doc benway

I am OK with everything but what you concluded with above. This is incorrect and very misleading. 打坐 (dazuo) can be used to refer to Daoist techniques and Buddhist techniques alike simply because it means nothing more than "precisely sitting." It does not imply a particular method or school. 禪坐( chanzuo) means specifically to sit in meditation in the style of Chan or Zen - 禪. 禪 means Chan/Zen. All meditation requires breathing because we cannot live without breathing. Breathing is used in some methods as a way to develop focus and help the mind to break it's patterns of running free like a wild monkey. It brings the mind back to the physical sensations and gives us a reference point to keep us from straying too far. Most Daoist schools get into much more rigorous and demanding mental "exercises" to further develop the 意 (Yi - mind of intent). In fact, Daoist methods are primarily focused on development of 意, which is an aspect of mind but not precisely thinking, and is used in the process of converting Jing to Qi and Qi to Shen. In contrast, Chan and Zen methods do NOT use thinking at all. Counting breath is a beginner's technique and is let go over time as the wild monkey mind becomes more tame. They practice 打坐 (dazuo), "just sitting" but it is often called 禪坐( chanzuo), because this is precisely the method of Chan/Zen. So it would be more accurate to reverse your last statement and to say that the Daoists use "thinking" or "do real meditation" (although this is not an accurate statement either because we are not talking about thinking as you understand it), as compared to the Chan and Zen methods which are basically "just sitting" and breathing. Some Zen/Chan schools also use more mental processes like koans but the student ultimately finds that the whole purpose of the koan is to exhaust the mind and demonstrate that there is no role for mind in meditation, it must be let go for liberation to occur. In fact, mind is exactly what we are liberated from. Please consider trying some meditation practice so that you will have some understanding of what you are talking about. Books simply are not enough. Thanks for trying to help me understand the Chinese language better but, unfortunately, your lack of experience with meditation practice makes it difficult for you to understand what some of us are trying to clarify. I will say once again, books are simply not enough.

One approach might be to actually open up and listen to what your father is telling you. Show him that you genuinely appreciate his love and concern. Give him a hug. Try spending a little quality time together. Then live your life as you see fit. When he tells you what he thinks you should do, show him that you are listening and taking him seriously, thank him for sharing his wisdom. Give his words due consideration. And continue to live your life as you see fit.

Yes, it does make sense. However, I think that there are ways to approach the subject that are more likely to lead to a productive discussion. To begin with a statement that "meditation is not a good way for practicing" begins by telling everyone that they are wrong. Then to go on to say that "...meditation is a bad way for pursue Dao" for puts people on the defensive by telling them that they have been wasting their time. On top of that, you attribute these assertions to "many ancient sages" without giving more than one brief quotation. It might be more productive to begin by asking people what sort of methods they practice, how it helps them, discuss alternatives, and so forth. At this point, you have simply set up a dynamic of conflict and tension. Just my opinion.

