doc benway

Last week, my son decided ~ 3am to fly to Florida and visit my parents who he hasn't seen in a while. Totally spur of the moment. Drove to the airport, bought a ticket and took off. Told me he was feeling very antsy, unsettled, had to get far away from here. A few hours after his flight left, our area was hit by the first significant earthquake in my lifetime. A few days after that, hurricane Irene. Hmmm... does anyone think that's a coincidence? Neither my son or I do.

Actually, may I ask a question? Do you study with a teacher or from books?

I'll start - this is a topic close to my heart. This is about the skill of 'listening' I got this from reading and listening to J Krishnamurti and Anthony Demello primarily though I'm sure it's not unique to them. When we 'listen,' we typically do a few things - 1) Have in mind an opinion or idea of whatever it is the speaker is addressing 2) Compare what the speaker is saying to our opinion or bias and either agree or disagree 3) And as soon as we have determined that we agree or disagree, nothing else penetrates 4) We then focus on counter-arguments to defend our position and try to convince the speaker of our position 5) And we are thinking of things that reinforce our position - it's a very closed and defensive posture of the mind So in reality, we rarely listen in a way that fosters learning, sharing, or collaboration. Another method for listening is to first empty our mind of preconceived notions, opinions, ideas, expectations, or objectives. Is this possible? If you spend the time working at it you will find out for yourself. Don't take my word for it, don't agree or disagree, just open yourself to the possibility. If you can do that, you are already heading in the right direction. So - I can open myself to what is being presented - listen to the words, read the body language, take in the surroundings, feel the intent and non-verbal clues in the presentation. I can listen from a relaxed and receiving posture rather than from a position of opinion, bias, response, the closed and defensive posture. And then I can just absorb what is being presented and see how it settles in me and how i relate to it. I can try it on for size, I can actually put it on trial in my life. See how it works, see if it holds up to investigation. Then I can choose whether it works for me or not. It is my choice based on my own personal examination. I know, rather than believe. I am not accepting something based on a perception of authority, I am choosing based on direct experience. So if I listen with my ideas and opinions and bias, I am listening from a perspective of all of my conditioning and automated patterns of behavior and response. But if I can be successful at listening without the distraction of all of that then "I" am no longer in the way. There is just listening. And that's when the magic can happen.

Very cool Stig. I wonder if the Anishinnabek's have the intention of connecting with the aboriginal people's of your country. I've studied the history of the First Peoples of North America a bit. It's a deep wound in my heart.

I certainly do, I think it has to do with our tendency to look for ways to have reality support our opinions and biases rather than letting those go and looking straight into the truth.

No, I am not 100% Yang. My answer to the original question. Man ≠ Yang Female human being ≠ Yin Yin and Yang simply describe relative characteristics, they do not define human beings in their entirety. I'll have to take it that you knew nothing about the Yin and the Yang. Period. No offense, the issue was being addressed but not you. Please don't quote me out of context to change the meaning of my post. Let me clarify in case you misunderstood. Perhaps I was not as clear as I thought. Man is not 100% Yang and Woman is not 100% Yin, that is the meaning of my use of ≠. All human beings have Yin and Yang aspects. There are women with very strong Yang energy and men with very strong Yin energy. All possible variations exist. You are unsuccessfully trying to oversimplify the nature of man/woman/Yin/Yang to support your ideas about homosexuality. Perhaps I know nothing about Yin and Yang, that's certainly possible. I am not an authority on anything, other than perhaps wasting time on the computer. But I do question your grasp of Daoist ideology in its entirety based on your comment: That is about as far from Daoist ideology as I can imagine. Would you care to elaborate on this conclusion and where it comes from?

My answer to the original question. Man ≠ Yang Female human being ≠ Yin Yin and Yang simply describe relative characteristics, they do not define human beings in their entirety. Similarly, if you take cold water and ice water they are both cold. If you put a finger in each, one is warmer than the other. If you mix them, the resulting temperature is in the middle. Yin and Yang are relative, not absolute. So, any two people can enter into a relationship. The health of the relationship will depend on the skill with which they balance the various aspects of the relationship. This will be the case whether the relationship is simply friendship, sexual, or whatever. The sexual component can be healthy or unhealthy whether it is same gender or opposite gender. Certainly, the "norm" or majority of sexual relationships are opposite gender and this is what fosters reproduction. Nevertheless, homosexuality has clearly been a part of humanity since the beginnings of recorded history and has at various times been accepted or rejected from a social and institutional perspective. It was widely accepted in ancient Greece and Rome, it was accepted in several Native American societies. I guess you could look at it as a variation on a theme but it is a characteristic of humanity and therefore I think it would be an error to call it unnatural. If you have ever had close homosexual friends or family members, you would know that to them what they are doing feels in no way unnatural. It is who they are, be it a result of genetic or environmental factors. In fact, heterosexual relationships feel so completely unnatural to them that they struggle terribly when the try to stay "in the closet" and live the lie of heterosexuality. It is not an unusual cause for suicide in teens and young adults due to the extreme pain associated with not being able to be who the are and feeling forced to live in a manner that feels so completely unnatural.

