doc benway

Beautiful talk - thanks for that link.

I never played capoeira but I LOVE the Berimbau

Sorry to hear about it - best wishes that everything works out.

The most advanced, highest system is the one you haven't learned. Because no matter what we learn or know, there's always something better. The brain is always searching for something more. So find a system that seems to have decent credibility and begin to practice. Chances are you will change a few times but hopefully find something that works for you. Good luck

When I studied Wing Chun, our stance was more subtle. Toe in just a bit, knees isometrically pulling inward just a bit, pelvis tucked just a bit. Not too much different that a natural stance in Taijiquan. Some styles really seem to exaggerate the stance, for better or worse.

It may be unique and from the ground up but how effective is it? Idols can be very subtle. No matter what is said in the sutras, I wonder about the mindset of most practicing Buddhists as they pray. Dogma can be an idol, practice can be an idol, anything we attach significance to can be our idol.

Thought is me doing the universe and that is Yang. Receptiveness is the universe doing me and that is Yin. Perhaps some balance of these two elements is Wu Wei.

To me it is the recognition that all boundaries and divisions (between people, places, things) are artificial and a reflection of the way our particular thought process and sensory apparatus works, rather than the nature of things. It is very meaningful and profound when felt, difficult to express verbally, and interesting at best when simply understood.

I get what you are saying. Another way to look at it is that you (meaning the image created of yourself and how it relates to others) dies as you begin to wake up to the inherent inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. We are all different expressions or appendages of one living universe, better or worse is just a creation of our mind. Dao treats all things with equal lack of concern. New Flash: THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY!

I have a bit more to say but I'll pm you so as not to belabor the point.

Some northerners do this as well - tail bone not tucked, sit back, stress the thighs. It's quite impressive how sitting back just a tiny bit can dramatically increase the work of the thighs.

I like that - thanks stan

Excellent questions.

A very rich koan and a beautifully stated thought. thanks

Sounds like what is called sacralization of the lumbar vertebrae. Involves usually only the 5th, often one side only. It is harmless and if you have it you are no more likely to have any physical spine problems than anyone else. Probably would not even be able to notice significant loss of motion. In my opinion, this would have no detrimental effects on spinal energetics or cultivation in any way. Why were XRays even taken? Are you having any back pain?

Our guys will accept a little toe out, thighs parallel, knee over toe, sit back enough to feel the tension in the thighs. They are northern. I never studied southern.

Yup - my teacher calls it the tranquil mind. Believe it or not, my view of existence is much closer to Emptiness and Dependent Origination than it is to any form of Monistic Idealism. I'll answer your question with another question - If the "stilled center" always exists, if "this relative condition of mutual arising is transcended" are we still within the realm of dependent origination or are we treading into Vedantic territory? Can mutual arising be transcended? Similarly, if this is possible "Are we then able to touch and form some sort of connection with this primordial, deathless, changeless, empty yet tangible (so the masters tell us) space beyond words?" - is this not also suggestive of something akin to Brahman? Dao?

I was anticipating a simple, "I don't know." But fortunately I got this wonderful response instead! Gracias

