doc benway

Lots of good stuff to be found through J Krishnamurti. I also disagree with him not infrequently, and I'm OK with that too. I don't read him much anymore but will always have a warm place in my heart for him.

Very nice post, Rigdzin Trinley - I've had very little formal Buddhist education but I've worked through some of this on my own. The stickiest area for me was seeing how the self is not the same as the brain. How do your teachers approach that specific question? For me, it was a matter of seeing that if it is the brain, then it must also be the heart and the blood vessels, lungs,... because the brain is incapable of existing independent of the other major organs which keep it alive. So if it is the brain, it is the entire organism. And we can extend that to the environment of the organism because no organism has ever existed in the absence of environment, nor is it possible. Lungs are meaningless without air, etc... So then the self is inseparable from the organism and its environment. Another way of looking at it is, if the self is the brain and I have brain surgery and remove a portion of the brain, have I removed a portion of the self? Here it gets tough because, indeed if we remove parts of our brain we certainly do go through major changes to our perception of self and the perception of others but that depends in large part on which parts we would remove and to what degree. Also, if we destroy the brain we certainly destroy our self. Are there other, more skillful ways of excluding the brain as the "seat" of the self through Buddhist logic and debate? I was looking at investing in a book on the subject - http://www.amazon.com/The-Course-Buddhist-Reasoning-Debate/dp/1559394218 Are you familiar with this book? If so, would you recommend it? Thanks

I admire your honesty, insight, and humility, Des.

Yes

Thanks 3bob I guess that makes me just a little bit like Jesus... Buddhism is a bit of an enigma to me. Even Buddhists can't agree on what it is. It is as complex as all the sutras and tantras combined. It is as simple as dzogchen. To make things even more confusing, I study and practice Bön which has its own separate canon consisting of over 300 volumes (possibly many more than that). The history is different, the iconography is different, the prayers and mantras are different, and yet when you boil it all down, it's exactly the same. I'm happy to discuss my views any time and I reserve the right to be wrong.

Not a very considerate statement to make to someone whose friend has recently been diagnosed with cancer. I suspect that Des cares about her friend whether or not she shares your enthusiasm for slap therapy. Mr. Xiao has lots of testimonials on his website but not one shred of data to support his method. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-32545591 From the BBC article: "In April 2011, Taiwanese authorities fined him NT$50,000 (£1,060, $1,600) for "promoting folk remedies as medically effective", after he claimed that diabetic patients did not need medication and could be cured with paida lajin. Aidan Fenton, the boy who died in Sydney, had type 1 diabetes and police believe he may have stopped taking insulin."

Yes - the same for men and women. When you get into working with intention (yi guiding qi) and visualization (channels) linked to breathing, there may be differences in both Daoist and Buddhist methods between men and women. I don't have any experience with yogic or other methods. There are 3 basic groups of respiratory muscles - 1. the abdominal/pelvic group - this is what you diagram above and this is responsible for the majority of the work of breathing 2. the thoracic group (primarily intercostals) - this is secondary and naturally engages to add additional lung capacity by increasing thoracic volume 3. the neck/shoulder group - contributes the least but can add a bit additional capacity and vacuum; these muscles are used more in pathological situations like an asthma attack, for example Breathing is a unique process. Unlike most physiological processes that occur without any conscious effort or awareness (beating the heart, digestion, endocrine function), breathing is an unconscious process with a built in conscious over-ride. While I advocate "learning" to breathe properly, I suspect that what we are really doing is unlearning maladaptive patterns related to stress and our disconnection from nature. It's my position that there is no more effective method of breathing than that which occurs without any cognitive interference, such as in deep sleep. We can return to this natural state of breathing throughout our daily lives with mindfulness and eventually it becomes effortless and needs no attention. When the masters refer to the breathing lessening and becoming minimal, I believe that this is what is being pointed to as opposed to an actual lessening of respiratory function. The breath becomes long and subtle but not shallow. More like movement occurring in stillness than lessening of movement, if that makes any sense.

Here's a great one - http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/support-us Another one - http://www.idrf.org/ I used to donate regularly to ISTT - a support organization for survivors of torture and trauma but sadly they closed through mismanagement by their accounting and financial people.

