doc benway

While the ghostly and numinous will penetrate it, It is not due to the power of the ghostly and numinous, But to the utmost refinement of your essential vital breath. That which is spiritual, divine, of the Dao freely penetrates but that is not what we depend on. We depend on our own personal work. Our cultivation of the Qi - converting Jing to Qi and Qi to shen. This is how we are to penetrate along with or even at one with, the ghostly and numinous. It is not through some supernatural, imaginary power or divine gift, it is through patient, diligent refinement of the Qi. --------- When the four limbs are aligned And the blood and vital breath are tranquil, Unify your awareness, concentrate your mind, Then your eyes and ears will not be over-stimulated. And even the far-off will seem close at hand. A prescription for practice - Sit in the proper attitude - not only physically stable and upright but aligned in terms of all aspects of oneself, emotional, psychological, with a healthy body and attitude. The four limbs can relate simply to the arms and legs but also to the "four extremities" - blood, flesh, bone, and sinew (also referred to as the hair, tongue, teeth, and nails) indicating the importance of a healthy and balanced body. The blood and vital breath relate to Yin and Yang components of the body and spirit - blood is Yin and Qi is Yang so both must be in balance and tranquil. Unify awareness and concentrate mind - these are specific instructions for using the mind of intent in focusing, refining, clarifying, manipulating, "creating?" the internal network defined by a school's particular Nei Gong. Most schools teach a series of exercises starting with the microcosmic orbit and progressing to more demanding and productive techniques for refining awareness and concentration. Most schools recommend the eyes remain open and be soft, the ears of course, are always attentive. Early on its very easy to get distracted and it can be hazardous to be suddenly interrupted when very tranquil during deep meditation. With practice one reaches a distance from the sensory input of the eyes and ears - neither attentive nor inattentive. Neither distracted nor engaged. With deeper tranquility the entire universe becomes one's body - at times it almost seems like an inversion takes place. All sorts of unusual sensations and difficult descriptions arise but when the distinction between self and Dao is no longer operational, perhaps that is what it means that the far-off seems close at hand.

Can you stop? Can you cease? Who is "you" that this refers to? Maybe this is the Nei Yeh addressing the problem of the "ego" or the illusory self that is being chatted about elsewhere. What is this "you" or "I"? Where does it come from? Is it something tangible or definable? Or is it an activity? An arising? And who is there to stop it or cease it anyway? As Krishnamurti describes, a thought that claims for itself the role of the thinker and the doer. But there's meaningful, reproducible experimental data that shows that "I" make decisions and choices after "my" body has already initiated certain neuromuscular processes that start the doing - before the doer has even decided to do anything! So the Nei Yeh is hinting that this "I" is something that is being created. It is not essential and we're asked if we can stop it. Not only that but we're asked if it can cease - this implies finality. ----------- Can you not seek it in others? Yet attain it in yourself? Nei Yeh has overlap with other sources including Zhuang Zi. Whatever it is referring to that we are to allow to stop and cease, we should not engage in this aspect of others, perhaps. This is very reminiscent to me of The Empty Boat parable. If an empty boat bumps into mine, what do I care? I just steer away. If someone is in the boat suddenly I'm angry, I feel violated. Why is this? Can we let go of seeing the other as separate from Dao? If someone bumps into us it's no different than a tumbleweed rolling by. And can we attain that absence within ourself so that WE are the empty boat that no one else is disturbed by. --------- You think and think about it And think still further about it. You think, yet still cannot penetrate it. Then it goes on to reinforce that thinking is of no value in this realm. Thinking has no value and the thinker doesn't exist and must cease. Don't study, don't read, don't debate and analyze - sit, meditate, cultivate. Allow that which makes you feel separate simply to settle and evaporate and be what you are.