I think the best way to help them is to simply be a friend. Lend support and encouragement when needed, offer advice when asked for, show them they are being foolish, hurtful, or self-destructive when appropriate. But if you try to change them or expect them to see things the way you do, you're bound to be frustrated and disappointed. And it is not in your power to spare them pain. A good friend is like a mirror - they show us the way we look to others rather than ourselves. Not everyone is looking for a friend like this, however.

Nice post, I've generally found your comments to be valuable and appreciated - you're probably correct in your assessment. The Daoists don't seem to have been too focused on the presence or absence of Atman or absolute self. They certainly seem to have been coming from a different place than the Buddhists. They certainly don't seem to have been as focused on the whole problem of suffering, or at least not as explicitly. And yet it seems to me as if they had already reached the conclusion of the absence of a first cause, or absolute existence of self, or even of the elements, hence the concept wu ji --> tai ji --> elements --> 10,000 things. Kong is more literally empty and can refer to air or sky. Wu is used along with Ji which to me is more suggestive of non-dual. So you are correct that they're not equivalent. Thanks for bringing that out.

Hi jboz, This site has its share of intolerance and unpleasantness, unfortunately. There are some really good folks here and some very good info. It's an open forum, however, and therefore represents a cross section of the population. I don't mean this to be a criticism of the OP or anyone in particular, just a general response. It's a breath of fresh air for me anytime someone speaks from a place of civility and kindness as you are. I hope you stick around for a while and share your views with us.

The intent of the OP seemed to be - finally, here is some taichi that looks martially effective to me. How we choose to define "real" Tai Ji Quan is a separate matter. Personally, I would define "real" Tai Ji Quan as a system of martial training and personal cultivation that is consistent with the principles outlined in the Tai Ji Quan Classics. Just my personal definition.

Emptiness can also represent total potential without distinction, boundary, or form. I think that's more what Wu Ji as well as Emptiness in Buddhist doctrine is intended to convey. Buddhists and Daoists seem to be fairly quick to remind us that we are not speaking in nihilistic terms when we refer to these concepts. But it's just my opinion and I'm no authority on either Buddhism or Daoism just blundering through some ideas... Thanks for your comments.

Sloppy Zhang's link looks very good (and free). There's also a great book called Becoming the Lotus by Martin Faulks which outlines a progressive series of stretches designed to achieve the posture. I think it's pretty similar to the free link above.

Templetao - sorry to see you yanked your posts. I've enjoyed your input.

I was talking about this sort of thing with my training partner today. I think there are several ways to approach the original question about immortals. Like in any religion, there are those who take the subject matter literally and those who take it figuratively, allegorically, mythically, and so on. So there are those that believe the Red Sea literally parted like in the Charlton Heston movie and there are those that believe that wine turns into Jesus' blood and bread into his flesh when its consumed. Some believe that shapeshifting entails literally physically transforming into an animal. Some believe in virgins waiting for them in heaven. Others look for scientific explanations or symbolism in such concepts. I find it fascinating that there are those who turn up their nose and scoff at such beliefs in others' traditions but are completely comfortable living in a universe of gratuitous dogma in their own, chosen tradition. So is the question - do you believe literally that there are humans who live on forever as the human being they were when they were born, riding dragons and so on? Personally, I try to avoid belief. Belief means that I accept an explanation for something in the absence of direct experience or evidence. Why bother? For me, I prefer to know or not know. And I have no personal experience of people living beyond 110 years old or so and I've never seen a dragon. On the other hand, through my meditation practice I've made certain personal discoveries about the nature of immortality that are very real and obvious to me. Things that I just know deep down in my bones and heart through direct insight. And it has nothing to do with humans living beyond 130 years. So I do believe in immortality and I study and practice elements of Daoism. In that sense, I do believe in Daoist immortals. My beliefs are my own and to try and explain them in detail is probably not worth the time and energy right now. Suffice it to say that my beliefs run more toward the symbolic when it comes to mythological descriptions of Daoist Immortals and yet I do have an understanding and belief in immortality that goes beyond the symbolic. When it comes to anthropomorphic deities? Humans with superhuman powers and so forth? Nope, can't say I believe in that concept. No reason to and no personal experience to base such a belief on.

