doc benway

In another thread there was a brief discussion about whether existence renews itself in every instant or is continuous. My own experience suggests that awareness is continuous until choice enters, until thought enters. When I sit in awareness, there is continuity. There is no interruption, there is just being. When thought arises, there is separation from that continuity, from now. A return to now after thought passes gives the illusion of discontinuity. So it is always now. It does not renew. Just some thoughts for discussion if anyone is interested.

I think this is a good thread and I'd like to speak to this point. It was relatively recently that I came to recognize the value in my life of cultivating love and compassion. Not from a religious sense, not for attainment, but for my own health. I have a very high stress job and deal with very unhealthy, unhappy (and often unpleasant) people daily. I have a very hectic schedule and a few years ago would have said that I "don't have the time to do this" as you refer to. I was wrong. It has nothing to do with time. It has to do with perspective and choice. Taking responsibility for our actions that hurt others can occur after the fact or in the moment. If I enter into each interaction with the simple thought - I am going to foster a loving and compassionate exchange - it can happen. I can take a moment to smile warmly, introduce myself, sit down, say something kind or funny or in some way take a moment to make a connection. I can look at the person as myself and see that they are looking for the exact same things as me - security, respect, validation, understanding. I can offer my full attention and genuine interest for whatever time we are together. Little or no extra time is needed. In the long run it saves time. At first it is inconsistent, awkward, and not always effective. With a little practice it becomes second nature and much more skillful. And not only does the other feel better, I benefit enormously. I am enriched by the experience and develop meaningful relationships where they didn't exist previously. And when I encounter people who are unresponsive, nasty, abusive - I know it is their baggage and their pain and I can let it go. It bounces off me or passes through me as if I'm not there and they are stuck with it but I'm not. It happened this morning - I walked away smiling and relaxed and the other came and went with their anger and frustration. You can't help or please everyone and eventually, with this approach, it's easy to tell the difference. So I agree that taking responsibility is important and I prefer to cultivate a method for doing this in advance of any offense rather than in an attempt to do damage control. As you say, it doesn't always work but it's tougher to make amends than to be preemptive.

I'm a big fan. Have you seen the film Genghis Blues? Excellent documentary. Here's a good website to check out - http://www.fotuva.org/music/theory.html And a few videos: Here is Kongar-ol Ondar Here's an amazing Tuvan singer, Sainkho Namtchylak, who has gotten into some pretty progressive stuff, this is more traditional: The great Huun Huur Tu - I saw them in concert about 2 years ago - sick! And my favorite song - Kongurei http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVfzQVlVAUA&feature=related

That is a brilliant insight. Dammit! Now you one-upped me again! I gotta start thinkin' real hard... There was a time when my heart was completely hardened toward such miserable creatures. I used to feel enormous anger towards them. There is still anger there but there is also an enormous sadness. I can't imagine how terrifying it would be to be in their shoes. Most of them were victims of abuse and many are tortured by their crimes. Often these are overwhelming compulsions, akin to sexual fetishes, which are extremely difficult to control. I still feel anger, loathing, and hatred for them, and compassion. I also feel that compassion is not at odds with punishment. Punishment is an expression of compassion, for the victim, the criminal, society, and humanity in general.

They have the courage of the brain-washed fanatic who would "martyr" him/herself for their religious beliefs - I don't respect that type of courage. I respect the type of courage that can tolerate differences. At a funeral, they are viciously attacking the bereaved family of strangers, when they are at their most vulnerable. They are making very hurtful accusations simply for media attention. Not only is it disrespectful, it is reprehensible. I don't understand why this family doesn't sicken you and yet their critics do. That might be worth thinking about. I believe that they are bad people. They are attacking innocent family members who are trying to mourn their loved ones for no reason but a forum for their fundamentalist fanaticism. They don't need love, they need reprogramming. You should watch the youtube video in which one of the members rants for a while. This is Jonestown type stuff. Where is all the Kool Aid when you need it?

Thanks for your insightful comments. Yes, this is basically what I was trying to communicate. I do think that there is a fundamental direct experience of [inset preferred word] that is the spiritual core of all religion. How it is interpreted and communicated is variable.

After reading all the great stuff on this thread and the one in the general forum, I thought I'd offer my own amateur translation/interpretation: The Sage has no mind that can be called his own, Therefore, his mind reflects the true nature of humanity He returns kindness for kindness, And offers kindness in return for unkindness. For he is a living manifestation of the virtue of kindness. He is faithful to those who are faithful, And he offers faith to those who are unfaithful. For he is a living manifestation of the virtue of faithfulness. The Sage lives and breathes in our world, Allowing his mind to remain simple and natural. As far as you and I can tell, He is as a child.