Much appreciated my friend. Well it is what it is. Utopian communities have yet to work anywhere at any time. I believe the idea is faulty at it's core. I think we can work within the current framework and truly honor the philosophical basis of Daoism. The current structure is more similar to the general human condition than any socialistic or utopian models have ever been. Humans are tribal. Certain individuals are better suited to particular responsibilities than others. That's the way it is. I think the quality of the site will be related more to the community values and the behavior of members. We could be hypocritical and mindless fools in your schema just as easily. If the mods do a good job, the framework doesn't really matter. Anthony Demello talks about a cardinal who was asked which form of government was most compassionate. His response was that if wolves are governing, they will govern as wolves. If lambs govern, they will govern as lambs. The form of government is of little significance. I personally don't think the degree of change you're advocating is worth the effort or any more likely to enhance the community than continuing on the present course. To my knowledge there is no precedent in any internet forum I've encountered. The model in place here works here and elsewhere. I could certainly be wrong, and that's fine, it's just how I feel at this moment. I don't know any of these things - I just have some concerns. An 18-24 month rotation of a handful of members is going to be functionally no different than what is happening right now. The change would be virtually negligible it seems to me. Do I trust people to have ownership? Well, it's not my forum but if it were, the answer would be no. I see more immaturity, disingenuity, manipulation, and other negative behavior on this forum than most others I am involved in. I suspect it's because there are a lot of people really looking at deep issues in themselves and others. I also think it's because the subject matter attracts some wacky folks. Finally, I think some of our topics appeal to a younger age group. The bottom line is that the overall tenor of the forum is such that I personally would not trust most of the membership to be involved in a position of authority. If anyone thinks less of me for that comment, I'm sorry but that's what I've observed. And I felt that way before agreeing to help out. I will feel that way if I give up the mod job. My hope is that the more focused and serious members find a way to benefit from the site, contribute to the overall quality of interaction, and that we can slowly elevate the general culture to one that is a bit more focused on collaboration, compassion, and civility, and a little less concerned with competition, pedantry, and self absorption. As individuals prove themselves to be aligned with this sort of approach, I would personally welcome them to help with moderation - just my own approach, not endorsed by management necessarily. I do not see the mods as having treated people in any particular way, certainly not like children with a specific intention. All decisions are discussed and weighed and previous behavior considered. I see the mods as treating folks in a manner consistent with their behavior and, unfortunately, it is often equivalent to treating people like children. Overall, I just happen to disagree with many of your points on this. That's fine - we'll just agree to disagree. If my views expressed above insult anyone or sound arrogant, I sincerely apologize. It is what it is... Cheers

It's nice to have you here. I think you will contribute a lot if you hang around. Without getting too bogged down there have been some endlessly pedantic Buddhist arguments presented in obtrusive ways from time to time that made it difficult to focus on anything else. Some even interrupted discussions about Daoist views to explain why Daoism is completely wrong and the Buddhist view is correct... :yawn: Some folks are OK with that, others have wanted a bit of a refuge from it, hence the section dedicated to more Daoist discussion (not the sole reason but one of the stimuli). I am of the mind that reality is what it is and our paths and labels are all just incomplete ways to put labels on things and divide things up into digestible bits that we can make sense of. I'm open to all forms of discussion and views. I don't think the push back you refer to is as much related to the suffering piece, as it is related to the concepts of emptiness and interdependent origination (although it wouldn't be unusual for me to be mistaken). Personally, I find that surprising because they are equivalent (at least in my view) to Wu Ji and Tai Ji. Anyway - glad to have you here and I'm interested in hearing more of your ideas.

Some thoughts on this chapter, it may take a while to work through it: "By concentrating your vital breath as if numinous, The myriad things will all be contained within you." The vital breath is clearly Qi (not breath or air but direct internal awareness). Numinous refers to heavenly, divine, spiritual. This first couplet is an admonition to recognize that the very awareness of the space inside of "ourselves" is none other than that which is the fabric of all, Dao itself. So when we are able to perceive our own "substance" for what it truly is, we understand that we are not separate from Dao, we are just that. This is reflected in the fact that cultivation texts always include a diagram of the entire universe existing within us. We are a microcosm, even a hologram, of the universe. This is directly experienced through meditation, Daoist or otherwise. ___________ "Can you concentrate? Can you unite with them? Can you not resort to divining by tortoise or milfoil Yet know bad and good fortune?" The first line asks if you have put in the time needed to reach the level of meditation where this realization can come into being. It is something that has no substitute. Reading can not provide this, analysis and study are of no value. Only personal practice and direct experience can provide this. To resort to divining by tortoise and milfoil refers to the very common practice of using divining tools that supposedly reflected the will and intention of the gods or of the Dao. This had its roots in shamanism and the Yi Jing. Although one could consult the Yi Jing and the tortoise or milfoil to make decisions in earthly matters, it would not provide a direct, personal communion with Dao. It was an indirect attempt at connecting with Dao. The Daoists who chose a path of cultivation looked for answers internally, directly, through cultivation. One way to interpret the second part is that good and bad fortune will come and go and rather than be concerned with trying to predict or alter the course of our future, we are to be what we are and develop our awareness of and confidence in this through our cultivation. Don't choose or be concerned with preferences, don't try to hedge your bets through divining, rather continue to cultivate and accept and align with Wu Wei as it presents itself. Another possible interpretation is that through cultivation, we may be able to divine such things as good and bad fortune without resorting to the old shamanic methods. I personally would go with the first interpretation as this has more of a connotation of Wu Wei for me and is more in the spirit of the nature and goal of cultivation. Anyway, I'm certainly no authority but these are some of my thoughts for what it's worth. I need to study the next few lines for a while before commenting.

