Absolutely, no question about it. Same answer applies to martial arts and qigong. Daoism is a way of living, not simply a philosophy. Intellectual understanding is a faint shadow of the direct, personal experience of the nature of oneself and the connection to the Way. One instant of deep spiritual connection is far more meaningful and valuable than all the intellectual understanding of the Way that I could possibly achieve in a lifetime. Think of it like reading everything there is on Earth about the flavor of a mango - the chemistry, first hand accounts, psychological factors, agricultural data, photos, videos, brain scans of people eating mango, everything you can imagine, .... but never tasting a mango. You have some idea - sweet, pungent, tart, funky... And then one day you actually taste a mango... WOW! No information can prepare you for, or replace, the experience. Yes, I read quite a bit before getting deeply into the meditative practices. It was valuable and interesting but pales in comparison to direct experience. Belief (the acceptance of an idea without personal verification) is not necessary, not in magic, not in scripture, not in anything. Faith (trust in the path reinforced by direct experience) is helpful. Meaning is very important, if there is no meaning, there is no trust, no confidence, no personal connection. Without these, how can we put the principles to use in our lives? Daoism is not "just a description of the nature of things and the nature of how they should be." Daoism is not at all concerned with "should," it is concerned with what is. It is far more than a description, it is a guide to a healthy and meaningful life. It is to discover that our mundane life IS magic without the need for belief or even faith (although faith can help to keep you going when practice is very challenging or tiresome). So please investigate Daoism in whatever form makes sense and is accessible to you. The writings are precious but the experiential practices are priceless! I hope you someday learn that for yourself... Good luck to you on your path.

Sorry if I offend anyone but if you're not willing to invest the time, effort, and cash to study with a master, you're not going to get very far in Daoist meditation... Sadly, masters are few and far between but they are out there. You can certainly cultivate a life based on Daoist values but Daoist meditation is detail oriented and sophisticated and, to my knowledge, it's never been written down in the form of a usable training manual. In fact, most writings about the training methods are intentionally abstruse and cryptic.

Excellent book although I wouldn't recommend it as a training manual.

Not at all. First of all, in general it is usually of little value to try and change a system while we are weak and confused. It is far more effective to change ourselves. Even that does not mean that we do nothing to improve our surroundings but it is far better to look inside first. When we have made the necessary changes in ourselves we will be far more effective in changing the system. In fact, when we change ourselves, those around us can't help but change in response. People frequently misunderstand the instruction to "leave it as it is" (Dzogchen) which is essentially the same as "wu wei" (Daoism). It does not mean to do nothing. It means to make sure that what we are doing comes from the right place, a place of openness, awareness, and clarity; not from a place of frustration, impatience, fear, desire, and anger. When we try to change our environment from that mind, we tend to do more harm than good. The way to do it in these paradigms is to recognize the pain we are experiencing and not act from that pain. Instead, we use our practice to allow those emotions and distortions (fundamental ignorance) to liberate. Once we are in a clear and settled frame of mind, the actions we take will be far more appropriate, balanced, and effective; and they will occur spontaneously and naturally. In Daoism, that would be practicing wu wei (not acting or not interfering) and allowing the natural flow of Dao (the right response, the right action manifests naturally). In Dzogchen, it would be referred to as resting in the nature of mind (recognizing our true nature, overcoming ignorance) and allowing the 3 bodies to arise (whatever is needed in any given situation will arise spontaneously). That's the basic idea as I understand it. A simple example is saving a drowning child. Most of would not need to think about it, the action of saving the child will just happen spontaneously and effortlessly. That is wu wei. Wu wei is not sitting by and watching the child drown. Similarly, another example is engaging in an argument when someone criticizes or contradicts us. When we are not over-identified with the ego, there is nothing to defend. We can accept the criticism with a smile and a thank you rather than escalate. We can do nothing at all and allow the other to have the last word. We have both voiced our opinions and can let it go and move on. That is also wu wei. So much of what we do is reactionary and unhelpful. Imagine if every action we take is that spontaneous, that appropriate. It can be achieved but takes a lot of dedication and skillful practice.

In fact, that is a primary teaching I get from the Heart Sutra - the Two Truths

One way to exercise patience - When I feel impatient, I notice that and let it be just as it is. I feel it fully, not pushing it away or suppressing it, but don't engage with it, don't add to the internal discussion. I simply feel impatient and rest in that feeling. In due time, it's gone. Reflecting on that, I pay attention to what brought it up. What aspect of myself was irritated or stimulated and why was there a need to change what is? Something in me, something I over-identify with, was the source. If I can let that go and see that it is nothing more than a thought, an idea, I do not need to be disturbed. So in the case of postings that are far from reality or come from a new age positive mentality... What in me is bothered by that? The practitioner? The critic? The purist? The fundamentalist? The expert? It is some role in my life that I identify with that gives birth to that irritation. Is it my role to eliminate those posts, that mentality in the world? Is that even possible or necessary? Perhaps, even though I find it foolish, it is supporting and helping someone in a very difficult time in their life and it's all they have access to. Are there other things in the world that are more worthy of my time, attention, and effort? Can I see that the problem is in me and my inability to simply allow it to be as it is? While I certainly do not "need" to tell myself to be patient, I also do not need to punish myself with impatience because the New Age mentality exists. I can let it be and perhaps even offer the New Age person my friendship and support while sharing with them my own views, rather than attacking theirs. Just one approach and the one I play with. It takes a lot of practice but can be very effective.

I see faith and belief as opposites. I don't recall where I first heard this definition, it may have been Watts or Osho. Either way it's the way I use the terms: Belief is accepting something to be true without direct, personal experience. Faith is releasing all belief and trusting that was remains as direct experience is truth. ...something like that

I can feel the little strings!

It's alive and well in the monasteries, even the ladies are now able to partake.

Nor did I mean to imply that you did. I am simply exploring the reasons why that resistance is there, not in others so much, but in me. I've gotten away from trying to understand or influence other too much. I'm mainly interested in what's going on in me as that's the only place I can make changes and grow. I tend to be overly intellectual and in my head so, for me, the spiritual path has been largely away from logic and rational investigation. I do have a great deal of respect, however, for the power of logic and I'm very interested in the various logical fallacies. My interest in them was born right here!

I have no beef with logic. It has its value and its place. I do think that it has limited utility in spiritual development, the Buddhist path of sutra notwithstanding. My sense is that the movement of Daoism was, and is, towards a deeper connection to natural processes. Generally speaking, rational thought and logic have a tendency to create more distance from that natural state. Perhaps that is one reason why there is limited enthusiasm for pursuing logic in a Daoist context. Just my relatively uneducated $.02.

I tend to be in this camp as well. Plenty of wisdom out there (and inside), just need to be ready and open to it.

Where is the separation between the universe and mental gyration?

Interesting stuff - "Buddhism was first identified to be "a barbarian variant of Taoism", and Taoist terminology was used to express Buddhist doctrines in the oldest translations of Buddhist texts,[24] a practice termed "matching the concepts".[26]" I wonder if this could be a source to address the OP? Perhaps they matched Buddhist logic and debate to a Daoist equivalent...

Excellent point, although I don't know that it completely excludes the possibility that Daoist influence on Buddhism contributed to the form Chan/Zen has taken.

One way to look at it is that Zen is Buddhism stripped of all the logic and debate... Koans are designed to confuse and ultimately exhaust the rational mind. Could that be the Daoist influence?