Perhaps you are taking too literally the idea of the sage having "no thoughts" and what is implied by "of his own". The Sage means one who is a manifestation of Dao in the flesh - a conduit of Dao. So the Sage doesn't cloud the expression of the nature of Dao with extraneous, conditioned, or biased thoughts, preferences, desires, longing for approval and attainment, and so on. The Sage is the closest thing to a human expression of nature but it is in our nature to think, so there will be thoughts. It's not so much that he has no thoughts of his own, it's that his thoughts are the thoughts of Dao, they are the thoughts that arise in the absence of those unskillful things that cloud our clarity. And what does it mean to be "of his own." Who is he? Is he something apart from Dao? The Sage is a living manifestation of Dao so there is no one apart to have thoughts other than the natural thoughts that arise from Dao. And I wonder about the implications of "the common people" - could another interpretation be "all of humanity" or "the genuine nature of people" or something like that? Or is he saying, let go of lofty philosophical and intellectual ideas and goals and desires and just be concerned with doing a good job at work, finding the next meal, supporting your partners, and yourself? Just living without the distraction of over-thinking things, trying to hoard and succeed and so on.

I've recently been going through Hua-Ching Ni's Dao De Jing and I'm really impressed with his translation. Currently by my bed are - Hu Xuezhi - Revealing the Tao Te Ching Osho - Absolute Tao Dzogchen Ponlop - Mind Beyond Death Seng Ts'an - Hsin Hsin Ming

信心銘 is an absolutely wonderful poem. I've been sitting with it for a long time and never get tired of it. Being a student of Tai Ji Quan, I have gotten a lot of insight into my practice from this work and you can see how it's wisdom pervades the Tai Ji classics. I think this would make a great topic in the Dao De Jing subforum for serious study but we could also do it here in the general pop. The thing that I think I am most fond of is the way it seems to reflect the confluence of Buddhist and Daoist "thought" leading to the evolution of Chan/Zen. Perhaps my favorite excerpt is: Words! Words! The Way is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday, no tomorrow, no today. .... but there I go showing an attachment to preferences!!! PS Great avatar lifeforce - that's a valuable book!

Very nice post. I would like to propose that there is no truth in Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, or any religion. Truth (and I am using the word to represent the nature of being or whatever you want to call it) is ineffable and inexpressible through word, idea, concept, or thought. Each of these traditions is an attempt by awakened people to express the inexpressible through their own unique social and cultural perspective. None of them are truth, they are each a skillful yet inadequate attempt to represent the truth in language and it is my feeling that at the root of each is the direct experience of truth whether in an individual or a mythical representation. I know that this is semantic and that you already understand this Michael, but I think it's an important point. Just as every contemporary "spiritual leader" can be seen to have human characteristics and faults, the more remote and ancient spiritual traditions have their socio-cultural-political characteristics and faults. And undoubtedly these spring from the nature of the individuals that contributed to the development of the tradition from the beginning. Similarly, a news event is interpreted and communicated differently when seen through the eyes of the BBC, Al Jazeerah, NY Times, Tokyo Times, and the Moscow News Bureau. No religion has a monopoly on truth or methods, rituals, or traditions that lead to the truth. Each frames it in its own paradigm so that the Buddhist can extol the myriad Buddhas as an example of the preeminence of Buddhist methods, while the zealous Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Daoist can speak to awakened beings in each of their traditions and make a similar claim. Each can deny the others' veracity but it is always a gratuitous claim. I think that offense tends to be taken when one of us presents our views in such a way as to invalidate, trivialize, or belittle the views of others. Certainly, the reaction of the offended party is a reflection of who they are and where they are in their development. It is also true that the manner in which the opinions are presented are equally important in terms of whether offense is likely to be taken and are a reflection of the offender and his/her level of development. To be blunt, of all the people who post with a regular basis on the forum, there are a handful who tend to present their ideas without much regards to the feelings or sensibilities of those who are listening. I am sure that I'm guilty at times but I do try to be mindful and considerate in this regard. These individuals are more concerned with being correct than compassionate, with winning rather than nurturing, and with proving their position rather than finding common ground for agreement and collaboration. This is a clumsy and spiritually immature approach, in my view. I won't mention names because each of us probably has a unique perspective on who the offenders may be. I would bet that if each of us submitted a list, there would be a few names at the top of most lists - maybe I'd be one of those names... hard to say! So I would simply like to make a plea that each of us think about the fact that our words affect those who read them. Some of us are bound to our beliefs for reasons that may be quite personal and run very deep. It can be painful and frightening to question some of those beliefs and it is something that needs to happen slowly and gently for some. It is generally possible to present our ideas in such a way as to avoid invalidating or trivializing the ideas of others. The extent to which we choose to do this is, in my opinion, a direct reflection of a person's spiritual attainment, for lack of a better word. When we have the personal experience of the commonality of humanity, there is no longer any pleasure gained from hurting another because it is the equivalent of hurting ourselves. Their pain or humiliation is tangibly ours. Compassion is simply the experience of this fact and the consequent choices we make. This is why the Dao De Jing does not preach any moral perspective. The awakened Sage, in living in accordance with the Dao, does not need moral laws or guidelines because he/she feels them in their bones. The Buddhists have a very explicit method for teaching such behaviors recognizing that as they become habitual they may foster such insight, then the method can be dropped - it's no longer necessary to practice compassion, one knows no other way to be. Sorry for the long post but that's what I had to say just now... Peace and love to you all.

