doc benway

I love Anam Cara and John’s other writings. I often find myself quoting him, he has such a way with language and with connecting art, creativity, and spirituality. I also enjoy listening to him speak, such a lovely brogue.

Work days (8 - 10 hours) - usually 3 meals per day, the mid day meal gives me some energy as well as a psychological break. Off days - usually 2 meals per day, late morning and early evening. I eat mostly veggies, nuts (prefer sprouted), fruits, grains (whole or sprouted), seafood, and rare red or white meat - very little fowl, just don't like the taste. I do my best to insure my meat and eggs are humanely sourced. Treats are mainly dark chocolate, fruit, and nuts but occasionally some ice cream, maybe once a week. No added sugar, no foods containing sugar, or processed foods (well, as little as possible), and rare alcohol - maybe once or twice a month, more if I'm traveling. When I go to a nice restaurant I indulge fully if there is something on the menu I want to try. I think the most important change one can make is to delete sugar, processed foods, and alcohol from the diet and to exercise vigorously and frequently. I made this change about 6 months ago and dropped 15 pounds in a few months.

I once watched a film about forgiveness that was very profound and moving but disturbing - Rubaru Roshni by Svati Chakravarty Bhatkal. Highly recommended!

Hello and welcome! I also practice qigong. It is not my primary practice but I practice both ba duan jin and shi ba luo han. I find that ba duan jin is very healing for the physical body and generally practice after running or other vigorous exercise, or when recovering from injury. Shi ba luo han is more demanding and I use it on active recovery days and for strengthening and training balance. You’ll find some people here are supportive and welcoming. Others are critical and rather narrow minded. It’s a small cross section of society interested in a variety of Eastern ideas and practices. I hope you enjoy and benefit from your new qigong practice.

I guess it's possible this practice is "fundamentally and totally misunderstood" but I think it's also possible that it is reasonably well understood but that a different approach is preferable to some in both East and West. Some prefer not to use fixed images to represent and communicate with deities but rather prefer words and ideas. Some prefer letting go of all images, even words and ideas, and being open to what is left when all tangible representations are released. Different strokes and all that...

Yeah, I don't think a 5 year old would understand what I wrote either. Instead, I would probably say... "LET'S PLAY!"

