doc benway

I'm not sure I buy this argument. What is claimed that Daoists cultivate that Buddhists do not, specifically?

I think that sometimes we really try too hard. To do what actually? It really doesn't matter what - we try to be spiritual, we try to be normal, we try to help, we try to get ahead. Try, try, try - effort, effort, effort! It's exhausting. For me, a lot of spiritual practice has become to learn how to rest. How to let all the effort simply relax into this moment, here and now. It is good to do that on the cushion and it's good to do it in our everyday activity. Rest doesn't mean to do nothing, it means to simply let the body relax, let the thoughts settle, and let the heart and mind be open - let things come and go. Just be present. So many things will effortlessly take care of themselves if we simply allow it to happen. I wonder if Yueya's recent post here would be at all helpful. He references a discussion of the right and left hemispheres of the brain and how we embody two very different ways of experiencing life. Neither is better but an integration of both I think can help us achieve equilibrium.

I would also recommend starting with the very basic posture - hands around the level of the lower dan tian. If you do not have experience with zhan zhuang, the more physically challenging postures will shorten the duration of practice you can endure, lead to muscular tension, and be a distraction from a more holistic experience of the mind/body connection. i was once taught that if one stands long enough in the most basic posture, all of the more physically complex postures will naturally arise when they are ready.

Your entire post was very valuable but this deserves emphasis. Thank you

I'd like to emphasize the value of this concept in terms of how we relate to the psychological states and emotions we experience. There is a tendency to identify the very nature of our being with our transient states of mind and feeling. Phrases such as: I am angry - No, you are not angry. Angry is the label for a transient emotional state. Who you are is something altogether different. Anger is present currently in your experience. At some point it will no longer be there. I am depressed, I am happy, I am hungry ... You are wrong - No, perhaps you are ill-informed or incorrect regarding a particular topic but the "you" cannot be reduced to the simple descriptor "wrong" with any credibility. There are so many other areas in which you are "right" and those must be equally qualified. It may seem mundane or trivial but I assure you that it can be liberating to free oneself of such over-identification. We create our reality through the stories our internal narrators are endlessly reciting. While misuse of language in this way is done out of convenience and efficiency, it can be damaging through reinforcing an unhealthy over-identification with a transient mood or experience. PS - Yueya, Blood Meridian is one of my favorite novels and, IMO, McCarthy's best.

I know a few people who are, just ask them!

life short but merry my stature defines me not my roots, they run deep

From the perspective of Daoist sensibility, I would say we probably could go farther than that if you felt like bringing labels like wu wei and de into the discussion. Would you say those concepts are related to roger's point? They certainly seem to be apt for me.

I agree with you roger. The "Universal" as you call it (as good a label as any) occasionally wakens within us. It becomes self-aware in us, like we wake up and open our eyes and see our Self in everything "out there" - yes? It can be a big and obvious event or it can be a subtle hint, a whisper, almost like you're in a dream and you thought you heard someone call your name and you're not sure so you start looking to see if someone is there, hiding. Or it can simply be a feeling of dissatisfaction with the way things are, like something is missing. I think this is the most subtle. I think this latter form can be highly motivating (the Buddhists make very good use of it in the ngondro practices) but can also be destructive, like when people are wealthy and fortunate enough to be able to acquire everything and anything they could possible want, but even all of that doesn't make them happy. Then they get depressed and frustrated and turn to addictions (sex, drugs, food, alcohol) to numb the empty feeling. I went through all of that to simply say that, yes, the spiritual exercises give the Universal a focused activity to try and break through into our lives. I think they are particularly useful because they have a few things in common - 1. quieting of the inner narrator and thought train that we ride around on most of our lives 2. connection between mind and body - this has a powerful ground and stabilizing effect and also brings us into this very moment 3. taking the focus off of the "me" that has problems, preferences, the one that judges everything - some traditions do this through focusing on others, some focus primarily on mind-body connection, some get us into nature, some by dismantling or trying to locate that "me", but I think this dis-identification is basically important. - this isn't meant to be an exhaustive or authoritative list, just a few casual observences Once we open enough to feel that in a bit more tangible and stable way, it is something that can and should take root in every aspect of our waking, sleeping, and dreaming lives - total integration. That's a lot more challenging but ultimately very fulfilling and somewhat self-sustaining. I say somewhat because, at least in my experience, this connection and motivation waxes and wanes considerably over time, especially as we try to continue to live in the "real world."

I find it so easy to neutralize this problem. It simply requires that when we proclaim something to be a certain way, the best way, or the only way, we add two words - "for me." Even then, convincing ourselves that something is the best or only way, even "for me", is limiting and equates to self-programming. An open mind is a beautiful thing.

I suspect you will someday... Thanks for the clear answers, that helps a lot.