The cool thing is that in any given moment, we can drop the conditioning. It's not too difficult to achieve in the moment, but it's pretty tough to maintain over time. Kind of like the discussion about continuity, the thoughts interrupt and that's where the conditioning resides. But if we keep coming back to the moment, they add up one by one and gradually come into our daily lives.

Like this?

Here is another translation that's illuminating - that of Ni Hua-Ching: One with wholeness of virtue (the Sage) has an unconditioned mind He regards the mind of all being as his own mind It seems to be saying that the Sage must subjugate the "standards by which we live" to the standards of nature or Dao. The standards that we adopt as humans are a product of cultural and social conditioning, judgement, individual bias, conventions that tend to be based on things like approval. The unconditioned mind is crystal clear and tranquil and is sensitive enough and empty enough to be filled by and live in accordance with Dao. Like much of the Dao De Jing, it may not be readily attainable by the average person, but it's something worth aspiring to.

Cool! Let's call it even then - I feel the same toward you. Truth be told, you'd be less in awe if you knew me better But I sincerely appreciate the compliment!

Similarly, it may have more to do with the student than either the tradition or the teacher. The great student will find a way to learn, no way around it. The great teacher cannot help a poor student. A great tradition is empty without teacher and student. BTW, I don't subscribe to the concept of "best"

It is the last line of the 打手歌 Da Shou Ge, usually translated as Pushing Hands Song, one of the Tai Ji Classics. It goes Zhan Nian Lian Sui Bu Diu Ding which means something like Stick, Adhere, Connect, Follow, Never Separate or Go Against. These are generally considered the fundamental skills needed for Tai Ji Quan application. Once you make contact with your opponent you never separate and you don't resist. Because I am always stuck to my opponent there is no other way to attack than Fa Jin. To use a longer force, I would have to separate so I would violate Bu Diu. Therefore I strike from a position of contact and Fa Jin is the way to generate meaningful power at close range. Here is a good link to more information.

It is really quite simple and I read your last post. I am not an authority and make this statement with unwavering faith.

There is no such thing as a spiritual authority. It is a hallucination. It is a contradiction in terms. Spirituality is an individual's exploration of the nature of their being. It is unique for each of us and must be undertaken alone. When I accept another's description of their spiritual discovery, I am creating an image based on their experience. I am no longer following my path. It can lead nowhere but back where it started - the point at which I must walk on my own two feet. Certainly there are keepers of tradition and ritual who are expert in techniques and methods, but that is different from a spiritual authority. Buddha is not an authority, Buddha is waking up. Remember the koan - If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him! This is telling us to accept no authority, not even the Buddha himself. At least, that's one way of looking at it that I find extremely important.

You misquoted me. This is what I said about Fa Jin: "it the primary offensive tactic in Tai Ji Quan" Jin simply means force or energy. There are many types used in Tai Ji Quan. Fa Jin is explosive, short energy. There is a very specific reason why it is the primary offensive weapon in Tai Ji Quan. You again misquoted me. This is what I said: "Much of the "fajin" in that video was the younger student making the older master look good. He was being a good demo partner, not an opponent. You cannot really know if what you are seeing in a video is fajin or not. You can certainly feel the difference, however." You assume you were seeing Fa Jin in the video, I am a skeptic. I would agree that the instructor was applying some degree of Fa Jin, however, to me the student looked like he was cooperating and exaggerating the force for the audience. Frequently, demonstrations of Fa Jin are really just Li with a cooperative partner. Are you familiar with 粘黏連隨不丟頂? This is why Fa Jin is the primary weapon in Tai Ji Quan. It is a practical matter, that's all.

So since I answered your questions, how about mine from earlier in the discussion? I'll repeat it here: Why use Fa Jin? Why is short force necessary and why is it the primary offensive tactic in Tai Ji Quan?

... or both.

Do you mean to lock out the knees and elbows in full extension? No, definitely not in form practice. I also would avoid it in pushing hands and self defense practice unless absolutely necessary. In self defense, you do whatever is necessary but locking the knees or elbows is a defect and can cause injury or allow the opponent to get a Qin Na more easily.

They're on tour now - I hope to see them next month.