I posted this earlier No, I cannot. Zen and meditation do not lend themselves to exact definition. To define means to limit, to encapsulate something within a boundary of some sort, to capture the essence and meaning of something in a phrase, concept, or idea. Zen and meditation are what is left when one drops words, concepts, and ideas. They are not limited or encapsulated. Certainly there are meditative exercises that can be defined, such as the Daoist methods I practice and the the few examples you mentioned, but I don't consider that meditation - just practice. Zen and meditation are a state of being that can occur when defintitions and the process of measurement, judgement, and analysis are not actively operating but that is not to say that this is a definition of what Zen or meditation are. This is what they are not. If you were to practice either, there would be no need to discuss defining them. I think one problem is that we are talking about multiple different things here when we discuss meditation. One way to "define" meditation is to refer to all of the wide variety of "meditative practices" that have been developed by the various religious and spiritual traditions - Daoist methods, Buddhist methods, HIndu methods, Christian methods, and so on, in an effort to help bring the practitioner closer to the truth, closer to Dao, closer to Buddha-mind. As is correctly pointed out by Lao Tzu, these are practices that use the mind in a variety of ways. Lao Tzu is simply making the point that ANY practice of the mind, in one sense, is not an effective way of approaching spiritual cultivation. Why? Because when "I" am practicing, "I" am reinforcing that there is an "I" there who is doing something. The paradox is that to truly approach Dao (Buddha-mind, Wu Wei, whatever you want to call it), the "I" must be dropped. Wu wei is to live in a way in which the "I" does not interfere. There is truly no one there to practice, no one there to achieve anything. So the practicer must let go even of the practice at some point as well as the "goal" and just be. But this is really hard, the mind does not want to let go because it considers itself to be too important. It can't imagine not being in the driver's seat because that is all it knows how to do. That is exactly it's purpose, why it exists. It is the thought that assumes the role of the "thinker" and the "doer." Many of us encounter this obstacle at some point in our training and how we move beyond that is a personal journey that we must each take alone. Peter Fenner puts it beautifully when he says: "If we hadn't done what we didn't need to do we wouldn't know that we didn't need to do it!" So I do understand and agree with what Lao Tzu is trying to say (at least I think that I do) and at the same time I disagree. Why? Because - "If we hadn't done what we didn't need to do we wouldn't know that we didn't need to do it!" Everyone who reaches the point where they realize that practices are not necessary, only gets there after some period of time spent doing practices of some type. Maybe there are a few people who can skip the practices altogether - maybe even Lao Tzu is one, but that's a rarity. Furthermore, it might be better to say that the practices do not cause us to reach the goal because at some point we realize that there is no goal. We are already the goal, we simply need to drop the illusion that we need to become something other than what we already are. We don't need to do anything, we simply need to drop the distractions and obstacles and the truth is already shining through all of it. And the other critical thing to recognize is that if you haven't had this personal realization, then it sounds like a load of arrogant and condescending bullshit. It is not helpful for us to tell others that they are already what they need to be. Unless they have that personal experience, it is a meaningless and unhelpful statement. In fact, it can make matters worse. It can create frustration which further reinforces the need to be something else, and do something to achieve that realization. But you can't do anything about it is that very "you-ness" that is getting in the way. It is truly paradoxical. The best thing we can do to "help" others is to work with them within their frame of reference, which is why all of these "meditative practices" have been developed in the first place! And whether they work or not is mystery. Some folks "get it" and some don't. And whether the practices or help causes them to get it is a mystery. But the fact that we are on this path tells us that there is a seed of awakening present and I do think it makes sense to water that seed for ourselves and others. Now, there is another way of using the word meditation - it is the one popularized by chan/zen and the one referred to by Jiddu Krishnamurti. This use of the word meditation is not referring to any practice. It is not referring to any "doing" of the mind or body. It is referring to the state of being that we label in a variety of ways: Unconditioned awareness Buddha-mind Original nature Wu Wei One with Dao Brahman Christ consciousness Ayn soff Non-dual awareness Undivided light And on and on and on.... It is the state that we hope to "achieve" through all of our practices. It is a state of being that exists in the absence of mental constructs. It seems to be the emptiness out of which everything arises. It defies definition because it has nothing to due with the discriminating mind. It cannot be captured in words, concepts, or thought. You are all welcome to challenge whether or not it exists, whether or not it is possible to achieve it, what it should be called, which definition is correct, and on and on.... And it's all fine that everyone has their opinion, and everyone is completely wrong, including me, because it is no-thing, it transcends our abilities to conceptualize, it transcends our opinions, but it is the no-thing-ness from which conceptualization arises. I'll stop throwing words at it now because it is a waste of time. Suffice it to say that I believe this state of being is what Lao Tzu is pointing at. It is what I call meditation. It is what the Zen and Chan masters and Jiddu Krishnamurti refer to as meditation. For consistency I refer to all of the "meditative practices" as just that - practices. True meditation is what they are pointing us to. And I think the other point that Lao Tzu is making is that this state of being should perfuse our every action and our every waking moment. It should not just be something we do when we sit quietly in a room for 40 minutes a day. But that takes a very long time and a lot of practice. And we can simply start by sitting and doing absolutely nothing else. Precisely sitting - 打坐.

