doc benway

Very true, but also dull! This is why the Hindus came up with the allegory of the great actor, the great dancer. The universe loves music and vibration. Everything is a wave and what is a wave if not music? So we are all supposed to be dancing. This is our dance. And when our chance has passed, others get a turn. I'm not sure it's set up so our feeble intellects can find a satisfying reason for all of it. Why isn't it enough to just have this dance? Birds, dogs, and whales know what they are and it is enough. It is the human condition to not be satisfied, to desire, to need to become something other than we already are, no matter what that is. That is the nature of suffering according to the Buddhists. So they tell us to let go of desire - recognize that permanence is an illusion so there is nothing to cling to, no advantage to desire. And the Daoist approach is to revere the simple man, the peasant, the fool. And the Hindus reveres the forest hermit who wanders off naked into the woods. They are all telling us the same thing. Wake up to what you are. You're already that. It is enough. And maybe not...

Beautiful - thank you for sharing that. I feel the same way about my experience of Qi. It's a process, not a quantity.

Great research. I've been fascinated with this line of inquiry since first hearing about it on NPR a few years ago. This new paper adds an interesting spin. I also agree with Manitou's perspective and it feels like our conscious apparatus is more about monitoring and recording what is going on. And using those recordings (memory) to make last minute modifications (that window of free will per se) based on previous experiences being projected toward possible outcomes.

Yes it's completely obvious and everybody misses it! We are always already what we are. We always want to be something else - enlightened, awakened, saved, whatever. And all of the sages are telling us that we are already there! We are already that! The Daoists tell us this, the Buddhists, the non-dualists, the Hindus, Jesus, Judaism... So we are already in Rome and all of the roads lead AWAY! All of the methods, practices, paths, cultivations, and prostrations lead AWAY from our natural state, from what we already are. They take us farther away, way way out in different directions until we drive ourselves crazy. And as long as we insist on finding the right path we're continually going away from Rome in all different directions. That is the purpose of Chan and Zen - the purpose of the koan and the endless neigong exercises. They take us way out to the limits of our understanding and tolerance until we finally WAKE UP! And we are in Rome. And we realize there is no where else to go. There is no need to try and find our way out. We are already here.

I guess you missed my sarcasm just like you've missed the point of my posts. I continue to disagree with you fundamentally, I'm just not interested in prolonged debate. I never said anything about zero tolerance. Those are your words. I used words like "never healthy", "never necessary", and "never appropriate" - I stand by that regarding personal insult. And as always, it is only the opinion of one person. It is something I aspire to myself. I am not forcing this on anyone. As you should be able to tell from this conversation, I am very tolerant of insult, I simply choose to avoid it myself. What I am talking about is trying to cultivate the mindset of choosing not to offer personal insults. Making a choice to communicate in more skillful and mature ways, not mandating or legislating it. That's a personal decision for each of us to make. It is a challenge, not an admonition or demand. This is an invitation. This is an opportunity for cultivation. This is trying to integrate the heart with the intellect. Tempering argument with compassion. It's not for everyone and that's fine. As I said earlier - you are welcome to communicate as you see fit. I invite all to consider my perspective and you are all free to agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not concerned with your reassurance, agreement, or approval. PS Keep your day job, you're armchair psychoanalysis is way off the mark

This is great.

It works both ways. A single specimen is a single piece of data that may support or not support a theory. The theory is much more valuable and powerful than any single fact (ie piece of evidence).

I've had an epiphany! I'm an intolerant, extremist, egoist, coward who has the audacity to advocate verbal non-violence on a forum devoted to spiritual investigation. I feel much better now. Thanks Gold. Good times buddy.

You ought to read about where the Abrahamic religions got there "One God" from. Fascinating stuff. Karen Armstrong touches on it briely in her book, A History of God. It was basically an arbitrary selection based on the presumed most powerful of the existing worshipped deities at the time. The lesser gods became what are now referred to as the various demons (Baal, Beelzebub, and so on...). Not sure I agree with your point here however. In Judaism, the one God principle is all encompassing. In Christianity, other more specific manifestations arise which negate the pure mono-Theistic principle of Judaism. I won't belabor this point as I have no interest in a drawn out theological debate but I think there is a meaningful difference.

Gold - After reading the rest of your rebuttal and conisdering how I might respond, I'm happy to let you have the last words. I have nothing more to add other than to summarize my original points: I have advocated that we aspire to communicate without personal insult. I believe it is possible to achieve this and I do not think it would compromise the quality of communication or intellectual intercourse. I believe that resorting to intentional personal insult reflects immaturity and lack of skill in communication. I really don't care to spend any more time on this topic. You're making gratuitous assumptions and assertions about my personality, character, and inent that are erroneous. Your attempts at insult are noted and declined. Clearly, you practice what you preach and I intend to do the same. I think the community has a clear view of our perspectives and can reach their own conclusions.

