doc benway

And we get such mixed messages. We're told, it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. We're told winning is not everything. Bullshit!!! How many NBA teams are lauded for winning second place? How many losers are celebrated in media and given advertising contracts? Our society is in love with winning and winning is violence. To win, you must cause someone else to lose. And that is painful. Our society is exceedingly violent and often in very subtle ways. But it gives lip service to non-violence and love. How many "religious" people are truly loving and accepting? Lots of mixed messages create the dichotomy you opened your post with.

Just so I'm clear - I have no idea if there is intent like I'm describing outside human experience nor do I believe there is, want there to be, or mean to push the idea. I just feel it's an interesting area to explore. Wu Wei and intent are very interesting bedfellows. I look at Wu Wei is meaning more to "not go against" or "not swim against the current" more than to necessarily act without thought or without intent. We have brains and minds and I think it is in our nature to use our capacity for thought and reason. I think it is going against our nature to try to not use those capacities. So although it may absolutely be in our nature to engage in many physical activities where the thinking mind is not playing a controlling role (dance, taiji [maybe, arguable], driving, sex, ...) and there are times when the mind is simply in the way or a distraction, this does not mean, at least to me, that it is not in keeping with Wu Wei to act with intent and utilizing our full capacities as human beings when and where it is appropriate. I guess what I'm exploring is this. We, as humans, know a quality of thinking and feeling that we label intent. It is partly intellectual but also partly other. Emotional feelings drive behavior, spiritual goals or experiences or states drive behavior, even physical sensations like hunger and thirst and sexual drive create intent. So we are aware of our intent and feel that it is fully and uniquely human. And then we make the assumption (and this is what I am questioning) that we are the only entities on earth that are motivated by intent. Perhaps there is a quality of intent that the sparrow manifests and is intimately comfortable with it. It's just not something we can access. Same with anything else - the sun, stars. We manifest intent, we are the universe, why do we then deny all other creatures and the universe itself of possessing or being motivated by intent. Just something that is way at the back, subtle, that doesn't sit right with me. I would love to hear what my belief system sounds like to others if you ever feel like summarizing it in a post - sincerely, I'm not trying to be patronizing. We think we know ourselves but we never really know how others see us. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what I believe myself! So to address your points. You manifest intelligence and consciousness so the universe is intelligent and conscious. Unless, of course, you insist on considering your self "other" than the universe. Then what are you? Regarding Chapter 5 of DDJ - I don't think this has anything to do with universal consciousness or intent but rather judgement. If we judge the actions of others or the occurrences in the universe we do so from our own human conditioning with respect to concepts like right and wrong, compassionate or dispassionate, and so on. The universe does not judge like we do, that is a particularly human characteristic (and so is intent! you may argue). So if a child dies of leukemia, that is not an inhumane act of the universe. It is simply an occurrence without concern for human judgement. So as the universe acts towards humanity, DDJ suggests that the sage should consider the acts of other humans. Because what are they if not just instruments of the universe? This is equivalent to Zuang Zi's Empty Boat parable. I'm totally fine with the crude facts of reality. I was very a-theistic in my thoughts for a very long time. It's just now there are some things I've experienced that challenge the nihilistic qualities that are so pervasive (unnecessarily so, IMO) in most atheistic lines of thought. Hmmm, I'm have trouble with "perception of a cause for thought." If intent is not a thought, what is it?

I have two dogs - an English bulldog and a Havanese terrier. When the terrier was a pup, the bulldog bit her in the face and fractured her jaw. It was horrific - surgery, Elizabethan collar, taped jaw, etc... About a year or two later, the Havanese got revenge. She was at the top of two flights of stairs barking at the bulldog, baiting her to come up. The bulldog struggles on stairs because she's fat and has short legs but couldn't resist and lumbered on up. Just as she reached the top, the Havanese backed up, took a running leap and body slammed the bulldog. The poor thing rolled downed both flights of stairs like a bowling bowl. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I would never believe it. Paybacks are, literally, a bitch!