Wonderful introduction, RT. Can I ask for 2 small clarifications, please? 1. Are you using ekayana as synonymous with Mahayana or are you more referring to Mipham's desire for a single coherent view that is consistent with the 2nd and 3rd turnings? Or something else altogether? 2. "it means for him that either nagarjuna or maitreya got it wrong, and that can't possibly be the case" - please clarify, forgive my ignorance

Excellent point which circles back to the Madhyamika - Yogacara dispute.

Yes, there is a great deal of agreement. It is simply that if you follow the reduction reasoning of Madhyamika to its natural conclusion, the Brahman is seen to be free of discrete, independent "is-ness." I am not educated enough to walk you through that but what it denies is exactly that which you propose to be a thing. The same paradox is inherent in Daoism which describes Wuji, Taiji, and the 10,000 things. For me this is equivalent to the Buddhist concept of emptiness. I would say dependent connotes related or connected as opposed to unfree. When you say free, what do you mean by something that is free? I think you are pointing to something that is independent. Something established from its own side. The Absolute, as you refer to it, is a phenomenon. It does not appear as separate from the "you" that apprehends it. It is dependent on the "you" or the "I". From my perspective it is you, literally and figuratively, who are treating the Absolute as a thing - other than you. If it is not other than you, then it is I and the point is that I cannot be established as existing independently. Not sure if I'm being clear, or even correct. Take everything I say with a grain of salt. The four negations - it cannot be said to exist, to not exist, to both exist and not exist, to neither exist nor not exist. Each of these assertions leads to error. Yes, it is confusing! Although if you have a solid foundation in Madhyamika logic, it comes about as a natural conclusion. Yes, different strokes for different folks. While these other traditions don't have a strong potential for nihilistic misinterpretation, from the perspective of a skillful Madhyamika they suffer from eternalistic misinterpretations. Pick your poison, perhaps. Rigdzin Trinley is walking through arguments from Mipham Rinpoche's Beacon of Certainty - arguably a pinnacle of Madhyamika reasoning from the Dzogchen perspective. He is much more educated than I am and I invite you to follow that thread if you're so inclined.

My perception and understanding differs from yours, Kongming, and I'll point out those differences below... ... not reality but our perception and reification of appearances... which we mistakenly take for reality ... it is not so much that there "is nothing" which transcends the skandhas but rather, the foundation upon which the skandhas rest is empty (meaning without an independent, self-subsisting entity, as Old River so eloquently put it). It is not nothing - that is a wrong view. "It" is described in terms of the characteristics of space, clarity, and warmth. The characteristics of space are things like unchanging, indestructible, unborn, unformed, unceasing, unbounded, without center, and so forth. The characteristics of clarity are things such as presence, awareness, now-ness, knowing, and light. The characteristics or descriptions of warmth include bliss, loving-kindness, oneness, non-dual, allowing, openness, spacious, and connected. All of this transcends the skandhas and yet none of this can be shown to have inherent independence when subjected to Madhyamika reasoning, which is a tool, not ultimate reality (and empty in and of itself). This is where you go astray. It is not "nothing at all." Both samsara and nirvana are ultimately seen as being of one taste, one nature. That nature is empty of inherent independence, however, and is of the nature of space with characteristics of presence and warmth as described above. Nirvana and samsara are not independent and are not other than this very moment. They are also dependently originated. Yes, even this is considered to be empty, thus dependently originated. Here we do get into a sticky wicket and it requires quite a bit of Buddhist education and sophistication to see that even that which is eternal, unborn, and unchanging is empty. This is a characteristic of space which is not equivalent to nothingness as it is inseparable with clarity and warmth - the lively presence of this very moment that has the infinite potential to manifest all things. From the perspective of the Madhyamika view (well, I should probably say from my understanding - I'm certainly no authority), those who deny the characteristics of transcendence, timelessness, and changeless are mistaken. They lapse into the error of nihilism. These are simply characteristics of space. Conversely, those who conclude that these characteristics imply a self-subsisting entity are equally mistaken. They lapse into the error of eternalism. They gratuitously posit an independent "something" that possesses those characteristics. These are just my unscholarly and unsophisticated attempts to show my understanding of the middle view. One easy way to avoid this nihilistic misunderstanding is to do the following. Any time one thinks of the word empty in the context of Buddhism, don't think of nothingness. Think of empty referring to space and that space being alive with presence and the warmth that can give rise to the infinite manifestations we experience here and now in this very moment. I'll take the liberty of borrowing CT's beautiful post from Hui Neng: Do not sit with a mind fixed on emptiness. If you do, you will fall into a dead kind of emptiness. Emptiness includes the sun, moon, stars and planets, The great earth, mountains and rivers, All trees and grasses, Bad people and good people, Bad things and good things, Heaven and hell; They are all in the midst of emptiness. ~ Hui Neng ~ This is exactly the purpose of Madhyamika, however, that method of reasoning must also be applied to the "timeless and eternal Absolute" and can easily be done so through evoking the characteristics of space and the inseparable nature of space, clarity, and warmth. If we apply Madhyamika reasoning to everything BUT the very foundation of everything itself, then we are selectively applying the rules and that's never a good idea.