Thanks for sharing Rinpoche's aspirations and encouragement. I think it's a wonderful message if received with an open heart and mind. I also feel that if one were to want to send a message out to the world about the potential for all people to discover inner peace and liberation from suffering, the language needs to be such that as many people as possible can receive it with an open heart and mind. The language of Rinpoche's message is so steeped in Tibetan Buddhist jargon, I feel it misses the target for many people. With due respect, it doesn't sound all that different from the remarks of a Christian offering salvation to all who come to Christ, when I read it objectively. I think Rinpoche would probably agree that different people need different paths and methods based on their culture and their karma but his words come across, for me, quite narrow and exclusive to those who would embrace Buddhadharma. Of course, this is his message, rooted in his training, his culture, and perhaps he is focusing his message to Buddhists, but I think there is a missed opportunity here to reach more people. There was a time when I felt a bit of frustration with my own teacher for being very progressive and teaching in a way that has quite a distance from the more traditional concepts and methods. It's now clear to me that his objective is to make his language and practical method open and non-denominational enough to reach as wide an audience as possible and I deeply appreciate that. I can only speak of what good it has done me. A profound experience of empathy, beyond what can be adequately stated in words, such that it has reverberated in my heart and mind and influenced my life for the past 2 decades. It has deepened my relationships with my loved ones and with casual acquaintances. It has freed me from a great deal of anxiety and fear. It has opened my eyes and my heart to a deeper purpose in my life that has provided enormous benefits to myself and, objectively, to others as well. It has helped me to re-discover a passion for my work, making it far easier and making me better at what I do. These are just a few things that shifted for me and I do not claim complete enlightenment by a long shot but I have had a taste of what the teachings and practices offer. Things can be present and yet not of any value if they are not cultivated and in a form which permit access and utilization. For example, milk is not very tasty when poured over spaghetti but parmesan cheese is. I can own a great bicycle but without a chain and tires, or without legs, it won't be useful. I may have a wonderful voice but without training my potential is limited. The message is that all living beings are connected to the essence of Buddha-nature but it is the access and experience which enrich our lives. Well, many cows get locked in stalls from birth and then slaughtered for our pleasure as mosquitos get squashed for our displeasure. I don't know that it's so much about their lack of some experience but the message I glean is more about acknowledging and experiencing gratitude for the benefits of this human life and making use of it for personal growth and the benefit of others. This is a tough question to answer. One metaphor I've heard is that of rolled paper. Roll up a piece of paper for a month, or for a few decades, and what happens? When you unroll it, it tends to roll right back up again. Delusion is sticky and our personal, social, and cultural conditioning runs very deep - as deep as millennia of ignorance and related conditioning. Realization is relatively rare but that's what makes it so precious. No, not at all. The teaching he is alluding to, as I have received it, relates to how to take information and transform it into realization. The way I've been taught is that first we must be exposed to wisdom teachings of some sort, in this case Buddhist, but I think this applies to any of them - Bön, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jain - so many have an encoded core of wisdom. The teachings themselves must be credible and this is related both to the source (in this case Buddha Shakyamuni, but IMO it is not limited to him) and to the purity of transmission which must insure the teachings are passed down without alteration, without losing their power and precision. This is why an unbroken lineage of transmission is so dearly valued in many experiential traditions, be it Bön (the Zhangzhung Nyengyüd transmission claims to be unbroken from Kuntuzangpo, the primordial Buddha), Buddhist, or similarly lineages of martial arts traditions, like taijiquan. This is why we are concerned with accurate translations when we read texts and sutras, or those of us who are really committed learn other languages to access the "originals" to whatever degree that is possible. Next we need to be sure we accurately understand what has been passed down, what we have heard or read. This is why things like empowerment, transmission, and a relationship with a credible teacher or lineage master is so highly valued. Next we need to actually engage in the practice ourselves, not just understand intellectually , and see meaningful changes in our lives that indicate the intended effects of the practice are actually occurring. We then need to validate this by comparing our realization, intellectual and experiential, to that described in the classic texts and teachings. This brings us round full circle and closes the loop of experiential transmission.

Experience the world around you nakedly and directly, without interpretation or conditioning. Act genuinely, from your gut and heart, without shame or self-consciousness. Don't be afraid to express what you need and feel no obligation to satisfy the expectations of others.

It’s not blaming, demonizing, or avoiding at all, although I acknowledge that others may see things differently. It is a superb tool and I am deeply grateful for it. It took me as far as I needed it to take me on my spiritual path and I continue to use it daily in most other areas of life. It would be more accurate to say it has been exhausted in me in the realm of spiritual investigation. I followed it until it was clear that it was no longer of value for me in this arena. No doubt it is useful for many and I’m not judging what is better or worse but for me it is not very useful or interesting at this point. I found what I was looking for and found my path. I will read the rest of your words when time allows and reply if I have more to offer to the conversation. Thanks for the response.

That's OK... I embrace contradictions when speaking of the ineffable. One of my favorite speakers/authors once said something that sticks with me. “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." ---- John O'Donohue Kind of hard to follow to be blunt... I've long ago let go of using my limited intellect to explore that which is beyond intellect. It's just not an effective modality for me at this point. I do appreciate the conversation and your insights but I don't have much to add to what you posted.

No, not familiar with the Yeshiva of Shem. Always happy to learn something new.