Nice list! I can second Tantric Quest by Odier - great book

Here are a few I like, be forewarned I have eccentric tastes in film - Enter the Void - Gaspard Noe Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead and a DMT trip, very long, bizarre, and beautiful El Topo - Alejandro Jodorowsky An allegoric Western imbued with Eastern philosophy and outrageous imagery Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter,... and Spring - Kim ki-duk Set in a Korean Buddhist monastery - brilliant Kung Fu Hustle - Stephen Chow One of my all time favorite martial arts films, I never get tired of it Pan's Labyrinth - Guillermo del Toro Visually and emotionally stunning

I appreciate your thorough response and I would like to take this a step further. It's interesting, as people we are struggling with this idea of intent and make the assumption that lower animals, plants, mountains, streams, the sun, and so on do not have intent. We assume that the universe does not possess or manifest intent but it certainly does, at least through us! Could it be that it is the sun's intent to shine? The eagle's intent to fly? And that is exactly why they do what they do? Or rather the intent inherent in Dao that is expressed through these things. I guess what I'm wondering goes along these lines. Humans manifest intent and are, in turn, manifestations of Dao. Could everything be a manifestation of intent at a level that is so sophisticated, so foreign, that it is not available to us? I know I'm just f-ing around with words and ideas but sometimes I feel like we blind ourselves to the obvious. We have intent - clearly. We are nothing more or less than the universe doing what it does right here, right now, in the space "we" are occupying. We are not "other than" the universe, we are just restricted in terms of our ability to directly experience beyond the boundary of our skin and vision (mostly). So how can we then pretend that the universe has no intent. And if we have or are a manifestation of intent, why not the sun?

Beautiful to watch! Thanks for that

I think he's saying, "My back hurts and it's really hard to pee."

I get the point you are making. What about a slightly different perspective. Is there "intent" inherent in the natural order of things? Either in humans or at some other level? If so, could intent be in accordance with wu wei either at the human level or other?

Thanks for your response - I pretty much knew it was just a semantic thing and that your message was meaningful. Just wanted to take the opportunity to make a point about language.

I've seen Wing Chun guys show extremely well in full contact Lei Tai competition going up against a variety of other styles where joint locks, sweeps, elbows, knees were permitted (but no ground fighting beyond the take down and a single, immediate follow up strike). Now these are amateurs, mind you. Not UFC pros. IMO, it's not the art but the individual, teacher, and training methods although some training methods are certainly better than others. I agree 100% with your comments about the value of close range and ground skills. Also, Yoshinkan style Aikido is quite a bit different than Tomiki and Ueshiba styles. I believe it's proven itself in the street in its use by Tokyo law enforcement groups although I'm not sure if that course at the Yoshinkan hasn't been watered down as it's become so popular. I agree with your comments about Aikido and judo. Here's a vid of a US Wing Chun guy fighting a Japanese Karate guy (not sure which style): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oi9fwWj8NU

And it's not just the extremist groups, it is the tribal nature of humanity in general. All of our tribal instincts (religion, politics, geography, and so on) have the effect of polarizing us as a whole and creating conflict. Identifying myself with a group sets up a dynamic that deepens the divide. I am a Muslim and my people need me so I will vote in such a way, and contribute to such causes. And I am a Jew and I am an American and so on...

I agree with both of the above. Meditation caused me to become more sensitive to many things. I became more intolerant of some things (people's behavior, particularly unkind behavior or words). I could no longer derive any pleasure from the suffering of anything so I gave up on of my favorite hobbies - fly fishing. I'd much sooner catch a fish to eat it than for entertainment. I stopped eating meat for a few years, and so on... So I think that these challenges come up for us, not only when we begin meditating, but continually as we approach different insights and levels. I think this is why having an experienced teacher or guide is so valuable in the beginning.

