doc benway

I agree but the thrust of much Daoist thought seems to me to be in the opposite direction. I'd be very interested if you find what you are looking for!

Buddhist geshes are masters of logic and debate. It's a required part of their training. Not Daoism, but this is a great course in Buddhist logic and debate for anyone interested - The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate: An Asian Approach to Analytical Thinking Drawn from Indian and Tibetan Sources by Daniel Perdue

I have not come across anything that fits that bill in my (limited) study of the classics. In looking for Daoist logic, I would look to nature as that seems to be the ultimate source. Is there logic in nature and natural processes? While there are certainly intelligence and organization in nature, I'm not sure one could call it logic. Logic is a unique expression of human intellect and reasoning. Perhaps this is why logic does not appear to figure prominently in Daoist classics. Then again, the vast majority of Daoist literature has yet to be translated to Western languages and my studies of Daoist classics is very limited.

You're doing fine! Welcome I meditate first thing in the am and before bed. No fixed time, I fit it into my schedule as consistently as possible. I do not punish myself when I miss a day or have to cut it short. I think you are setting yourself some very high expectations which may not be sustainable. I know nothing about your experience or method but 2 hours is a long practice time. In general we start with short sessions - a few minutes. Quality is far more important than quantity of practice. Some people spend hours on the cushion and never realize the state of meditation, they might as well have a nap. Meditation requires openness, flexibility, focus, and awareness. These are not only qualities to be sought during practice, but also in our relationship to the practice. I prefer to look at meditation as a choice, not a habit. It is not work and is not a chore, it is a gift and a medicine. A more playful and flexible approach can be valuable for the long run. Also, while time on the cushion is important, applying the practice to our daily activity off of the cushion is arguably even more important. Good luck!

I think it's possible for a practitioner to get something out of this teaching on more than one level. It's important to see where we are on our path and be honest with ourselves about that. After all, that's precisely the purpose of this teaching. If we work with it at the appropriate level, it will be helpful. If we try to understand at a different level conceptually, without the proper perspective gained through practice and experience, it becomes a distraction. I don't know that the intention of this teaching is to help us go to the next level. This is more a gauge of where we are currently operating, indicated by what makes sense to us about this teaching and what doesn't. In order to go to the next level, we need to engage in whatever practices we have chosen to move us along our path. This teaching is not meant to be that core practice, IMO, but it can be a nice poke at the ego to try and go further. At the level of the ego, we have the opportunity to take responsibility for our own (the ego's) actions. This is a powerful thing and should not be dismissed lightly. While the teaching refers to the inferior or lesser practitioner, it is not at all an inferior way of living life. It is the first and most important step we can take. It makes no sense to take the teaching any further at this point. The ego is very real and very much in charge and we need to work with it at this level. Once we commit ourselves to see through the primacy of the ego, we can see this in a different context. Through practice, we soon see evidence that the ego is not what it seems. Similarly, it follows that the ego of others is equally illusory. At this level, the idea of holding ourselves vs others responsible breaks down. The Daoists talk about this elegantly (eg Zhuangzi, The Empty Boat; and Laozi DDJ Chapter 5 - straw dogs). What/who is there to take responsibility? Only the ego. So at this level, the instruction is that whenever the ego arises, whenever we experience challenging situations, we return to resting in the natural state. That is the ego's sole responsibility at this level of practice, to let go. Very much analogous to practicing Wu Wei and returning to or resting in the Way. At the highest level of practice, this natural state becomes the default state, the primacy of the ego is gone. Like manitou points out, as long as we're alive there will also be ego. The difference is whether we identify with it as our very core being or if we see it as a mental function - often useful but often dysfunctional. When we are more identified with the fruits of our practice than the ego, it becomes more of an intermittent visitor, a troubadour, not who we are. At this level all is referred to as a display or ornament of the natural state, everything is said to be of one taste. At this level, the meaning of full responsibility has nothing to do with ego. It is of no threat whatsoever. To the contrary, it is ultimate liberation. At least that's how I am trying to make sense of this teaching. It's a continuing process for me. A bit of traditional advice regarding these teachings is that there are 3 steps - 1. Hear the teaching - this means to listen quietly and deeply and be open to something new (I don't mean to not challenge but rather to quiet preconceived ideas, conditioning, and expectations and try to hear with fresh and open ears and mind) 2. Reflect on the meaning (take time to digest and process it, return to it regularly and stay open, this is a lifelong process) 3. Bring it into your life (apply it in real situations and observe the effects over time) I appreciate everyone who contributed to this threat [! typo or Freudian slip? :D], I've learned a lot from all of you. _/\_

Well said Whether or not it's too much to ask for depends on how we agree to define Sage... It should be part of the requirement AFAIAC

Can't imagine what you went through... _/\_

Thank you

I find enormous similarity between Daoist and Dzogchen practice and view.