I try to be consistently friendly, except when I feel that someone is being unfriendly to me. Unfortunately, the way you present information often comes across as unfriendly, dogmatic, and condescending. Maybe it is unintentional but I think this is the reason why you often get unpleasant responses from some of us "Westerners." In this particular case you posted very inaccurate information in a dogmatic style. When you did this you must expect strong responses. Regarding my comprehension, 50% is generous. I know very little about the Chinese language. I can recognize relatively few characters and write even fewer. I know nearly nothing about grammar and usage. I mostly use my notebooks developed from training with my teacher, guidance from a few Chinese friends and students, a few dictionaries, and online resources. Regarding the mixing of Japanese and Chinese, I could not agree with you more. Please recall that I did not mix Chinese and Japanese terms, you did. I did not bring Zen and zazen and Daoism and Buddhism into this discussion, my friend, you did. I was simply doing my best to clarify the two because your post was terribly confusing. You said this - "Meditation in Taoism is called Zazen(打坐)." It was misleading and is mixing Chinese and Japanese words and concepts. 打坐 is not zazen, it is taza in Japanese and dazuo in Chinese. I simply translated the characters literally, trying to show people what characters were being used and trying to clear up confusion that was created when you mixed English transliterations of Japanese words that refer to meditation (zazen) with the Chinese characters used to refer to meditation. There are many ways to say it that would be less confusing. For example - "Meditation in Taoism is called dazuo (打坐) which is similar to zazen (坐禪) or taza (打坐) in Japanese." Similarly, "Meditation in Buddhism is called Zen(禪坐)" is very inaccurate. Here you use characters which would be pronounced zenza in Japanese (禪坐) and call it Zen which would more accurately be written 禪. The word Zen in Japanese is not generally used to refer specifically to meditation in the English language, zazen is used for that. The word Zen by itself normally refers to the entire school of Zen Buddhism. The whole presentation was inaccurate and potentially confusing, at least to me. It's possible that it was simply my own confusion but I doubt it. I tried my best to clear it up for the benefit of us Westerners. Most importantly, you are deeply mistaken in your understanding of both Zen and Daoist meditation practice. This is due to a lack of direct experience. Several of us who do have direct experience in these practices are trying to correct the misinformation you have posted here and elsewhere. I'm sorry if this comes across as unfriendly, that is not my intent. My corrections are no more dogmatic than your misinformation. So maybe you would be willing to give me a Chinese lesson regarding the usage of 打坐, 禪坐, and 坐禪 in the Chinese language in terms of which are nouns, verbs, how they are commonly used, etc... I'd appreciate that and we could all learn something. And if you have a working knowledge of Japanese, you could show us which terms are commonly used among the Japanese. I'd very much like to learn. To my limited knowledge it goes something like this - ----- Chinese / Japanese/ English 禪 Chan / Zen / Refers to the a school of Mahayana Buddhism known as Chan in China and Zen in Japan 坐 zuo / za / Simply means to sit 打 da / ta / Literally means to hit or strike 打坐 dazuo / taza / Means "precisely sitting" or "just sitting" - often used in Japanese and Chinese to mean seated meditation 禪坐 chanzuo /zenza / Also means seated meditation I don't know how frequently this combination is used in either language, please help 坐禪 zuochan / zazen / Commonly used in Japanese to refer to zen style of meditation - Japanese use is equivalent to taza. I don't know about it's use in Chinese - is it commonly used? Is it equivalent to the use of zazen? (please forgive this mess but I don't know how to format in this editor) If there are other subtleties of usage, whether euphemistic or grammatical, please help me understand better. Thanks

Word Like my teacher says - there are those who do and then there are those who read and talk a lot... :yawn:

Exactly! And trying to understand Daoist meditation and cultivation through reading books and learning concepts is equally worthless. If you want to know zazen, you must practice zazen. It is very simple to learn. If you want to know Daojia Jingzuo, you must find a teacher. Much more complex, but no more difficult than zazen. Reading books on the subject will not help you to gain the skill that arises from the practices nor make you an authority. My teacher carefully distinguishes between practitioners and scholars... One hour of proper meditation is infinitely more instructive than reading everything ever written about it. Reading about meditation is as beneficial to the spirit as reading a menu is to satisfying hunger...

I like that - I have been feeding the good wolf lots of whole-some nutrition and it has changed my life. The bad wolf never dies and does serve a purpose, balance is important. But the good wolf is much more beautiful. Happy Christmas Edward M.

I think you are on the right track. By definition, let me make the radical statement that reality exists (we can get sidetracked by debate on this point but I simply want to use it as a starting point). Then the mind creates ways in which to try and capture that reality, understand it, explain it, reduce it to a precise and rational definition. Because if the mind can capture it in words or images, it feels more secure - in control. Then it can move on to other things. But the mind can never capture it because it is beyond mental constructs. It is from whence mental constructs arise but it transcends those constructs. it is no-thing, it is meaning-less, it is beyond thought. And every culture has developed their own unique way of approaching this problem of what is reality and how can I define and understand it? And these approaches reflect the cultural, social, and geographical characteristics of their origins. And they are all different "colored" fingers pointing at the moon. And it's extremely entertaining to me to watch them argue with each other. It's like the image of 5 blind people standing around an elephant and feeling different parts and fighting over whether it's a snake or a tree or horn or smelly mud! Keep investigating those ideas of yours - you probably understand more deeply than many folks who will answer your questions. Including me!

