doc benway

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?

Excellent post.

Objective - where does the mind end? At the eyeball? At the sight of what is "out there (which is actually in the optical cortex)? Or at the "external" object itself? Somewhere in the air in the middle? When you have a sensory experience of something, are "you" separate from it? Can you put your finger on the "you" that is having the experience? Real - is a car not real? A barbecued steak? Why is unmanipulated more "real" than manipulated? Before man, dinosaurs where there to see the tree. Before dinosaurs, trees were in relationship with each other and whatever other living (and not living - perhaps) organisms were present. Sure, their level of awareness is different from ours but they do exist in an environment and interact at some level with that environment. I guess one could imagine what would the universe be like in the absence of all awareness of any kind. But we do not exist in a universe absent awareness. We live in the kind of a universe which is suffused with awareness. We can't know if there was ever a time when awareness did not exist in the universe. And there is no reason that it must be human awareness - have you thought about that? It comes back to whether the tree that falls in the forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it. The answer is no. Sound does not exist in the absence of an ear and a brain. Only disturbance in the air exists. You are trying to excuse yourself and all of humanity from being complicit in this wonderful mess we find ourselves in. And just because you feel that the universe existed before you were alive and will go on when you are dead doesn't mean that awareness didn't exist. Awareness remains. I guess a reasonable question is - does awareness arise from within the brain, is it locked inside of the skull and skin and sensory apparatus, or is it elsewhere? Where does it come from? How to find it. That's a tough one but be very careful, it's tricky. When one brain dies there are still many others. And the quality or stuff or activity (no words are correct) that is awareness is more or less the same for all aware things (or at least let's just stick with people for now). And all living things with awareness are "me". Nothing feels like "him" - we are all me. So as long as there is life, there is awareness. And as long as there's life there is "me." Is there awareness without people? Of course. All living things are aware, all are me's at some level. Without all living things? How to know? And just because an animal may not have the same type of internal dialogue we have going on does not mean that their conscious awareness does not participate in the birth of the universe that is ongoing at every instant. I don't think use has anything to do with it.

That was the intention. Qi is certainly the beef of Daoist medicine in many ways... Why would that not be Wu Wei? All living things survive by eating others. Death is everywhere whether it be through the agent of murder, accident, survival, or natural disaster (think of ZZ's Empty Boat). Humans are subject to illusion and delusion, how do we know that is not our natural condition? How to know it is NOT Wu Wei? This is what I was alluding to in a comment to Taomeow on another thread. We think that there is some state that is other than what currently is for each of us. And we are always trying to be or do something other than what is right now. How to know what is Wu Wei and what is not? I don't think it is so obvious, easy, or trivial... And Wu Wei might just be this, always and forever.

Yes, I understand that and didn't intend that this was representative of all Christians or sects. Just shared my experienced with an enlightened follower of Jesus and an unenlightened institution. Forgive my unskillful wording.

I was never impressed with or related to the Christian scriptures until I got into studying the works of Anthony DeMello, a Jesuit and psychotherapist from India, now deceased. Perhaps the unique combination of Hindu/Buddhist Indian background, Jesuit mysticism, and psychological training was the reason but he was clearly a deeply enlightened and liberated sage. He saw deeply into the nature of truth and existence through the scriptures and I was able to see the truth in scripture myself for the first time (not that I am or have ever been a Christian). He was never afraid to bring his knowledge of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism into his talks and generally played down too much religious thought and talk unless cornered by the "religionists" as he called them. It actually gave me some hope for the future of the Church until I discovered that Joseph Ratzinger (currently pope) decried and banned all of DeMello's work as heresy while working as the official censor of the Catholic Church. He subsequently eased his position but reading about that made me realize again the depth of corruption and ignorance of the institution. Like all religion, the institution cannot be enlightened or provide enlightenment or meaningful guidance, only individuals can do that.