Yes, exactly. The language would more along the lines that the conditioned responses are allowed to self-liberate through resting in the nature of mind. In this method, the doer doesn't do or undo anything, she's just allowed to rest fully. I acknowledge your point that the the separation between responder and response is artificial, but it is useful in this context. Most of us spend most of our time living as the doer, so my objective here is to draw attention to that doer. Rather than to trying to dismantle each and every specific, conditioned, situational response we engage in, our attention is turned to the subject. Until we are operating from a non-dual state, that subject is very much alive and well, quite separate from the object and intervening activity, and it is something most of us never even look at, let alone question its validity. Rather than try and address each of the infinite possible situational responses, we simply focus on the responder. We let that one fully rest and ultimately, self-liberate. This cuts all of the potential responses at the root and brings us to that very experience of non-separation you are pointing at. I like your phrasing far better than mine. The event pointed something out I can change in myself or allows me to see where I stand relative to the 3 categories of practitioners. This is related to personal growth. The objects and who threw them out can be my focus or freeing myself from the objects and better organizing myself can be my focus. For the committed practitioner, the latter is far more valuable than the objects and the personal offense taken. "Cuts right through" in Tibetan is trekchö. It means to cut through illusion, samsara, pain, over-identification, conceptualization... It means cultivating the ability to drop right in to the nature of mind from wherever one is, whatever situation one is faced with. I would say it is more a core component of the method than the ultimate finish line. The ultimate finish line is complete liberation of oneself in order to help all other sentient beings reach liberation. While this may sound trite, it can be the source of enormous support and fuel to progress along the path. Another commonly touted ultimate finish line is the rainbow body, it is essentially the same objective framed in a more discrete package. I once saw a film about this. It was far too disturbing to recommend anyone watch but the theme was that through intense suffering one could achieve some sort of realization or liberation. It was a French film called Martyrs. Watch at your own risk...

In a Dzogchen context, the answer would be no. I mention that because it is the source of the OP. Rather than dismantling conditioned responses, the responder is addressed.

There are studies which suggest that by the time consciousness makes a decision, the muscles that carry out the action are already primed suggesting our awareness of the decision is secondary. The one who chooses is more a narrator than an independent actor, or so it seems.

One of my favorite teachers was Fr. Anthony Demello. He was a Jesuit born in India to a Hindu family. His teachings bridge the gaps between Christianity and other religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, showing effectively the common core spiritual elements. And as you predict, he was eventually rejected not so much by all other Christians, but by the church itself. His writings were labeled heresy by Joseph Ratzinger when he occupied the post of censor for the church (which use to be the post of high inquisitor). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980624_demello_en.html

Interesting to see this translated as perfect square. The characters are 大方 which is literally 'large' or 'great' square. 方 can also mean direction. There are other, more specific characters for perfect. I'm not a native speaker but like to play with translations sometimes. I wonder if the intention here is perfect square vs great or greatest square. Still not certain about the intention of corner-less. Could it have something to do with expansion? It's a tricky line. If you google "a perfect square has no corners" you'll come across a variety of pages with some interesting theories. I invoke my teacher's advice with something like this - don't focus too much on what you don't understand. There is plenty that you do understand to work with. Over time it might make more sense. That's my approach.

I’m not sure either, but TWR talks about it in formal terms in Wonders and informal terms in retreat sometimes. Usually as a little poke and prod to make us want to do better, or so it feels to me. Not like it’s a doctrine or even required, just a snapshot of where we’re operating.

I guess you could say, strictly speaking, a commitment to non action. Specifically, to remain in the nature of mind. That’s the root of this teaching, and all Dzogchen teachings. If an action occurs it comes from the 3 bodies but the responsibility of the practitioner is simply to remain in the nature of mind - the superior practitioner remains indisturbed, the middling returns to the nature, and the lesser simply remains mindful

I don't think you're likely to find what you are looking for online or in books or videos. If you want a taste, you need to look for a taste - that means practice, engagement, direct instruction by a master. Find a credible teacher of Daoist arts - meditation, neigong, qigong, taijiquan, baguazhang, xingyiquan, yijing... Once you'd had a bit of direct experience, the words start to make a bit more sense. Or just let it go, there are plenty of paths to follow. Good luck

I won’t say I believe but I see truth in rebirth. Important to remember that along with rebirth, in Bön and Buddhism at least, there is also the realization of emptiness. Reconciling those two concepts goes interesting places.

There are multiple sock puppets in this community who come and go with different names and avatars but can't seem to let go of old wounds or other bad feelings. This one seems familiar somehow. Perfect opportunity to practice...

Important to remember this instruction does not apply to us in a relative sense. Bindi and Steve are not responsible for everything in their lives. This is not a philosophy of life, it's a training instruction. The practitioner is invited to look at their role in each set of circumstances they find themselves at any given moment. So rather than try to figure out how to be fully responsible for everything, take any given situation where there is conflict or struggle and simply look at what your options are, how you may have contributed to that particular situation, and see if there is an opportunity there to make a change or see something a little different. If not, let it go and see if it works with other situations. That's how to apply it. The other aspect of this that comes over time is that when we open up enough, we come into contact with that very source you are pointing to. The ultimate source of intuition. After all, that very "personal inner attainment" I'm referring to is letting go of whatever is blocking the connection to that source. Not blind at all - it is seeing more clearly than ever before.

There is something so special in that connection. The warmth that radiates when a stranger, or friend, or animal responds to a genuine smile.

In a sense, it does the opposite of bolstering the ego. It cuts right through. That's what makes it so painful and shocking in extreme situations.

I guess it wasn't projection after all... There are so many practices in the Yungdrung Bön, far more than I've come into contact with. in the Dzogchen cycles, the one I find the most effective is very simple... Leave it as it is. Peace

¯\_(ツ)_/¯