It may take me a while to address the whole post. Here is a brief start. Please show me where you referred to insults in your post. Perhaps you meant to equate insult with disrespect? That would be as inaccurate and misleading as equating insults with criticism because, like criticism, disrespect may be directed at the opinion, not the person. It is an attack on the person ie insult, that I am addressing.

1. I do not believe when you say you are not a creationist. I believe you are being disingenuous here. What is the difference between spiritual perspective and creationist perspective? Do you believe man and the earth were created by a Creator or do you not? 2. Yes, this is peer reviewed research and I value it and applaud it being published in a legitimate journal. It is documentation of the examination of a SINGLE specimen. From that you jump to the conclusion that it is completely conclusive and that there is no connection between Australopithecus and man. This is erroneous. That is not science. A single specimen is a single piece of evidence, not conclusive proof. Even if every specimen were similar there are alternative explanations to the fact that the mandibular anatomy of A-pithecus is closer to a gorilla than a chimp. Those alternative explanations also are not conclusive. It is an unresolved issue but there is certainly enough similarity for any reasonable investigator to consider the possibility of a relationship. If you want to quote peer-reviewed research, please play by the rules of such research. Do not denigrate the work of these scientists by misusing their data.

That's exactly what evolution means, change over time. Change in DNA leading to change in the associated physical manifestations coded for by genomes. Darwin was a brilliant scientist who began to connect the dots in the nineteenth century before any of the benefits of modern chemistry and biology. Mendel's work furthered our understanding of inheritance and how genes are passed on. Modern science has expanded on this knowledge using incontrovertible methods. Current evolutionary theory is extremely powerful and extremely comprehensive. Evolutionary theory has not connected every dot or answered every possible question. Similarly, there is still no comprehensive, unified theory in physics. Do you contend that physics is therefore completely incorrect as a whole? What you refuse to see is that scientific theory is a tool and a very powerful tool. It is a description of reality using the most objective and discriminating methods currently available. Is it all completely correct? Of course not - only until a stronger alternative comes along. Creation theory (sic Intelligent Design) has no valid scientific theory to supply as a substitute, only a creation myth and a gratuitous assertion of the presence of a creator being necessary because physiologic systems are so complex. This is an assertion, not a theory. ID proponents have tried to redefine the words "scientific theory" to make an assertion into a theory with the unwanted side effect that it would then be necessary to recognize Astrology as a valid scientific theory. Please learn the difference if you want to converse in the scientific community. It is only the desperate argument of someone who fervently believes in the Judeo-Christian creation myth that tries so hard to disprove these beautiful and elegant insights and discoveries using junk science.

The irony is that the rest of your posts regarding the falsehood of evolution are equally amusing.

Excellent point - I think we are considering similar ironies regarding cultivation. I also think your point: "This could be true even of the murderer ... if he/she studies the art of murdering to the nth degree, to fully comprehend the nature of the art and its consequences then I wonder how many people they would actually murder. " is extremely insightful. Perhaps it is exactly because we are unable to see the full impact of our decisions that we make mistakes and hurt others. This is why the sage, Buddha, Jesus, are said to have been able to do no wrong - because they were/are fully awake, fully aware of their action and its potential consequences. This is why it is only when we wake up to the fundamental sameness and connection of all living things that we truly experience love and true compassion.

Continued I respect you as well. I've been honest throughout this conversation. I did agree with most of what you said as far as criticism goes but not insult. You choose to merge the two. I insist on making a distinction. That is the fundamental difference. You used the word criticism but equate it with insult - that is inaccurate. Any attempt to equate the two is disingenuous and nothing but a desperate attempt to win the debate. No, this was not my attempt at being nice, nor was it an attempt at being not nice. It was simply a plea for civility to the entire forum. I disagree with your position that small insults are OK and I will stand my ground and not be intimidated. I have not been dishonest in the least. If I can help you see the difference between an insult and a criticism then I will feel that I've done you a service. If not, then at least I've tried. If you are not interested in seeing the difference, I can live with that. I am being completely straight with you. You are free to believe me or not, that is your privilege. There is no artificial sweetness here. I am equally disappointed with you because I do value many of your opinions and contributions, but that's OK, I do not expect you to conform to my values or expectations and I do not expect you to be concerned with my approval. You do not deal well with a challenges to your opinions. We've been there before in discussions on this forum. One of the most difficult things to do in life is learn how to recognize and accept when you are wrong, even harder to admit it publicly. On the other hand, all is a matter of personal perspective. You are entitled to your opinion and me to mine. If you disagree regarding the distinction between insult and criticism, we will have to agree to disagree. Be well