There is also the aspect of whether we are masters of ourselves or subject to the whims of others. I don't want to get too bogged down in typing right now but, in brief, we can try to be aware of how we react to others and see through the illusion that they have the power to cause us harm. It takes some serious work and is multilayered, but the bottom line is that it is possible to achieve a state of being where no one can cause you to suffer, regardless of what they do. I know that it is very easy to come back with horrible examples of how this is ridiculous but not matter what, it is within one's grasp to accept what the universe puts in ones path, whether the agent of that obstacle is human, animal, natural disaster, or otherwise, and to accept and be content and fulfilled with one's lot. This is spoken to in Zhuang Zi's parable The Empty Boat. It is alluded to in the DDJ Chapter 49 (and others). It is also pointed to by the famous Christian admonition, to turn the other cheek. We can get into it more if you'd like. There is no greater proponent in the English language of this than Anthony DeMello - nominally a Jesuit from India but functionally a consummate Daoist sage, IMO. PS Taomeow mentions the practice "To know thyself" - DeMello's message was awareness , to strive to be aware of everything within and without.

What makes you suspect we are not?

Of course and yes, it is most definitely another discussion. Show me the Qi!

Why is it that the desire for friends and a lover makes you suffer? Is it because you don't feel comfortable being in relationships with others? Have you been hurt? Are you intent on isolating yourself for a reason? I don't think the desire to have relationships should necessarily be a source of suffering. Look into why that is the case - it's a place to start.

I agree with you. What I meant to convey is that Qi is very fundamental in cultivation, very basic, and hence worthy of examination for Daoists. And really what I was getting at was focusing Marbles on Qi since it is a good example of something that may be difficult to appreciate as "objective" that is fundamental to Daoist thought, practice, and philosophy.

Existence is as it is, it's only our perspectives that vary. I'll be extra careful crossing the street tonight!

This is something I've wrestled with for a long time. I am an organic manifestation of Dao so how can anything I do or think be un-Daoist? So is everything I do and everything society and culture does somehow "unnatural" even though it all springs from nature directly or indirectly? And so on.... It is an area I think is worthy of serious consideration. I really enjoyed your post and take issue with only this. Vis a vis the above consideration, I think that figuring out "just going with the flow" and truly living that is the highest level of attainment. First I need to understand the flow then understand what it means to go with that in all things at all times. That is nothing less than a life of purity, the life of the sage, Wu Wei. I find De much more approachable and much easier... I suspect we are saying the same thing with slightly different language but I could be wrong...

Nope, no interest in trying to convince you of my perspective, just sharing it with you. Which is specifically that the chair is equally subjective and objective. There is no separation of the two other than that artificially created by man. My earlier rants were my feeble attempts at illustrating the genesis of my perspective. Edit - the only thing that I would try to convince you of would be to begin some practice of Daoist cultivation methods (preferably meditation if available to you, less helpful but still worthwhile would be Qi Gong, Nei Gong, or Tai Ji Quan) as I think this could give you a different and complimentary perspective from which to view the philosophical component.

Yes, Daoists most certainly do pray. Most prayer seems to be related to communicating with Daoist deities, spirits, and performing a host of religious rituals and obeisances. There is an extremely complex religious tradition that varies widely geographically and culturally. I found an interesting link here: http://www.my-island-penang.com/Taoist-Worship-Rituals.html I know very little about the "religious" side of Daoism. I practice some cultivation methods but that's really where my personal knowledge and experience ends. The closest thing I've personally experienced in terms of a Daoist "religious" ceremony was the Bai Si ceremony in which I was accepted as a disciple of my Shi Fu. I will not discuss the ceremony specifically but there were components that most would describe as having a bit of a religious flavor.