Hi devoid, I'd be interested in participating. I think we have enough folks here to make it worth attempting. I'll bring it to the attention of the mods to see how they think we should proceed. Thanks for the excellent suggestion.

I have trouble simply accepting words and concepts that don't resonate with me when it comes to things like this. For a long time I looked at it some of these esoteric terms and concepts as BS but I've come to see it in a different light. The lives of our ancestors affects us in many subtle and profound ways. For me, it can take multiple forms. Our ancestors communicate with us and pass down their lessons through: - DNA - health, disease, longevity, mental illness - Familial patterns of behavior - physical abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, ethical behavior, criminal behavior, morality, spirituality, work ethic which are passed down through the generations - Personal accomplishments or failings - economic success, political success, incarceration, execution, public humiliation or admiration which affect our offspring - Social and cultural conventions and conditioning - Choices regarding environment and conservation - Choices of reproductive partner, age, and so on. And many more things I'm not thinking of. Many of these factors contribute to who and what we are, what we do, how we live and die, and so on. It is similar to the Native American concepts of ancestry but in different terms. Personally, I believe this is the foundation of what the Daoist paradigm describes in terms of Qi. It's just that I'm more comfortable thinking in the Western paradigm.

I know this post wasn't addressed towards me but some of the comments caught my attention and I'd like to offer my perspective as the newest moderator. I've done much of nothing to date other than pitch in an opinion here and there and maybe a PM. I'm just watching and learning. I think this "rigid divide" will always exist. The rank and file who have open minds and a reasonable level of maturity can see that the mods are simply trying to maintain some peace and harmony while trying to also encourage a meaningful level of credible participation of folks who have some experience and knowledge that they are willing to share with those who are truly here to learn and participate. There will always be bullies and blowhards who don't like it when they don't have the last say or get their way and they will be bitter and whiny.... oh well.... :yawn: Given the nature of the web and this forum, I would not call the situation static. Mods have come and gone (and seem to be participating actively or not participating randomly and irregularly) with as much or more variation than I could imagine occurring in any organized schema involving a rotation with >6 month terms... That is the nature of the beast. This is an easy one for me. As you probably know, I was invited to join the team in the beginning but declined. It wasn't a good time for me, personally, and I really wasn't in a place where I wanted to increase my internet presence. That's when I took a bit of an extended break. Being a moderator on TaoBums does not make me feel important or privileged in any way. It is probably the least important privilege in my life. Those feelings come from my family, my work, hobbies, and my friends. I may help to judege if a certain member seems to be acting maliciously or not, I may help to delete spam, maybe even help with tech support some day. So what? This doesn't make me any better than anyone, if anything it ties my hands a bit when it comes to my own free participation. I do my best to evaluate each situation on its merits. I am human and there will undoubtedly be bias in my decisions, intentional or otherwise - all I can do is my best. With all due respect to Sean and the rest of our mods and members, "TaoBums status" ain't anything special. Anyone can join and offer their ideas and opinions. If I admire someone's ideas and how they handle themselves - they're special in my eyes. If not, they ain't. Mod status means nothing other than someone cares enough about the forum to help Sean maintain it in a way that is consistent with his, and hopefully all of our, vision. And yes, I have no attachment to this and do it genuinely because I find it a place where I can share some spiritual and martial arts ideas with some like minded individuals. I don't go to church or synagogue or mosque. I talk to a few trusted friends and come here to seek some spiritual camaraderie. Hence, I wanted to give back and offered to help. I would gladly drop out in a heartbeat and wouldn't look back. I think your idea of a rotation and open enrollment of mods is a bad idea for this, or any, private forum. As a group of mods gets to know each other and the community they are uniquely suited to help maintain a degree of stability to foster open and equitable communication. Regular changing of the mods will cause periodic up and downswings as they try to learn the ropes and eachother. There will be inevitable clashes. Overall I think it would threaten, rather than enhance stability. Drawing from the random rank and file will further destabilize this situation IMO. Let's face it, there are folks who would make good mods and others who wouldn't. There are certain specific characteristics I would look for in a person if it were my call. I think it makes much more sense to observe how people behave and interact over time and invite those people who display the qualities that make it likely they will enhance rather than sabotage the team. Folks are certainly volunteer and I imagine that Sean and the current team would invite them onboard if the need exists and they are suited to the task. Certainly this is a completely subjective judgement and that make complete sense since this is Sean's baby. It is his vision, not socialism. I hope that as the mod team continues to grow and mature as a group they will develop and foster a common vision that makes this place the best it can be. Just my $.02. PS In case it isn't obvious, it's me, I just dropped the f....

