doc benway

I would like to play - I'll offer number 716 Thanks very much for the opportunity

I agree with you, I think. While we may choose to explain ourselves to others, it is not an obligation. Unless, perhaps, if our actions will have a direct and potentially negative impact on others - what about then? As far as taking responsibility, I agree. And yet, where do our thoughts come from? Much of what is in our heads is not our doing or choice, it's conditioning. It's our parents', teachers', ancestors', society's, and culture's crap that we have to deal with. So while I agree with taking responsibility (echoes of Castaneda and the Toltec tradition), I wonder if it really is OUR responsibility. Certainly our actions and choices are ours. But our thoughts? And if not, then whose? So do you want to give us gory details? I hope it all worked out ok for you.

Eat lotsa candy Damn, another cavity... Please! No mercury!

I think that there are people who experience a great deal of guilt when things are going well. There are those who find it impossible to experience happiness because if they experience happiness, there is immediate fear of losing the happiness and anticipation of bad things coming. So it's not happiness that causes suffering, it's the desire to prolong or recapture happiness. It's all a creation of the mind. The mind always needs to be concerned with what's next, never content to just be here and now and that's ok, no matter what is going on. It is where you need to be right now, so be there and it's ok. If the world ends for me tomorrow - I still have today. If it all ends today- that's fine too. It will end sometime, whether I'm happy or sad, anxious or content.

You are indeed fortunate to have a choice living in a small village. I think that the teacher is more important than the style. All styles have their unique idiosyncracies and all styles can be very effective. What is needed is a good teacher and a dedicated student. I studied Wing Chun for many years and then moved to the internal arts (first Taijiquan, later adding some cross training in Xingyiquan and Baguqzhang). You can't go wrong with Shaolin longfist, Wing Chun, or Taijiquan as long as you have a good teacher. Sinfest - Tai Ji Dao is not unusual - you'll see it in Chen and Yang styles. I don't know about Wu or Hao. Whereas the Taiji Jian is about using the waist and body to control the wrist for the accurate and finely tuned cuts, the Taiji Dao is about using the waist and body to control the entire arm. The cuts are much more gross (hacking and chopping type cuts) than the jian but it can still be done with song and ziran.

I like the avatar!

Qi Gong is a wonderful compliment to martial arts training. I don't think there are any negatives to combining the two.

Sure thing!

Very nice site and it's gratifying to see you living your passion! I've only looked at a bit - all good so far. I'll continue to look and comment. As you know, I'm a 'need to learn from a teacher' type guy. Nevertheless - you can certainly provide wonderful and accurate info and help people to learn properly, and avoid exploitation. I also think that people can learn a lot (particularly if they are dedicated) online and, if they like it enough, they can always find a teacher to correct them. Bravo. I didn't see good old Chen Pan Ling style represented. I think it's very legit and it's reasonably popular in Taiwan and growing. Unfortunately, I don't think the current leader quite fits his daddy's shoes but that's not a reflection of the potential in the style.

Hi Stiggy! Nice to see you. Excellent post. Unfortunately, I don't think the race is ready for Daoism. Laozi is not dogmatic enough. He does not offer a security blanket. He does not compromise. His language is too direct, not flowery and vague enough. He empowers the average guy - not something leadership is prepared to permit. But we certainly can each do our own part and live it, that's all we can do. And I intend to. And if enough of us do that - who knows what's possible? Be well.

Thanks -K- Good point about children but I see this not so much as whether we leave the other person or not vs. the fact that we are able to see through the hold they have over us. I do think that, during childhood, there are certain conditions that will lead someone to be more dependent on approval of others for happiness and other conditions that foster independence from approval. In general, I think our parenting tends to strongly reinforce the illusion of being dependent on approval of others for happiness. In fact, our entire social and psychological structure does that. Encephalon turned me onto a book about Taoism and parenting that does a really good job of showing this and how to avoid it. Can't remember the title just now.

So true! And it's also very instructive to see that potential (or tendency) to treat others in a similar fashion, intentionally or otherwise. It can be subtle and elusive and takes a lot of attention to see and eliminate. The way to transcend this is to understand that we do NOT need others for our happiness - no one. We've been brainwashed to think that our happiness depends on others but it doesn't, it comes from inside.

My latest obsession - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPjDMZiuhbQ

Gal Costa is so frigging beautiful

Are you familiar with the Pa Kua Journal? Well worth the $35 investment!