Cool - I get carried away pretty easily.... Atheism has nothing to do with it. We are not speaking of deities. The reason I brought up the afterlife was because you said that 'in Daoism we don't speak about after we die' - in Daoism, it is spoken about alot (and I also think misinterpreted a lot). No trick questions - trying to be fundamental and direct. Why less dogmatic? Do you have any interest in learning anything new? Any interest in opening to reality? Again, I'm not trying to be at all offensive, please don't think that's my intention. Dogma gets in the way. Dogma fills the void. Do you need to do any of that? Absolutely not. Is that one reason you frequent TTB? It is for me. I don't think you're broken at all. I think you are insightful, intelligent, and affable and you are one of my favorite imaginary internet friends, . I'm only responding to the topic you created in which who asked to debate subjectivity and objectivity. In doing so, did you not invite a challenge to your beliefs? Was that not your intention? And if so, perhaps you want to change your beliefs and path, not me (that is, I don't want to change your path). I'm just expressing my own in hopes that it may help us both to grow. We pass value judgements on everything, that is what defines objective vs subjective. Man doesn't distort objective reality, he creates "objective" reality by separating and then choosing. You like your garden and flowers - not shit and desert, that is a value judgement. You like your path, you like what works for you. You are choosing, defining, separating, dividing - objectifying. Attachment to the worth of your understanding prohibits opening to other possibilities that may ultimately be of more value (or less) to you. Again, if you want to stay where you're at, fine. But then what are we doing here? I also have learned the hard way to try and avoid making a judgement about the value of my perceptions to others. It can be hurtful, traumatic, unhelpful, rude, and I am certainly no one's authority. Maintaining a presence on this forum, however, implies that we have an interest in sharing, an interest in relationship, and so remaining open to looking at each other's ideas without placing relative value on them in advance seems to me to be worthwhile. I'm happy to stop there for now and we can see where we go from here.

I have one major problem with this Taoist Discussion forum - it's taking me away from my practice!!!!