If you're looking for taiji/qigong type clothing you could check here - http://store.rawganique.com/organic-linen-kung-fu-collar-shirt-p/rg5440-of.htm. They have lots of other styles as well. For more traditional (Tibetan) Buddhist clothing tibetanspirit.com is a good source but I don't know anything about their material or manufacturing. Also, lots of monk clothing available through Etsy. I'd suggest you search online for raw cotton and hemp sources - lots of such vendors for clothing although mostly more modern clothing styles are available.

I'm with Mipham!

Very sorry to hear this, Des. I offer you and your friend my love and support.

There is a demarcation between water molecules and yet there is the sea. Oneness does not preclude the experience of individuality.

Whether or not there is a concept of soul in Buddhism, I understand what John is pointing to and it has meaning for me. I acknowledge that it may not have meaning for others and that's fine.

3bob, if you want to be specific about my contradictions, please do. If you are referring to the quote from O'Donohue, I posted that after you pointed out my contradictions so you must not have been referring to that. Now I'm simply confused. My own view is closest to madhyamika but that doesn't preclude me learning from, enjoying, and quoting other sources. In my view, no view is perfect.

Which book would you recommend I start with, Yueya?

Did I mention a soul 3bob? I'm still not sure what contradictions you are referring to. I don't doubt that I speak in contradictions, however. I don't have it all figured out. I like that dialogue, TI, thank you. I think the homecoming that O'Donohue referred to is quite well represented in Bön. O'Donohue was actually a poet. His main focus was on coming to awakening through beauty - particularly poetry and art. He was a priest for a while but left the priesthood and focused on Celtic spirituality. His poetry and talks are wonderful. I have a set of his CD's called Celtic Wisdom. Anam Cara is his masterpiece.

Thank you for pointing that out and please be more specific if you care to. Not knowing what you are referring to specifically I'll add that I do not struggle too much with contradiction. I think there is inherent contradiction in trying to conceptualize the ineffable and reconcile personal experience with the wholeness of being. That inherent contradiction is at the heart of the Ch'an and Zen koan methods, no? I love this quote from John O'Donohue: "And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you." Like manitou, I find myself a bit exhausted by trying so much to understand. My practice has been more focused on the non-conceptual of late.

Perhaps, but you have lived it... Perhaps, but you have much to offer... Fortunately, although the theory is complex, the practice can be quite simple... Rest body, speech, and mind. Let everything be as it is. The language is the three bodies: the union of emptiness and self-knowing which is great bliss She damn well should if she's gonna say stuff like that! _/\_ I suspect when there is direct contact with truth, one can see how the words are pointing to it. While wrestling with words and concepts they appear to point in different direction. It makes sense when you consider that space has no center, perhaps. That is the pith instruction of all masters of Dzogchen, the "highest" vehicle in Mahayana Buddhism: Rest Leave it as it is

Thank you! Also an area of interest for me. I've actually posted this abstract before.