One of the masters of this area of concern IMO was Anthony Demello - someone I consider a great personal mentor, even though I never met him. He speaks at great length about awareness. He investigates things like self esteem, conditioning, love, happiness, freedom. He was a thoroughly enlightened man and was equally comfortable talking in terms of Christianity, Buddhism, HInduism, and Daoism. He was born a Hindu, later converted to Catholicism, and became a Jesuit and licensed clinical psychologist. He gives a wonderful talk about the nature of our addiction to approval. It begins in childhood and we are trained from a very early age to depend on the approval of others - parents, teachers, friends, lovers, children, spouses --- everyone! And this is a completely learned behavior and has nothing to do with true happiness. It's a very complex subject and way beyond my patience for typing and my expertise to explain it like he does. A few simple points are worth mentioning. No matter what someone else says or does, it remains within my control how I choose to react. In any given situation it's important to be aware that no two people react exactly the same. How we react is based on a complicated mix of factors but is mostly conditioned. We can cultivate certain types of reactions and awareness to the point where we are no longer puppets reacting to a master's strings. This idea dovetails readily with Daoist principles such as those talked about by Zhuang Zi in the beautiful Empty Boat parable. When nature causes us some harm, we don't take personal offense. We respond appropriately, we may be a bit angry, we may feel it is unfair, certainly we'll mourn our loss, and we move on. When another person causes us harm (or perceived harm) we tend to react much differently. We hold a grudge, we tend to be much more sensitive and defensive, we tend to have much more anger and resentment. What is the difference? Another person is simply another manifestation of nature. It all comes down to how we view ourselves as separate from nature, it hinges on the importance we give to the "I" thought that masquerades as the thinker and the doer. If we can let go of our concern with the approval of others and be self aware enough to see what causes us to respond to others in our conditioned patterns, we can truly be liberated. I'd highly recommend listening to Demello's CD set called Wake Up to Life. It could change your life, it did mine. Not everyone responds to his approach. If you're interested in more info, feel free to PM me about it.

Exactly - that is why there can be balance in a homosexual relationship. We are all capable of Yin and Yang aspects. A successful relationship (regardless of gender) balances these aspects. True that same gender couples cannot reproduce (other than with laboratory intervention) but there are plenty of mixed gender couples that can't reproduce or choose not to as well.

Well, for misspelling your name for one thing! Thanks - it is easy to take offense and even easier to offend!

Excellent post vortex. I though I'd add some of my thoughts to the mix. Wu Ji = 無極 Wu = on, absence of, nothingness Ji = central pillar or beam, roof, ultimate, pole (as in Earth's pole), extreme or terminus Wu Ji refers to emptiness, limitlessness, infinite, without pole (ie without polarity), and literally means without a central beam or roof, or even without extreme. In my interpretation, Wu Ji refers to void or emptiness in a manner completely analogous to that in Buddhism. It is the aspect of existence where we are unable to actually identify or quantify any absolute or discreet substance. It is reflected in modern physics as we are increasingly unable to identify and concrete building blocks of nature other than forms of energy. It can just as easily be looked at as a positive affirmation of non-duality, non-polarity, analogous to the Vedanta perspective. Tai Ji = 太極 Tai = supreme, greatest, biggest, large, furthest Ji = as above Tai Ji is usually translated as Supreme Ultimate, however, the connotation here, IMO, is polarity. Ultimate referring to end or terminus or pole and Tai Ji therefore referring to extreme opposites or opposite poles, polarity. One pole is named Yang and the furthest pole apart is Yin. Tai Ji is the opposite and polar nature of existence. Tai Ji is the balance and interplay between the polarity of existence. And Tai Ji also relates to the totality of existence, the fact that both poles are inextricably linked together. They can never be without each other, they quite literally define each other. So in Daoist cosmology we're taught that Wu Ji gives rise to or gives birth to Tai Ji. I think one common mistake we make is to think of this in Newtonian terms. Our minds naturally think in terms of cause and effect and time. But I think it's a mistake to think as if at one point in time, earlier, there was Wu Ji and at some point afterwards there is Tai Ji. In my interpretation, Wu Ji and Tai Ji coexist always. There is an underlying aspect to existence that is void, that is there is no stuff, no concrete building blocks of existence, emptiness. This is the nature of existence absent the sensory experience and interpretation of living awareness. And concurrently there is Tai Ji which is the distinction that is associated with that very awareness that evokes beauty out of wave forms and substance out of energy. So Wu Ji is always there underneath, and Tai Ji is always the overlay created by our awareness and discrimination of Yin and Yang. And there is alway Yin and Yang, never one without the other. That's clearly shown in the Tai Ji diagram. So in my estimation, Wu Ji and Tai Ji are identical to Emptiness and Interdependent Origination. The subtle differences are a consequence of language and cultural differences. Any major differences, IMO, are simply a reflection of misinterpretation.