I'll start with thought and thinking. What does it mean? Thinking is the manipulation of images and symbols. All content of thought is a representation, image, abstraction, or approximation. It's very useful and very effective but it's not reality. And once we create this image of reality, we feel comfortable substituting the image for reality. Action, on the other hand, is an interaction of "me" with "my environment." It is interaction or relationship in reality What's social harmony? Is it abiding by social rules for the sake of co-existing with others? Or is it recognizing the common bond we all have and choosing to consider the environment to be as important as oneself? And if this is the case, could this arise out of personal harmony? Because what is personal harmony? Again, it is the recognition of the value of being in balance with the environment because one can never have tranquility if one is out of balance with the environment. And that's precisely because we are the environment. We're just a seemingly bounded piece of it. We're what the universe is doing in the space occupied by "me" right "now." Thoughts are just the recording of the happening and comparing of those recording to prior recordings and projecting the recordings into the future, all observed by the thought that declares itself as "me." So to me, actions are more important than thoughts and social harmony and personal harmony are the same thing. Beginner's mind - the question is infinitely more valuable than the answer.

I love it - beautiful and elegant. It perfectly captures the Hindu foundation from which Buddhism arose, the Buddha's caution and reform of the Hindu concept, and teaches us the meaning of meditation. Thanks for sharing that! Edit - I'm referring to the Dzogchen verses, I haven't had time to look at the video yet

Apech - Thank you for your intervention. Irrespective of the moderators' decision I have no interest in participating any further and will simply take advantage of the ignore function moving forward.

Whatever little intellectual value you bring to the table is negated by your ugliness for me. You're simply not worth my time and energy. Rather than go behind your back as you've accused me recently, I will appeal openly to the moderators with this post to hold you accountable for violating the forum rules against insults with your above comments. Goodbye.

If you have an opportunity to learn it, the Shiba Luohan Qigong set is very powerful. It's one that I practice. It can be practiced as a very hard, martial exercise, or a soft, yin, internal exercise. This set is also said to have been taught to the Shaolin monks. I'm not familiar with Yang Jwing Ming's set. Could it be related?

I would very much like to meet your teacher (and you for that matter!) One of the neigong exercises I've been practicing is tian-di-ren and I recently had an insight/experience very much like what you describe where I was able to reconcile tian with di with myself as conduit. Words are very weak but your description of Shen and Yan Qi are very interesting and also resonate with some of the work I'm doing. Thanks for that insightful reply.

If you mean the value of macroevolutionary theory in my life? Then the answer is a big fat zero. That is not completely true as I alluded to earlier because I imagine it would not be difficult to find examples of practical value of related experimentation and research. But in terms of the big picture - it's pretty much irrelevant. Sort of like the existence vs non-existence of God. Whether you postulate God or not, makes no difference. Or the existence vs non-existence of self - same principle. Buddha used the idea of non-self as a criticism of the Hindu concept of Atman and Brahman to teach people not to cling to such concepts, not because he felt the concept of non-self was necessarily more correct than self. He viewed it as unknowable and a source of dukkha to become attached to such efforts to distinguish between the two. That's the irony about these long winded self or non-self debates. That's exactly what he was trying to get ride of. I think that's what the Heart Sutra is all about, but I digress. What really counts is application of the method. And when there is a better method - I'm all ears.

The "pussies" are not masters. Credentials, transmissions, and lineage mean nothing. The master will rock your world. In the scientific community, most folks use the method as a tool, nothing more. And a very effective tool it is. Don't you think the real criticism occurs at a more philosophical and phenomenological level? How efficient would it be for the "foot soldiers" to spend their time examining the core paradigm? Not a worthwhile use of their time and expertise. Shame - I'm up for it. The last book that rocked my scientific world was Time's Arrow and Archimedes Point by Huw Price. Good stuff! I do get it and thanks for clarifying your argument. Again, the worker bees do make effective use of their talents exploiting the tool. The tool is damn effective. It's important for each of us to focus on our strengths. We can't all know it all. The foundation is best questioned by those with the expertise and inclination to challenge the method itself. As for me, I work in the field every day. It is my tool. I know how to use it to effect meaningful change in my world. I help people to the best of my ability every day. I am blessed with a "right occupation." When I'm done using the tool, I unwind by immersing myself in the spiritual realm for balance, nourishment, and healing. Is the scientific paradigm the best? Apples and oranges. We are saying the same thing but just defining our terms differently. I have adopted religious as a term I use to define someone that you would call spiritual. Why? Because those you call religious consider it a powerful word and I take that from them. I fell in love with Osho's quote about "true religion" and decided to take back the word for my purpose. Kind of like the African-American and hip-hop community did. I have used the term "observant" to connote those you are calling religious. I'm happy to adopt your convention for discussion purposes.