I think I've struck a nerve. Absolutely not. With respect to criticism, I agree with you. With respect to insults, I disagree. My post referred to insults. Nearly your entire post referred to criticism, therefore I was completely honest in saying I agreed with your post. I believe the difference is meaningful. The intention of an insult is to attack the person. The intention of a criticism is to challenge an idea, opinion, or behavior. Surprising or not, they are unnecessary and unhelpful. Then your experience is limited or you are being disingenuous. Nearly every insult on the web or in person leads to reprisal followed by escalation. Most violence begins with words. You are welcome to deny that but such denial is empty. I agree that fighting can often lead to friendship but I don't think insults are a healthy or predictable way of making friends and you certainly don't mean to say that you insult people to make friends, do you? Is roughness always negative? Perhaps not. Are personal insults appropriate and acceptable on this forum? No. Not only is that the rule of the forum, it is a basic principle of civil discourse. You are welcome to disagree with me, perhaps you are right and I'm wrong. I will refrain from insulting people and you may do as you see fit. Again, I agree. All communication is an unbroken spectrum of expression. Insults and criticism are closer to one another on that spectrum than to praise. If you feel drawn to personal insult, that is your prerogative. I maintain that it is an immature and unskillful method of communication. Criticism can be skillful or unskillful, depending on the presentation. Criticism is valid and welcome on this forum. Crossing the line at personal insult is not permitted, nor should it be in my opinion. Again, you are free to disagree. Again you are being disingenuous here. My point is well made and incontrovertible, IMO (but of course, it is just my opinion). It is certainly possible to insult someone on occasion without insulting them with every comment. It happens on this forum all the time. Insults, by definition, are personal: Merriam-Webster - insult: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly. Not every insult is associated with a personal vendetta. Certainly that does occur rarely, as you suggest. Occasional insults are much more frequent but are insults nonetheless. Just because an insult is offered in association with a belief does not mean it is not hurtful and not an insult. Case in point - A: I belief Laozi is an immortal B: I disagree, Laozi just means old man, you are wrong and you are gullible and I can prove it (criticism) B: I disagree, Laozi just means old man and you are a moron and an asshole because you're stupid enough to believe that (insult) I agree with all of the above except the assertion that the judicious use of insults is acceptable. It is not acceptable to forum rules and not acceptable to my values. Even though insults and criticism are on the same end of the communication spectrum, in most cases it is quite clear what is personally insulting and what is aggressively critical. The moderators are charged with making this distinction and do a very good job for the most part. It certainly is. Nor I. No need to be patronizing. My original post was not an attack on you personally, it was my intention to share a personal view that could potentially benefit others. If you feel that the difference between elimination and moderation is sufficiently complex or subtle to require elucidation, please expound. Fascinating, why would you think that? I've never complained to any moderator about any post since I joined the TaoBums with one exception. I complained to Sean about procurator - a self-proclaimed Nazi who was verbally attacking a Jewish member through personal mail on the forum. I'm not insulted at all. Your paranoia is yours, not mine. I've not backstabbed you nor have I made any particular effort to be nice and smiles to your face. Thank you for your honesty. To be continued - I've exceeded the allowed number of blocks of text.

If it was truly accidental, I don't think it means anything. Methinks there was some intention in your actions and that is full of meaning. Exactly what that meaning is - I have no idea. Quite a story about the mule... yikes! I never knew Rumi was so freaky.

There are many cases of "Qigong Psychosis." It is a well-established clinical syndrome with relatively clear and predictable characteristics. Is Qigong causing the problem or is it the person's susceptibility that is the problem? Yes In a susceptible individual, the type of experiences that can be produced by excessive and compulsive practice and obsessive thought can lead to a psychotic state. The type of personality traits or mental states that can lead to problems are a tendency toward obsessive and compulsive thought patterns and behaviors combined with alterations in reality testing. When someone of this type focuses their (pathologically intense) attention on a practice like Qigong, a negative feedback loop can develop. The experiences that result from the activity and the thought patterns that are associated are continually reinforced and in the absence as adequate reality testing, a psychotic state can result. I don't think the particular flavor of the exercises are as important as the state of mind of the practitioner but both contribute to the rare occurrence of this condition. I think that there can be a fine line between calling someone psychotic and acknowledging that people can have experiences outside of the norms of society and culture. Nevertheless, there are some cases where a latent schizophrenia or something along those lines becomes manifest in a way that seems to link it to Qigong practice.