As has been mentioned, there can be direct experience of the wholeness of being, the non-separation or non-duality of being. It can be approached through meditation, although meditation is no guarantee; and it can happen spontaneously, with no preparation or training. There are those who claim to have found it through entheogens. If one has that experience, it is quite distinct and incontrovertible. If two people have had that experience, they are able to understand and communicate with each other about it quite readily, with or without words. If someone has not had that experience, I don't think there's a frame of reference for verbal communication about it, and a verbal description may seem hollow, contrived, or even egoistic. There is also, of course, the daily experience of individuality that I maintain is a natural and useful consequence of our mobile sensory-intellectual apparatus "contained" within a bag of skin. This perspective is equally incontrovertible and valid - and has a very useful role in survival and the experience of our lives as individuals. The Buddhist approach is to acknowledge and respect both perspectives as absolute and relative truths, respectively. Both are equally valid and describe different aspects of the wholeness of reality/existence. The scientific community is coming to the same conclusions through a different avenue. Here is the abstract from a peer reviewed journal - Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science. It is abstracted from the first in a multi-part series of papers about the theory of organism-environment as an inseparable phenomenon. I think it's wonderful to see when the spiritual and scientific approaches converge. The theory of the organism-environment system starts with the proposition that in any functional sense organism and environment are inseparable and form only one unitary system. The organism cannot exist without the environment, and the environment has descriptive properties only if it is connected to the organism. Although for practical purposes we do separate organism and environment, this common-sense starting point leads in psychological theory to problems which cannot be solved. Therefore, separation of organism and environment cannot be the basis of any scientific explanation of human behavior. The theory leads to a reinterpretation of basic problems in many fields of inquiry and makes possible the definition of mental phenomena without their reduction either to neural or biological activity or to separate mental functions. According to the theory, mental activity is activity of the whole organism-environment system, and the traditional psychological concepts describe only different aspects of organization of this system. Therefore, mental activity cannot be separated from the nervous system, but the nervous system is only one part of the organism-environment system. This problem will be dealt with in detail in the second part of the article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975 Here are abstracts from the other papers: Part II The relation between mental processes and brain activity is studied from the point of view of the theory of the organism-environment system. It is argued that the systemic point of view leads to a new kind of definition of the primary tasks of neurophysiology and to a new understanding of the traditional neurophysiological concepts. Neurophysiology is restored to its place as a part of biology: its task is the study of neurons as living units, not as computer chips. Neurons are living units which are organised as metabolic systems in connection with other neurons; they are not units which would carry out some psychological functions or maintain states which are typical only of the whole organism-environment system. Psychological processes, on the other hand, are processes always comprising the whole organism-environment system. Part III The present article is an attempt to give - in the frame of the theory of the organism-environment system (Jarvilehto 1998a) - a new interpretation to the role of efferent influences on receptor activity and to the functions of senses in the formation of knowledge. It is argued, on the basis of experimental evidence and theoretical considerations, that the senses are not transmitters of environmental information, but they create a direct connection between the organism and the environment, which makes the development of a dynamic living system, the organism-environment system, possible. In this connection process the efferent influences on receptor activity are of particular significance, because with their help the receptors may be adjusted in relation to the parts of the environment which are most important in the achievement of behavioral results. Perception is the process of joining of new parts of the environment to the organism-environment system; thus, the formation of knowledge by perception is based on reorganization (widening and differentiation) of the organism-environment system, and not on transmission of information from the environment. With the help of the efferent influences on receptors each organism creates its own peculiar world which is simultaneously subjective and objective. The present considerations have far reaching influences as well on experimental work in neurophysiology and psychology of perception as on philosophical considerations of knowledge formation. Part IV The present article is an attempt to bring together the development of mental activity and consciousness in the framework of the organism-environment theory (Jarvilehto, 1998a, 1998b, 1999); the main question is how the development of mental activity and consciousness can be formulated if the starting point is not the separation of man and environment as in traditional congnitive psychology, but a unitary organism-environment system. According to the present formulation, mental activity is conceived as activity of the whole organism-environment system and connected to the general development of life as a specific form of an organism-environment system comprising neurons. The advent of consciousness is regarded as a result of co-operation of such organism-environment systems. Consciousness is based on cooperation for the achievement of common results, and shared by the cooperating individuals (general consciousness), although each individual also makes it concrete from the perspective of his/her own body in the act of participation in common results (personal consciousness). Language is the means of formation of the cooperative system in the achievement of common results, and it is suggested that the use of language is related more to the type of cooperative system and intended common results than to any symbolic representation of the world. It is claimed that on this basis it is possible to develop psychology which takes seriously the concepts of mental activity and consciousness in the description of human action, but does not reduce these concepts either to biological or social factors. The present formulation should be regarded more as a conceptual outline than as a full-blown theory.

Very beautiful post Daeluin I feel that the most effective I have ever been in terms of "helping" someone else is when I am able to simply be with them with an open heart and open mind and listen. Often there is nothing more to do than that. If I am open enough, any action that needs to occur will occur without my interference.

Nice to see you rene You make a good point, although I don't think it excludes the possibility that we can skillfully help others. The key seems to be remaining open to what the other needs, on their terms not ours. Our own opinion of what they need must be released. That, perhaps, is what Des' initial post was pointing to.

A good and new friend pointed out that my post lacked consideration and sensitivity. I've got some growing to do...

Greeting Rigdzin Trinley, You are indeed fortunate to have access to such wonderful teachers and teachings. I appreciate that you've chosen to share with us . I hope you continue to do so. Warm regards from the USA