You don't have to! And yet you remain, wise marblehead. _/\_

ChiDragon speaks doesn't know.... We've been through this in other threads and I have disengaged from this discussion elsewhere. Because some new folks are participating and there has been mention of disinformation, I'd like to add my view. 打坐 is not zazen, it is dazuo in Chinese and taza in Japanese and is literally translated as just sitting. The Japanese often use the phrase 只管打坐 ( shi kan ta za) meaning nothing but precisely sitting. Da means to hit, strike, or attack and has the feeling of doing something actively and precisely. Zuo means to sit. So an English speaker can interpret the use of 打坐 together as meaning just sitting or precisely sitting. 禪坐 is not zen, it is chan zuo in Chinese and zen za in Japanese. The Japanese usually refer to it as 坐禅 (zazen), although 坐禪 is the same. Chan and Zen are the Chinese and Japanese pronunciations of 禪. 禪 is the traditional way of writing the character and 禅 is the simplified way of writing the same character. Chan (Zen) can be translated in many ways but its mostly accepted that it derives from the Sanskrit dhyana (and the Pali jhana) which means something like absorption or contemplation. It is meant to imply a state of mind, or more precisely: non-mind and has been referred to in many ways - unconditioned awareness, Buddha mind, non-dual awareness, and so on and so on. And we can get into a very deep debate about what this state is and is not but that's for a different post. My Daoist meditation teacher refers to meditation in Daoism using the characters 道家靜坐 which are pronounced dao jia jing zuo and literally mean Daoist quiet sitting or sometimes just 靜坐, quiet sitting. I don't mean to suggest this is the authoritative way of saying meditation among Daoists, just his and probably adopted from his teacher. This varies with school and tradition. What I can say is that : "Zazen in Taoism was to do breathing exercise(Chi Kung) in a sitting position to absorb Chi for health reason and longevity." is a very imprecise statement. It leaves a lot out. It is an expression of ChiDragon's thoughts about what Daoist meditation should be because he has never studied Daoist meditation with a teacher and would like his qigong practice to be equivalent to Daoist meditation. It is not. Daoist meditation does involve sitting and breathing but the key elements are actively cultivating skill in the use of the 意 Yi (mind of intent). This is done through a variety of practices - some referred to as water methods, some referred to as fire methods. I have been instructed in a fire method. This is the method by which we convert 精 Jing (essence) to 氣 Qi (qi) and then Qi to 神 Shen (spirit). Once Shen is cultivated, one can return to 無 Wu (void). Return to void is basically the equivalent of the aim of zazen and dazuo - letting go of all mental constructs, including those created by years of dedicated cultivation practice, and resting in a state of absorption/meditation/contemplation/Buddha mind/emptiness/non-dual awareness/unconditioned awareness/original mind/natural mind/use whatever words or concepts you want. And then we can get into a discussion of what a Daoist immortal is and how that may or may not relate to the Buddhist concept of emptiness and Buddhahood, and the Hindu concept of non-duality and Brahman, and the Christian concept of Christ and Heaven, and the Jewish concept of Ayn Sof but it's probably better not to go there.... people don't seem to like to compare their "truths" to other peoples' "truths" And then on to the even more inaccurate statement: "Zen requires the sitting position as in Zazen. Zen was to be performed by a high ranked monk which goes into deep thoughts about Buddhism philosophy or other unresolved intellectual issues for enlightenment. After the issue has been resolved mentally from Zen, one had discovered a new idea or philosophy. Then, he was considered that he had been enlightened for a particular highest thought." Wow! Where in the world did that come from? Clearly ChiDragon has never had any instruction in zazen and has derived his concept of Zen from completely incorrect source material. The reason that the characters 坐禅 打坐 and 只管打坐 are used to describe this practice is because they try to convey the "idea" that we are 打坐 "just sitting" or "precisely sitting" or 只管打坐 "nothing but precisely sitting." The implication here is that there is no "idea" involved. There is no thinking mind involved. No philosophy, no deep thoughts, no intellect, no highest thought. It can be practiced by anyone who is alive, not a high ranked monk. It is a "method" to bring the practitioner to rest in a state of awareness that is devoid of mental constructs. It is meant to put us in contact with what we are, that from whence all mental constructs arise but which is, of itself, completely unrelated to and beyond any mental construct. It is inherently paradoxical to the rational mind because it is not of the rational mind. I'll stop trying use words to describe it but suffice it to say that the practice of zazen and the aim of Zen is not of the thinking mind, it has nothing to do with philosophy, it is not even about achieving enlightenment, it is "precisely sitting." So I'll stop here. Sorry for the long winded exposition. But I do think that ChiDragon's definitions above are very misleading and did not want to let it lie for those who may be new to this material.