No limitation. It points to what embraces all differences and distinctions without bias or obviation. When we talk about it we are reading and writing the menu. When we have experiences of it, experiences like unboundedness and the stability of open, ungrasping attention, it is more like tasting the food. When we try to impute our ideas and descriptions onto it, we are already disconnected and pointing the wrong way. And yet, we are never a hair’s breadth away from it and can never point at anything that is not it. What some refer to as “consciousness” or “the Self” or “the nature of mind” is perhaps closest to what you might refer to as God. They are certainly not equivalent because they are all imperfect and culturally biased labels and concepts, but they are analogous in many ways. But as human beings, we will always experience limitations. That is why dwai doesn’t know the height of his apple’s tree or my great grandmother’s maiden name. In dzogchen parlance, we are reminded to always remember that we are practitioners, not the nature of mind, even though, at the same time, we can never be anything but that. The nature of mind is the essence we are manifesting but our experience is that of finite beings, no matter how close we are to complete liberation. If we are ever able to completely free ourselves from all limitations and restrictions of any type - physical, mental, etc… that is what I consider a reasonable description of enlightenment. This is why in the dzogchen teachings even the physical body is said to liberate into rainbow light, the essence of the five elements which are, in the Tibetan paradigm, the foundation of our physical, mental, and energetic embodiment.

In the Tibetan paradigm, this English word knowing or knowledge is used to translate rigpa. This is in contrast to marigpa which means ignorance. In this context it refers to a very specific knowledge - that of the true nature of one’s being, which refers specifically to direct and experiential realization of nonduality. Hence knowing in this context is considered beyond all limitations. One obstacle I see in this conversation is to have the sense that we are referring to some-thing when speaking of things like nonduality, the Self, or even God. My Bön teacher once said something that over time has opened up deeper and deeper layers of understanding for me. ‘When people have an experience of nondual realization, the experience itself is never some particular state or condition. What they experience is the release of a particular way in which they were previously blocked from a more expansive and pervasive sense of themselves. As a result there are many different descriptions of the experience and yet there are common threads. I feel so open, so powerful, so expansive, timeless, unborn and undying, and so on. This is because they were previously feeling the opposite.’ There is never an experience of “the nondual” of “the Self” of “the Self experiencing itself” or of “God.” Our human experience is that of the releasing of obstacles and ever greater opening into what is and “what is” is beyond any limitations of rationality or definition and is therefore very difficult as a focus of discsussion. @Jenn’s point therefore becomes key because to discuss this sense of releasing of obstacles and experiencing or understanding what is being referred to is very challenging without some degree of shared experience. Just like if I refer to the smell of durian or the taste of green mango, for some this will have little meaning where others may shudder or salivate.

I don’t want to get too embroiled in this exchange, and haven’t read much of this thread attentively, but I would like to mention that it seems you may be using the word consciousness when what you are referring to is knowledge of specific events which are among the contents of consciousness. When dwai uses the word consciousness it seems he is referring to the capacity for, or foundation of, awareness rather than any specific information contained within it. For me this is an important distinction.

Look into the organism- environment theory in any of the biological sciences. Here is one review article with lots of references that touches on biology, neuroscience, and philosophy: https://www.organism.earth/library/document/theory-of-organism-environment-system Check out the relational theory of quantum mechanics. Below is a technical description but if you’re not a physicist, I’d suggest reading some of the more accessible writings of Carlo Rovelli (Helgoland is quite good) or David Bohm (Wholeness and the Implicate Order is fascinating but a bit more challenging). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/#ObseMeas Another area of investigation is in the social sciences - the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. One excellent introduction to his work is Luhmann Explained by Hans Georg Moeller but there are lots of briefer descriptions of his ideas online (many thanks to @Geof Nanto for introducing me to Luhmann). Here is a nice overview of the theory with particular attention to politics: https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-7 Stepping away from science for a second, it’s my contention that the shema (the core prayer in the Jewish liturgy for anyone unfamiliar) is an expression of nonduality, where echad implies unity or connectedness as opposed to, or in addition to, singularity. At least, this is what it means in my life based on my very personal interpretation and insight.

I have one foot in the world of science and one in the world of spirituality, particularly dzogchen. It’s been gratifying to see researchers in many different disciplines discover, accept, and support the non-dual nature of being through their work in many disciplines - physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, etc… Non-duality is anything but a misnomer, however talking and thinking about it are fraught with pitfalls and contradictions, much as quantum mechanics is. And yet quantum mechanics is, by far, the most precise and effective description of reality in the history of physics.

. I like that. If we focus on differences, we find them everywhere. If we focus on similarities, we find those everywhere and, for me, it feels better.