I'd like to add at least a third - cultivation. It really doesn't fit into either of the other categories.

Be careful asking such questions, my friend, or someone will again drop the B-bomb. Those blocks are our choices, our preferences, our social and cultural conditioning, our attachments... (oops). They are the very things that define or arise with the nature of Tai Ji. Wu Ji gives rise to Tai Ji, once there is separation of Yin and Yang, there is opportunity to choose and that's learned behavior - social, cultural, familial. I prefer pretty to ugly, warm to cold, sweet to sour. I lust after what I want, I fret over what I have, I'm divided. That's who "I" am, the sum total of my choices, more or less. When there is no "I" left to choose, there just is and it's OK. So perhaps Marbles is right and Dao is objective because it is there absent the "I" but there is still this sense of "I" that everything alive "is" and so it goes.... round and round.... Welcome to the asylum.

Same goes for me... Not to my knowledge but I'm not a scholar of the classics, culture, or language> I've studied the more accessible classics and most of my Daoist "knowledge" and interest is in practice. In my cultivation practice and discussion with my Shifu, there has been no mention of a specific "ego" entitiy by name but what is referred to frequently are all of the things that are distractions from being in accordance with Dao - all of the psychological and emotional baggage, conditioned patterns of behavior, and so on... These are the boundaries, the very dividing lines that "separate" us from Dao in our minds. All this is clearly recognized and much cultivation work, even though not directly concerned with working with this stuff, is indirectly addressed at liberating us from it's hold on us. This is a natural consequence of the meditative and physical practices. I think that the view I've gained from Daoist practice (and my limited knowledge of the classics) is that the Daoist does not view a separate self but rather holds a view that Dao manifests as living organisms that can be described through certain behavioral and observable characteristics. The basis for existence goes back to Wu Ji = Tai Ji = manifestation. This does not mean there is separation or distinction between those three "levels", it is simply human conceptualization of different facets of existence. What is Wu Ji if not the equivalent of Buddha's (shudder) emptiness? What is Tai Ji if not independent origination? It is exactly the same thing whether the Buddhists and Daoists on this forum like to admit it or not. Any argument to the contrary is just empty justification of nothing in my view. They only differ in subtle language and cultural nuance. We can name things (you, me, flower, mountain) but that is not the thing. It is not the thing because there is no thing. Reality is marvelously continuous and whole, the Dao is unbroken, it fills all and is nowhere to be found, it is people who like to carve it up into digestible pieces. Boundaries are creations of our mentation. So we can name ourself and describe the "person" or the "ego" but I think there is fundamental acceptance of non-duality in Daoism, at least if one takes the time to do the work personally. Trying to experience non-duality through study, analysis, or debate is not effective, that is what the cultivation and meditation part is for. At least that's what I've taken away from it. That represents the best of my subjective objectivity...

Hi realfastcat, I'd like to welcome you and say that this is one of my favorite first posts ever. It is a pleasure to have someone join us with the type of attitude you bring. Many of our members could learn a valuable lesson from your words.

I follow the drama on TaoBums about as closely as I follow soap operas on TV - not at all... The level of drama is inversely proportional to our collective level of maturity and personal growth. Yawn...

There was a time when I was concerned about world and local news. After realizing the depth of corruption of information (both intentional and resulting from unintentional forms of bias) I began routinely looking at multiple sources when reading an interesting story. I routinely looked at BBC, NPR, NY Times, Al Jazeerah, DEBKA-File, and occasionally others in Europe and Asia. Ultimately I realized that there is no such thing as a reliable or unbiased news story. It all depends on the unique confluence of information, geography, culture, and politics. I've completely let go of following news for about 3 years now. Some gets to me from other people and occasionally I'll read a paper or listen or look at media but very rarely. My life is better for me without it. I spend more time on things that are meaningful to me and I rarely find that there is anything important I miss that would have an affect on my life.