Unfortunately, we cannot change others. It is difficult enough to even change ourselves. All you can do is let him know how you feel, support your parents, and do nothing to facilitate or enable him. I'm sorry you are suffering. When the world is one way and we would like it to be a different way, we suffer. If we can make room for "what is" in our heart, even knowing that it is not what we would like it to be, the suffering eases. Good luck - you are a good and caring person.

Thank you for your unsolicited opinion. I think your way is most excellent! Good luck to you

Welcome chenpalyer! Is mud stepping important? Yes and no. I think there is value in learning the practice and I think it teaches us certain things regarding how to shift the weight, keep the center of gravity low, maintain balance, and a variety of other things. Normal heel-toe walking can potentially lead to bad habits like rising and lowering as we walk, falling into our step, losing balance, and so on. That said, you can also learn all of the important lessons within a framework of normal stepping as long as your teacher makes you aware of the potential pitfalls and gives you proper correction. Some pain in the thighs and legs is expected in the beginning due to muscle fatigue. If you are feeling knee pain, it could mean that you are stepping improperly. It is critical to make sure that there is no torque occurring between the thigh and lower leg or lower leg and foot - this will cause damage to the knees. The reason you turn while walking the circle is because of the torque that is developed in the spine, waist, and hips (the kua). But the thigh, leg, and foot are in normal alignment as if you were walking in a straight line. If the foot is turning in or out as you step, you will damage your knees. This is hard to put into words but your teacher should be able to show you this. Good luck!

Oh no, that is not true. True religion is our individual search inside to find "our true self" as the OP put it. Everything else (contained within religion) is politics.... But to get back to the OP's question - Daoism, for me, is about becoming an authentic human being.

At last! Something that we can agree upon... As my teacher puts it, "I am a Dao disciple"

You are welcome. The system I study is called 崑崙仙蹤派. The most basic practice is 小周天. Out of respect for my teacher, I'm not comfortable sharing any of the more advanced practices. How about you? What kind of practice are you engaged in? That is the state of meditation I am referring to. And yet, I also think that it does become possible to rest in a state of true meditation while engaging in 'meditative practices' or doing anything else, for that matter. The meditative state does not exclude the possibility of attentive activity because it is always already there and is all encompassing. Mental constructs cannot contain or define that state but rather arise within it. But it is easier to get distracted and lose contact with that state when engaged in activity. This is what mindfulness practice is about. As we become more comfortable and familiar with accessing that state and we allow it to penetrate and perfuse our daily lives, one can pursue and not pursue simultaneously.

No, I cannot. Zen and meditation do not lend themselves to exact definition. To define means to limit, to encapsulate something within a boundary of some sort, to capture the essence and meaning of something in a phrase, concept, or idea. Zen and meditation are what is left when one drops words, concepts, and ideas. They are not limited or encapsulated. Certainly there are meditative exercises that can be defined, such as the Daoist methods I practice and the the few examples you mentioned, but I don't consider that meditation - just practice. Zen and meditation are a state of being that can occur when defintitions and the process of measurement, judgement, and analysis are not actively operating but that is not to say that this is a definition of what Zen or meditation are. This is what they are not. If you were to practice either, there would be no need to discuss defining them.

One cannot pursue Dao. Meditation is not a pursuit of Dao. It is waking up to Dao. There is nothing to pursue. Just to be aware, as Old Green said. Awareness is not a pursuit, it is a receptiveness and a letting go of obstructions. Pursuit is yang, meditation is yin.

I disagree on both counts. Zen has nothing to do with thinking or philosophy - Zen is simply about being Meditation is a very vague and broad term, and often misused IMO - there certainly are some methods that involve focusing the mind on points in the body or dwelling on images, but that is a very superficial understanding of the process. Ultimately, the aim of meditation and Zen are the same. To drop everything that we have picked up that obscures our essence. and to dwell in what it is that "we are." Please don't misunderstand, I don't mean to give the impression that this is an authoritative definition of Zen or meditation. I just hope to give a very general taste and distinguish it from your definitions that I find misleading. With all due respect, if you would like to teach others about the value (or lack of value) of Zen or meditation, I would suggest that you first learn something about those methods.

What is meditation and how does it differ from zen?

The word is "belief"

If you see persons as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Daoists, etc... then you are as blind as those you don't accept. There are no Christians, there are persons. You can accept or not accept the person, that's your choice. But if you see people as ideologies, you need to open your eyes and open your heart.

Best wishes brother. You and your mum are in my heart.

LMFAO!!! I think he's looking for the reality TV gig... Great post.