So you are saying that you, as a man, are 100% Yang. There is no Yin component to men and no Yang component to women.

I have to disagree with you completely. I think that you misunderstand what Lao Zi is telling us. If you have spent any time in meditation I don't know how you could make a statement like: "Human is not part of nature but human has to deal with Nature." Human is a manifestation of Nature - what else could human be? Are you saying that there is all of existence, and then there is Human? Dao is not two, it is non-dual - human is part of Dao. We feel separate for several reasons - 1)That pesky thought that calls itself "I" - it hijacks the other thoughts and claims the role as thinker and doer. In fact, it is a thought like all the rest. It just has a unique "tag" that makes it feel different, just like memories, dreams, and so on, have tags that allow us to identify them as different from visual and auditory input and so on. 2)We are mobile and surrounded by a bag of skin and have a sensory apparatus that makes us feel separate 3) We are surrounded by air and the air is invisible to our eye, so we feel separate. In fact, we are nothing more or less than the entire universe, doing it's thing right here and right now in the space "we" occupy. The separation is an illusion. In referring to Dao, Heaven, Earth, and Human, Lao Zi acknowledges our feeling of separation and the complexity of the many levels and aspects of existence. He breaks them down into very general categories but the boundaries are your creation, not his. The entire thrust of Daoist cultivation, thought, and Dao De Jing is the inseparability of Dao. Wu Wei is simply allowing our confusion to get out of the way of allowing the universe to "do us" as it naturally will without fighting it. Tai JI is the human experience of creation, of Yin and Yang. And the experiencer is ad inseparable part of the experience. Human awareness and Nature are front and back to each other. Without nature, humanity cannot exist. At the same time, awareness, sensory perception, and interpretation are what allow the beauty and experience of nature to be evoked from the otherwise unintelligible jumble energetic fluctuations (this is Wu Ji - void, nothingness, emptiness; it gives rise to creation or becomes manifest when there is awareness to create distinction between Yin and Yang). Just some ramblings... No offense intended Chi Dragon. Maybe it's just the language thing...

Notice that I emphasized the word should. Should does not exist in nature. What exists in nature already is. Should is what happens when you disagree with what exists and attempt to impose your preference on the other. There is homosexuality - it exists. Should means that you are making a judgement and what exists is in conflict with your judgement. Here is an example of how nature may foster and give rise to homosexuality. I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is homosexual or bisexual. I hold no opinion on whether it is good or bad - it is neither. As far as I'm concerned, if two or more people choose to develop a relationship out of love, camaraderie, trust, friendship, or anything else, that is their business and their gender and sexual choices are not my concern. So we are in a situation where the human race has very effectively crowded other species out of existence and threatens its own existence through overpopulation as a result of technology. I think that the species on a macro scale has intelligence and it would make sense to me that homosexuality increases in frequency in a setting of overpopulation to slow down reproduction and lessen the competition for resources. It makes perfect sense teleologically. From a relationship perspective, Chi Dragon, there will always be an alternating balance of dominant and submissive, aggressive and passive, and so on. This is irrespective of gender and is present in any relationship. From a physical perspective there is alway the penetrator and the penetrated, the pleaser and the pleased, the active and the passive, and so on... and this can easily occur irrespective of gender.

Good point Little1. I should know better as I am unable/unwilling to discuss much about my own school of practice. I made an assumption that may or may not have been accurate and certainly wasn't skillful. Tian Shi - I hope you will accept my apology. _/\_ There was no need for me to get defensive on hagar's behalf. He's more than capable of responding as he sees fit. Litt'e1- Thanks for pointing out my faux pas.

Very valuable perspective. We can get tunnel vision and focus only on the martial side of Tai Ji Quan. I'm the first to emphasize how important it is to understand the martial principles. That said, not only does martial focus develop martial skill; it also insures proper adherence to the principles which also yields benefits when it comes to the healing and cultivation aspects of Tai Ji Quan. It's certainly easy to brush off the health and spiritual benefits but I agree with you that these are the benefits that are the most valuable in the long run. These benefits are not only limited to ourselves but everyone around us. My good friend and practice partner probably is the best martial Tai Ji Quan guy I know (with the exception of my teacher of course, and probably his son). Recently, however, he's really turned his focus much more toward the healing benefits and he and his clients are benefiting quite a bit. Thanks for bringing out that important point templetao.

Yeah man, a little earthquake on Wednesday and Irene tomorrow! Dao is rockin and rollin the East Coast this week...