So a little while ago, I was asked to define enlightenment. Shortly after that I noticed people challenging whether this or that master was enlightened or if their students were enlightened, and so on. So I've been pondering this whole idea of enlightenment and how to define it or if it can be defined and what good that does us. So I'll ramble a bit about it and see where I end up... I hope I don't bore anyone too much or sound too full of myself but I guess I'll take that chance! What is enlightenment? I've seen lots of ideas and descriptions and some have been fairly satisfying at times, and others not. I imagine it depends on our frame of reference, conditioning, expectations, and so on, whether a particular definition or description is satisfying. So then it follows that this is a subjective thing. Is there a definition of enlightenment that would equally satisfy the Hindu, Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, non-dualist, Daoist, Buddhist, Jainist, and so on? Certainly the state or condition I am after is not dependent on the individual seeking it. Everyone has a different symbol or imagination as to what that state is but the state is the reality, these various groups don't define the reality, they're just doing their best to approximate it with words and concepts, which are never the thing, only representations and approximations. So it seems that enlightenment is an idea. It's a word. It's a thought. An image or symbol that the mind has created to represent something. Now it's important to recognize that thought is limited. We can never know EVERYTHING about anything. In fact we know relatively little about most things. And yet the mind can create a symbol to represent more than it knows, more than it can ever know - the limitless, the infinite, that which is beyond it's comprehension. So we create a word - God. And that represents that which is beyond all comprehension. And after a while, our image of God is so well established we actually have fooled ourselves into believing that we understand God. Or substitute the word God with anything of a similar nature - Dao, E&DO, Brahman, Atman, whatever. And we create a word/concept - enlightenment. What does this represent? Let's agree perhaps that it represents a state or condition that is beyond our limited condition of thought and concepts and ideas. A state approaching some contact with Reality or Truth. Some contact with the nature of our existence or awareness - whatever word you choose based on your conditioning and your path. So the mind creates this thought - there is a state called enlightenment. And then it becomes a goal, a desire, something that must be achieved. And yet it is a creation of the mind. And it is undefinable. So how can it possibly be achieved? And how could we know when it was? So we set ourselves up on this hamster wheel trying to get this thing. And why do we want it? That's critical! To end our pain and suffering? To make us powerful? To satisfy endless curiosity? All those things. The mind is never satisfied with what it is, what it has. That is our nature. Our nature is to build, grow, learn, become something other than what we are. It never ends. So for the spiritually minded, this concept of enlightenment becomes the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. An elusive concept, created by the mind, that is an endless source of desire, enticement, and frustration - DUKKHA! So the very thing we are trying to get rid of (if we are Buddhist, for example) is invariably generated by the path we are on. And it's very easy to deny that but if we look really carefully and deeply at ourselves, is it not true? And who is it that is doing the searching? An illusion. A thought that separates itself from the others and claims ownership as the thinker and subjugates all other thoughts to its management. The thought that analyzes and criticizes, adjusts and judges all the other thoughts. And is the thinker separate from thought? And can improving this "thinker" through practice, chanting, meditations, study, worship ever help the thinker to become aware of itself, it's true nature? Society has taught us to better ourselves, to study, to succeed, make money, have station. So we are after spiritual station. Will this allow us to see through this illusion? Or does it just further reinforce the thinker's existence? So how to deal with all this? Can the mind ever reach that which, by its very nature, is beyond the limitations of thought and concept. In other words, that which is beyond the mind? Is it possible? If so, what sort of quality of mind would it take to approach this? A mind that is full of concepts? A mind that is conditioned by a culture or a practice? A mind full of expectations and preconceptions (enlightenment is the rainbow body, enlightenment is Christ, Buddha nature, Ein Sof) and all of that? Because all of those are concepts created by man, by the mind. And the mind is limited to start with, now the conceptual framework which excludes all other concepts from other frames of reference narrows it even further. So how can this mind approach Reality? So what to do? I'm not going to claim to have an answer. Any answer would just be another construct of the mind - an idea, a path or method. And an answer would end this process of seriously examining this question. I am not looking for a conclusion because a conclusion is an end. And if we end this inquiry, we will certainly never reach what we are looking for. It's the question that keeps us alive. Keeps us looking deeper in ourselves. This is where we have to look, not in some holy book or technique or drug. What if I were to let all of that go. All of the conditioning, all of the ideas and concepts and expectations. Open myself up to whatever is left when I abandon everything else. Could that be the type of mind that could approach this problem? Is that meditation? If not that, then what? I'll repeat a phrase that I really like because I think it's apropos of all this. Belief is a fervent desire that a particular idea, that cannot be proven or disproven, is truth. Faith is the confidence that when all belief is discarded, what remains must be truth. I don't know if this will be of any value to anyone but sometimes working through things like this in my head seems to be helpful. Maybe I've just been reading too much Krishnamurti... Goodnight all, I'm spent.

I tend to agree with you on this. The distinction is an artificial one but useful, at times.

Awesome! Agreement! You don't say!

It's my assertion that both are pointing at reality. The moon is reality (whatever that may be or not be). I agree - how did realization come into this? My point is simply that they are all pointing at the same reality. Realization is just an attempt at or experience of conceptualizing reality. Each paradigm uses a different conceptual framework and therefore leads to different realizations. You can certainly argue that one is better or more accurate than another if you like. But the realization is not the reality - just an image created out of thought.

:angry: Just watched Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee :angry:

Actually, I liked your joke! Hmmm, I suck at explaining Buddhist concepts but here's what struck me. There is something we call reality, then there's this pesky mind that always trying to figure it out. And it seems like my mind is chasing after reality to explain it but can never quite catch it. And yet there is this thing called DO (or mutual arising in Taiji theory) which tells me that there is no mind without reality and there is no reality without mind. The two define eachother. The two give "existence" to eachother, so to speak, like light implies darkness, like every front has a back and so on. So there is no separation between mind and reality, there is no cause and effect. Or should I say, cause and effect are happening simultaneously in both directions... Mind is trying to explain reality because it is there to be explained. One is implied in the other. Reality is there to be explained because mind is here to explain it. That sort of thing. Anyway - that's what I was thinking. Edit - "By leaving thoughts to settle, would that not lend a better chance for Reality to reveal its Isness?" And as I'm sure you can tell how I feel about this from my posts about thought and experience (that is to say, I agree completely), but at the same time I wonder how true this is. Because, after all, those very thoughts are equally a part of the reality! I was just thinking about this as a result of the recent post by goldisheavy. It's all very confusing. Otis? What do you think?