Yes and yes

I agree 100%. The fact that our actions are associated with consequences and that this all shapes our lives and those of everyone around us (and those who came before and will come after) is a part of that moon, IMO. It's a part of the human condition. I don't care what words and images are used to describe it either. I'm not speaking as a Daoist - I'm not that. I'm not an -ist. I'm just speaking of my own interpretation of a variety of traditions and experience with some Daoist meditation methods. I'm a mongrel too. PS I like your analogies, especially this: "Once the moon is found, all pointing fingers are easily understood; the common aspect easily seen in each path."

You are right - I may well be wrong, I often am. But do you mean to imply that we don't misread the physical, emotional, and mental? And what are our actions if not a reflection of those very things? Actions reflect our choices. Ultimately, our choices influence who and what we are and influence our offspring and those around us. There's no escaping that. That is karma. There are all kinds of interesting images used to reflect that, some more subtle and some quite extravagant. I prefer the unadorned. Nevertheless, I think the concept of actions and consequences and how that shapes our lives is reflected in the writings of philosophical Daoism. It's just subtle and understated. In fact, I think it's so obvious, it is assumed and not explicitly emphasized.

I really enjoyed the film. I put off watching it for a long time because I thought it would be slow and boring. I found it to be compelling and beautiful.

I agree with you there

You make an excellent point and ask good questions. One of the main reasons I didn't offer a specific answer is that I'm not enough of an authority on Daoism to point out specific language that is the Daoist equivalent of karma. I will say this much. Karma is one of the more misrepresented and misunderstood concepts in Eastern thought. As you know it simply means action, more or less. It is an acknowledgement that there are consequences associated with all action. It is a reminder that we are not separate and isolated entities but that all is interconnected and interdependent. In my own understanding of Daoism, this concept (if not the very word) is absolutely contained within the Lao-Zhuang-Liezi universe. We are not isolated entities, we act and interact, our choices lead to certain consequences and so on. To me this seems to be implicit. In fact, there is nothing more prominent in Daoist thought and philosophy than Wu Wei and De, both of which are completely concerned with how we act and consequences assocated with our actions. So I personally feel that Daoism addresses karma quite thoroughly, though in a different manner perhaps than Hinduism and Buddhism.

Just a few comments directed toward this discussion about the sanctity of "philosophical Daoism." The problem is that "philosophical Daoism" does not exist. It is an articial construct taken out of a deep and rich context. Daoism has multiple components - religious, philosophical, cultural, spiritual, etc... There is an enormous canon of Daoist philosophical writings that have yet to be translated into English. Even more importantly, an understanding and practice of different aspects of Daoism certainly helps one to put the writings of Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi in perspective. In my own experience, I can say that there are aspects of Daoist philosophical writings that I interpret and understand in an entirely different way as a consequence of my own developing practice of Daoist alchemy. As manitou pointed out, for a philosophy or a spirituality to be credible, applicable, and useful, it must be alive. It must be more focused on questions and less focused on answers. It is not the endgame but rather a tool that we can apply. So if something isn't explicitly stated in the Laozi or Zhuangzi, it does not necessarily mean that it doesn't exist in Daoism. It means that is up to us to apply our knowledge of Daoist principles to see how it helps us understand how to integrate (or not) these other concepts. It is not enough to understand and follow the teachings, we have to become what the sages were. Only then can we see what they saw and be as they were. Then and only then are the teachings alive and vital. Otherwise they are as dead as the their authors. We need to connect to the teahcings with more than our intellect. I think that's what manitou is getting at.

Are you referring to the book by Nisargadatta Maharaj? Excellent book - if you like it you may also want to check out Sri Ramana Maharshi, same basic approach to spirituality.

I read a great novel called The Descent by Jeff Long. It's about the discovery of an ancient civilization living deep in the Earth's interior and how we make contact and the consequences. It was followed up by Deeper but the sequel was not quite as good as the first book.

Not saying that it does, just saying that contributed to the perceptions being what they are. I was around then and I would disagree on this point. I think more of the misconceptions came from Max's presentation and less from the nay-sayers. To be truthful, all I can speak to is my own experience and that was a consequence of his marketing, not what others were saying about him. I really can't speak for anyone else so I'll let it go there. I just feel that Max is responsible for the way his person and his art were presented. If he is as you say he is, I'm sure he understands this and accepts the responsibility with aplomb. Thanks for the follow up, L7S.