I know that he would be very pleased to hear you say that, as am I. Thank you for that. _/\_

one size fits us all provided we dress ourselves in garments of light

Here's a variation that came from the sick mind of an overworked surgical resident a few decades ago. Working in a big city ER, one is inundated with people coming in with swollen, painful hands in the middle of the night. About half the time they were injured in a fight and the other half were infected from IV drug abuse. We came up the idea of the hammer test then - Patient comes in with a painful swollen hand --> put hand on table --> hit it hard with a hammer --> if it's infected pus will come out, if no pus comes out it's broken... We never actually did this mind you, but it did lighten the mood at 4 am...

calms and enlivens? paradox and poetry are good bedfellows!

Or can of words... I admire your courage and fortitude to do so! Looking forward to it

It's very courageous of you to share this, Liminal. I don't think I have that sort of courage. I can relate as my partner has had some similar challenges in the past. There were some very rough times. In fact, the trauma associated with those experiences has been the primary motivator of me moving in a spiritual direction in my life. One thing that can be helpful is to do exactly what your partner says - see if you're able to imagine or feel something like what he experiences in his head. Let him describe it to you and be with it, open to it, feel it. Spend some time contemplating the feelings that he describes and really imagine being in that place, all the time, unable to get rid of it. This can be very powerful stuff so please only do it if you feel strong enough and supported enough to do so! Opening up to his pain can perhaps make it a bit easier to return love, openness, and support for the difficulties the relationship presents. It has helped me to deal with my own partner in that way. I'll also point you to a beautiful post you made about a month ago that I serendipitously (is that a word?) came across just this morning. http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/40673-could-someone-do-me-a-favor-just-tell-me-everything-will-be-ok/?p=679377 PS - I was writing as you were and just read your last post, the Inner Refuge practices can be helpful with what you are looking to accomplish if you can relate to those.

I agree that your partner is exhibiting courage and wisdom in this insight. Whether or not the insight is correct, it sounds as if this is a big step and, as difficult as that may be, there's probably nothing you can do that would be more helpful than be open, spacious, and supportive. The line between accepting and giving up is not nearly as narrow as we sometimes assume. You do not need to like the disease to face the fact that it is there. We essentially punish ourselves with pain and suffering because we don't want to face that fact. Fighting illness generally means fighting ourselves because it is our body which is expressing that illness. And the one doing the fighting is coming from a place of confusion, fear, pain, anger, and the consequent internal conflict is an expression of all of that. We cannot "fight" something with all of our skill when we are coming from a place of pain and confusion. So I would agree that acceptance is an important foundation. Not giving up but coming to terms with the fact of the illness. Then rather than fighting, perhaps another way to look at it is that of loving one's body for all of the positive qualities, supporting it through its challenges, and using available methods to help restore balance. It is sometimes counterproductive to view illness as the enemy, I think, as it propagates the internal conflict that comprises our health even further.

Clearly, we have no choice but to eventually shed this physical experience. Another perspective is that perhaps we are having this physical experience to cherish it? We clean that car and care for it and use it to taxi others who have no transportation or family to help... My teacher, in talking about our relationship to thought during meditation, likes to distinguish 3 levels of progress. I'll try to capture his message as best I can - First the thoughts are a distraction and must be controlled, second the thoughts lose the power to distract and are simply neutral appearances as we stabilize in shamatha, and third the thoughts become a support as the rich and endless source of creativity and compassion are spontaneously expressed.

Here is a brief excerpt from "Revealing the Tao Te Ching" by Hu Xuezhi that I find intriguing - "The Tao gives birth to all universal things and is also contained within all universal things. The Tao that is contained within is called the Golden Mean or Te (in Chinese). These terms refer to the functioning presentation of the Tao in all universal things, which functions much like the source of spring or the root of a tree. Without this root source, the spring water will run dry and the tree will become withered. The Golden Mean is also called Primeval Nature or True Heart. It is the state that exists when desires and acquired sentiments such as happiness, anger, sorrow, joy, and fear, have not yet come into being. It is a state of complete, perfect stillness."

I'll be a little contrary here and suggest that taijiquan really isn't a great martial art for most people. While the potential is absolutely there for it to be quite formidable, it's a very rare student that will achieve such potential. I've studied for about 12 years with a teacher that emphasizes martial training and very few students have the level of commitment necessary to actually make it work. The degree of expertise required to make it practically effective in a street situation, or even in the ring, is considerable. If you want to learn to fight, you can be an effective fighter much faster with more modern training methods, IMO. But if you want the "supreme ultimate fist" and are prepared to devote a decade or two, taijiquan is amazing.