I don’t suggest anyone try to understand non-duality. Better to practice what speaks to you and see what happens. For me, wuji has similarities to nonduality and taiji has similarities to duality, conceptually speaking.

There may be other meanings but my understanding is that the circle represents something I mentioned in the previous thread - thiglè nyagcig. This literally means single sphere and represents the wholeness or undivided nature of existence, eg non-duality.

I’m not familiar with the giant woman lying under Tibet. Tibetans have a lot of interesting stories and myths. This book describes a practice that is related to Tibetan “soul retrieval.” Their idea of “soul” is quite a bit different from the Abrahamic traditions. It is more related to the balanced embodiment of the five elements. When this balance is disturbed, reconnecting to the deficient elements in nature or internally is a primary method to restore health of body and soul. In this image the standing khandro (lit. sky dancer) is the goddess of the five elements from the Mother Tantra, the most widely practiced tantra of Bön. There are five khandros, actually, each representing an element and this is the space element khandro, the mother that gives rise to the other elements. She is standing on a corpse, representing the transcendence of samsara and death of the illusion of an independent “self.”

@Cobie The circle around the letter are five colors representing the five elements in Bön cosmology. There are variations in how the rings are drawn but, in general, there are: white - space element green - air element red - fire element blue - water element yellow - earth element Some renditions leave out white in the ring, establishing white as the color of Ah. Most explicitly include white in the circle. Some versions do not include the 5 element lights at all. This is the image I used when practicing zhinè.

One of the really interesting exercises I've encountered is the practice of searching for this thing called "mind." Where is it? What does it look like? Can you hold it? Can you show it to me? What are its characteristics and so forth...? Talking about the exercise, its value or veracity, doesn't amount to much but actually spending some time with it is very interesting and potentially transformative. In the Bön tradition searching for the mind is often taught in stages. The first stage involves allowing the mind to settle enough to be able to look at it, without getting wrapped up in its activity and machinations. This is called zhiné and is often done by gazing at an object such as the Tibetan letter A for long periods of time. Once the mind has settled and stabilized enough that we're able to observe it more clearly without being overly identified with it or wrapped up in its activity, we look at it and observe its characteristics. At this point the practice begins to reveal some powerful insights. I was recently chatting with a friend who is studying Talmud and discovered a similar practice. Of course, most wisdom traditions (all?) have practices of examining the mind and discovering its nature, each I suspect doing so in its own unique and beautiful way as informed by its view, its culture, its heart. There is a wonderful teaching in Bön I've spoken of many times here called the 21 Nails, referred to as "nails" in the sense that once we have truly understood the teaching, we have nailed down the meaning in such a way that it becomes stable and decisive. From the first Nail: As for recognizing the mind and the nature of mind: Free of thoughts, Becoming the base-of-all, Neutral, Possessing the potential to arise as anything without ceasing --- These four. The base-of-all is the nature of mind. Recollected and aware, Able to arise as anything whatsoever, Liberated when released, If allowed to settle, it mixes [with the base-of-all] --- These four. The intellect is the mind. Of course, these descriptions do not attempt to define the mind and its nature, they are simply meant to serve as an aid to distinguishing between the two in our practice.

We call that thiglè nyagcig - single drop, referring to wholeness, non-duality. But for me, as a practitioner, I have to say ignorance is very real, as real as realization. I say that because both are present in my experience from time to time. To say either did not really exist would not be an accurate account of my experience. So I would go with can’t really say it does exist, doesn’t, both, neither… but easier and more direct for me to release, rest, and continue….

appear, disappear subatomic particles won’t stay in one place!

What about the logical idea that anything with an end must have a beginning? Dzogchen teaches that Ignorance begins when we separate from Nature and ends when we return, in each and every moment! Nature has no beginning or end, and embraces ignorance and knowledge alike. Ignorance (ma-rigpa) and Knowledge (rigpa) can arise and depart unpredictably in our lives. Few yogis have perfect and continuous clarity and attention. Those that do may achieve jalus at death. Though there is a discrete and tangible shift, when I really look at that it is related to memory and experience, now vs then, so that is not it…. … release, rest… … continue.