I studied WIng Chun of the Yip Man --> William Cheung lineage in Baltimore for about 8 years. I really loved the training methods and theory. Very practical and effective in the ring. No nonsense fighting training but also the group I trained with was not completely comprehensive - not enough in the way of Qin Na and the like. It was well suited to me because I was not big or strong but I was fast and accurate. I studied some Ueshiba Aikido and I've had a taste of Yoshinkan Aidido. Ueshiba Aikido, IMO, is much less practically applicable in the ring and in street fighting at least until you've spent many years in training. Yoshinkan is much more martial and within 2 -3 years you can make it work pretty well with the right teacher. But Aikido for my $1 is much more elegant and challenging and beautiful. It's a lot like a blend of Taijiquan and Baguazhang. I'm convinced that Ueshiba took elements of internal martial arts he learned while in China and used it to evolve his early, martial style (which was equivalent to Yoshinkan - Gozo Shioda simply continued to teach Ueshiba's pre-war curriculum, more or less) into what most people now think of as Aikido. So it depends what you are looking for. You really should spend some time looking at each and even try both for a while and see what you resonate with. Either way, you can't go wrong, IMO.

I genuinely appreciate your concern, Gold. Thank you Edited for the following - I thought I'd offer a poem to my new favorite master baiter - 'Tis said we dislike in others in what in ourselves we do see And though with that saying just like all other sayings not everyone does agree That we can see our own worst traits in others does make some sense to me They become the reflective mirrors of our negativity In our dislike of others we mostly tend to be discreet But we cannot like everybody that we get to know or meet Are we that any different to the little girl or boy Amongst their many playthings they have one favourite toy For to like everybody equally one would need to be a saint And very few if anyone who are completely free of taint To like some better than others is quite a natural thing And the praises of those that we like we find easy to sing And that we dislike in others what in ourselves we see Is a saying that has some truth in it or so 'twould seem to me. Francis Duggan

Interesting - do you think the criticism a Zen monk receives from his abbott is fluff? Please offer criticism for the scientific method if you feel so inclined. I am very comfortable with it. I disagree with you - I see constant and meaningful criticism among scientists of results and methods. Scientists like nothing more than to criticize each other (especially competing groups). On the other hand, of course everyone gets attached to their methods and paradigms and change is difficult. I don't follow you regarding ignoring real issues. The scientific paradigm is very powerful and consistent therefore its been very slow to change. What about other paradigms? Buddhist, Christian, Daoist, Philosophical, Social - do they change much? I think by their very nature, paradigms are slow to change. PS Please clarify your definition of religious vs spiritual. I equate the two. I just don't consider followers of ritual and doctrine of religious institutions as religious people, any more than I consider someone who reads Scientific American to necessarily be a serious scientist. It boils down to a matter of semantics. We can define religious and spiritual as we see fit. They're just words. My post defined my view of religious.

Well said - I'm more concerned with the method of science than the conclusions in most cases. Conclusions come and go, theories change and are replaced by new ones. The method makes it all possible. I'll freely admit that I don't know all that much about evolutionary theory and specific evidence and experimentation but I respect and have confidence in the method. I've looked pretty carefully at the existing ID evidence and methods. The evidence is conjecture and the methods are gratuitous. It puts me in mind of a great book - The Question to Life's Answers by Steven Harrison. In it he talks about the fact that questions are important, answers not so much. Because the questions keep us thinking, working, creating, and so on. The answer is dead - "I know that, next"