Let's look at this for a moment. There is a great deal of Daoist thought and the Daoist canon that is dedicated to issues related to immortality and what occurs beyond death. It is interpreted differently by different traditions, schools, individuals. My own beliefs about this are a result of cultivation and not much influenced by written Daoism and are probably different than the "party line" Daoist view so I won't go into that much. But there is an enormous amount of Daoist attention on the afterlife and it's interaction with our present lives. For me, Daoism is primarily about self cultivation. I don't mean to say that I discredit other aspects or uses, I just don't take advantage of them. And the foundation of Daoist cultivation (not to mention Daoist science and medicine) revolves around the concept of Qi. There is and has never been any objective or measurable evidence that this exists. Some may argue that this is incorrect but, believe me, when the international scientific world can verify the existence of an objective quantity called "Qi" it will not remain a secret for long (conspiracy theorists please don't derail me too much here, we can always start a new thread ). So what is Qi, Mr. Marbles? I don't mean to sound patronizing, offended, challenging, or defensive, but do you practice any form of Daoist cultivation? I think this is very important when it comes to your attitude toward objectivity. Have you spent hours, months, or years trying to come to terms with Yi, Jing, Qi, Shen, Wu, and all things related to that? If you truly have, I think that your outlook regarding objective and subjective might be a bit less dogmatic. Because here you just may find the area (metaphysical, philosophical, spiritual, intellectual) where the objective and the subjective become blurred in truly Daoist terms and within the underlying principle of Daoist cosmology. And as far as I am concerned, the heart and soul of Daoism is to be found in practice, not study or debate or intellectual understanding. And I would confidently maintain that old Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi, and Lie Zi (and any other Zi's you ask) would support that assertion. I have friends who are intellectual and philosophical Daoists and through interacting with them, I don't believe one can begin to truly approach Daoism without direct personal experience through some of it's associated practices. Because Daoism is a way of living not an understanding of life. Many may disagree with this also and begin to discuss whether or not the sages practiced this or that method of cultivation but after spending several years of practicing credible Daoist methods, one can see deeply into the classics in a way that relates directly to what is occurring and experienced/experiencing inside and there are things that just can't be understood and communicated in words - a very common and fundamental theme in all Daoist texts. In fact, the lessons of the Classics are much better experienced through practice than studied and understood intellectually. But what is so important about useful? Isn't that what Zhuang Zi was saying? And when you speak about a person, you have already taken him/her apart. How useful is a person without their environment? How useful is a person without air? Without water? Without the ground to stand on or space to move around in? How useful is a person, isolated with no other people, animals, or "objects" as you call them. A person does not and has never existed in isolation, nor has anything. It is all present in relation to everything else, always and forever. Organismenvironment - all separation is artifact of our brain. And the "object" is nothing more than the illusion created by mind which draws boundaries. Because it is much easier and "more useful" to imagine things as isolated and separate because to try and wrap our puny intellects around the whole thing is impossible, the intellect must be let go to connect with Dao (entirety/non-duality). Intellect is of no use in that realm. Wu Ji can represent entirety, non-duality, once Tai Ji enters there is duality - Me and everything else ---> 10,000 things. Here is the crux in Daoist terms. There is Wu Ji, which you may want to try and describe as objective but being non-dual there is nothing to experience it, there is no subjectivity or objectivity, it just is and is not nor is it or is it not (I know, sounds a bit B-ish doesn't it??). So what is the nature of the relationship between Wu Ji and Tai Ji. How does Wu Ji give rise to Tai Ji? That's right, the mind - subject/object split, judgment, consciousness, whatever terms you want to use. Tai Ji is the equivalent of relative reality where Wu Ji is that nebulous state that some would apply the word "emptiness" to that underlies or precedes reality. We are what creates Tai Ji out of Wu Ji. We are what therefore creates the 10k things. We are doing so completely through our conscious awareness which creates the subjective/objective split. So we are both completely subjective and objective at the same time, fundamentally. No other way. The physically manifest can be experienced by our particular characteristics of existence (the thinking brain and it's sensory apparatus) in terms of relative objectivity but dividing everything into bits is an artificial (and very useful) tool that can only be seen through with individual and arduous (for most) practice. Objectivity is a direct result of "bitting" the continuity of existence, it is a completely subjective artifice created by you. Perhaps this is one reason why, metaphorically, Zhuang Zi spurns the useful? What advantage has the useful over the useless, it comes and goes. It has no substance. Show me the number 7 - it has no existence. It's like when Alan Watts talks about coming across a bustling construction site and a month later, after economic collapse, he returns and asks why no one is building anything and one of the workers replies - because they ran out of inches! We live then we die, everything that occurs between occurs to us as completely and utterly subjective individuals. And when we die, what is/was the use? Each object (living) that you affect is a subject from their perspective. No one is anything other than subject and we are all interconnected in ways that are subtle but very real.

I think much of that misunderstanding is simply a matter of miscommunication rather than a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Qi Gong. I could be wrong about that but this is how I'm interpreting what the various contributors to the related threads have been trying to say.

I think you are misinterpreting the statements made about the use of breathing in Qi Gong. Breathing is always involved. One does not hold one's breath continuously during Qi Gong. It is also true that, with practice, the method of breathing will adjust and correct itself and come into better balance with the mind and body. I don't think anyone would question this. There are legitimate practices and teachers that have their students begin with a natural pattern of breathing. They specifically feel that it is not necessarily important or advantageous to have a student force a particular pattern of breathing during the exercise. The reason for this is that specific patterns of breathing can distract the student and interfere with their ability to learn the body movements and mental manipulation. In addition, trying to force an unfamiliar breathing pattern to an unfamiliar body movement, while focusing on a challenging matter of mental attention can cause anxiety, hypoxia, muscle tension, and so on. This can be counter-productive. If the mental and physical components are correct. It is possible for the method of breathing to grow naturally out of this and be as effective (maybe more so and possibly sooner) as a situation where a specific breathing pattern is forced. This was my Shiye's approach to teaching the Tai Ji Quan form which is a complex and extended form of Qi Gong. And it is VERY effective. One does not need to work on specific breathing patterns until (and unless) one gets into the martial applications. One does NOT need to coordinate the breath with using Yi to guide the Qi. They can (and some might say should) occur independently (or dependently depending on the desired result). Sorry for the long paragraph but I couldn't tell where to break....