Jiddu Krishnamurti - There is no path through all of this shit. UG Krishnamurti - Enlightenment is shit Stig - this may be my only opportunity so I'm going to take full advantage of it. I had no idea you are so full of shit!

Each day I like this forum more, I rarely bother with the other. This is my refuge.

The Classics are full of discussion of that which gets in the way between man and Dao. To me, the implication is that this is the "objective" self, the self that is separate from Dao, that is - the illusion. And that returning to Dao and Wu Wei are about letting go of that illusion by letting go of all of those things that get in the way. Subject and object disappear and what remains cannot be named.

Welcome Mendelssohn. I am also a fan of Zhuang Zi. It's my feeling that most religions have a beautiful, profound, and simple core. At their core is a unique language for pointing the seeker toward the truth, toward reality, in a way that is determined by their cultural, geographical, and temporal characteristics. On top of this is piled all of the distractions, misinterpretations, corruption, and baggage of generations of misguided, well-intentioned, or opportunistic people. So Daoism is full of wisdom and beauty but there's plenty of chaff as well. Don't let that keep you away.

I just wanted to be able to look at this again...

I don't know about Marbles, but I value your opinion! Another way to interpret what you just said (the same way really?) is that Daoism, like all other religious/spiritual traditions, is simply about trying to figure out what reality is and how to be a genuine human being. Which takes us back to topic - are we objects or subjects? And it may be interesting to discuss but I think that for each of us the sum total of our life experience determines which we feel ourselves to be, there will be no convincing, only description.

Yes

"Real - not artificial, not imaginary. So anything real would include all things in their natural state without having been manipulated by any one or any thing else. The new-born babe? The uncarved block? No, the block has already been changed from a tree to a block. Uncarved wood would work though, wouldn't it? The uncarved wood could be a piece of dead wood from a tree or a part of the living tree itself?" I was just responding to this. I'm not sure why you are making a distinction between natural and unnatural when it comes to real. It's sort of related to why we try and make distinctions between our everyday human behavior and some idealistic vision of what we think natural behavior should be. Why do we insist on thinking it should be differnt than what is? I find that puzzling.

It's more Hindu than Buddhist actually and, in fact, arises as a consequence of any form of self examination, including Daoist. And you can't isolate Marblehead from his environment, it seems like you might be able to because Marblehead is mobile and is surrounded by a bag of skin and some cool antennae, but it's an illusion. Cut off from it's environment, Marblehead would quickly vanish and would never has existed in the first place.

This is a loaded question and as you begin to delve into meditation you will make all sorts of wonderful discoveries - or, like many, you may just get bored, give up, and go on as before. One could say that the purpose of meditation is to achieve or realize a condition from which there is no need be any different than we already are at that moment. I practice two major types: One is a Daoist method that involves very specific mental exercises and integrates extremely well with activities like Taijiquan and Qigong but also becomes very applicable to many activities in daily life. The other is very much what anamatva describes below and I intersperse this with the Daoist techniques (in fact it is a commonly employed technique in Daoist methods). This is an excellent approach that I find easy and effective. First sit comfortably. It can be anything as long as the spine is upright and balanced. If sitting in a chair the thighs should be relatively parallel to the ground. Lotus, Burmese, or half lotus are fine. Comfort and stability are all that count. Then just sit. Thoughts will come and go - mostly come. Don't fight it. Just notice them. Try not to add anything to them intentionally, they'll be busy enough without your help. Notice when you are in the thoughts rather than watching them and simply go back to watching. And you can also pay a bit of attention to how it feels to be in your body and to any sensory input (sounds, vibration, smells) but just notice, no need to add commentary or editorial. And just sit and do exactly this. Sit, feel yourself, notice the thoughts as they arise and depart, and you're doing it. Start with 5 minutes and gradually work up to 20 minutes a day. That's a great start.

Yes, I agree 100% regarding the open awareness as opposed to focus. It's hard to put into words. It can be focused or diffused but it certainly must be an opening. I read Bruce Frantzis' meditation books and one thing that I think he misunderstands is the difference between water and fire methods. He implied that fire methods are hard and closed and tight and focused. In fact, the quality of opening attention is the same as in water methods. Forgive my ignorance - what do you mean by the Jing area?