In general, I agree with most of what you are saying but you are misrepresenting my intention and I'd like to respond to a few points. Generally, you don't know if it's a post that may contain something insulting or hurtful until its too late. Certainly we can turn on the ignore function but if you are participating in an active discussion you usually can't anticipate someone offering an insult and skip that post until you've already read it. I disagree completely. Insults lead to escalation of tensions, not relaxation. Kind words and understanding, finding some common ground upon which we can share and agree leads to relaxation. Gandhi, Mandela, and similar great men and women recognized this. Violence, whether by words or deed, never solves violence. Only non-violence can do that. And insult or "rough language" as you put it is violence using language. Insults are not an effective way of demolishing something unwanted for the purposes of renovation and rebuilding. Insults are not criticism. Insults are an attack on the person providing an opinion. Criticism is an attack on the opinion. Criticism, when constructive and compassionate, is a much more effective method than insult. Insult only causes defensiveness, making it much harder to renovate or reconstruct. I agree 100%. You have proven my point. When we insult, we are intentionally and exactly disrespecting and attacking the person, not their opinion. I never said not to criticize. I said do not insult. I agree with everything here but notice that you have substituted the word criticize for insult. I was specifically referring to personal insults, not criticism. Furthermore, it is not impossible or even difficult to show respect for the person while not respecting their opinion or idea. Again, I disagree with you on this point. It is very easy to avoid insult. One simply has to be aware and mindful. Simply read your post before hitting the 'Add Reply' button. If anything seems personally insulting, edit or delete. Continued use of insults will and should lead to censorship and repression exactly as is occurring right now on this forum and that is completely appropriate, IMO. Personal insult should be censored and those communicating using personal attacks will necessarily be repressed. Criticism should not be censored. Disrespect, IMO, should be focused on the idea, not the individual. Disrespect is a bit more of a judgement call for the mods. Personal insult is clearer. Like I said, I agree with much of what you are saying. The problem is that you are confusing insult (an attack on the person) with criticism (an attack on the idea). Certainly, some people perceive an insult when what is offered is a criticism, that is unavoidable but can be generally be clarified with rational discussion. Furthermore, the moderators are doing a very good job of drawing that line and helping participants to see the difference. And I have confidence that they will continue to do so.

Very nice post Stig. Something occurred to me that Apech touches upon here which is the nature of cultivation. Certainly cultivation is contained within Dao, as is intravenous drug addiction. Both are part of the human condition but not all aspects of Dao and not all aspects of the human condition can be considered cultivation. And yet, if the attitude, the mental approach, are correct, nearly all human activity can be considered cultivation because one thing we are cultivating is the skill of the mental approach itself. And this boils down to intent and awareness. If I am full aware of what I am doing and harness my 'mind of intent' as my teacher likes to say, then I am practicing cultivation of a sort. The difficult arises with respect to the nature of the activity in question. And this can be a challenging question. So if the murderer uses his full awareness and mind of intent in his chosen activity, is that not cultivation? When harming or exploiting oneself or others comes into play, the nature of the game changes. And what about farming animals for food? What about eating meat? Is it OK to kill an animal for my survival? What about fishing for entertainment if I practice catch and release? Where to draw the line? Certainly nature kills indiscriminately. Every living thing on this planet lives at the expense of other life, that is the way of things. What are we cultivating and why? The majority of posts I see on this forum relative to Daoist cultivation refer to the process of cultivating Qi and Shen for very selfish and trivial purposes. People looking for power. Why? Generally to have power over others. This is not Wu Wei. People looking to prolong life. Why? Isn't death a natural and integral part of the Dao? Why fight it? This is not Wu Wei. Total misinterpretations of concepts like immortality and reincarnation. One component of cultivation that is often lacking is the heart - compassion, love, community, and so on. I think this is most often seen with those who don't have the benefit of a teacher and are stuck with finding exercises in a book or videotape. They don't get the personal interaction and communication that is so critical in guiding someone along this type of path. They don't get the moderation of desire and drive for personal gain. The don't really get a sense of Wu Wei. Perhaps the answer to this conundrum is what Apech suggests = De 德. De has many translations and this has been discussed on this forum enough but most would agree on some variant of virtue. Similarly, we can look at the compound word Dao De 道德 which generally connotes ethics or morality. Hence the interpretation of the Dao De Jing as the Classic on Morality or Ethics. Each of us has a choice in what we cultivate. Personal power, martial excellence, economic power, sexual power, compassion, loving-kindness, drug addiction, and so on. Who gets to decide what is meaningful cultivation and what is not? We do - each and every one of us. And the character of our lives and the character of our world is reflected by those choices we make. This is why no government or religion can ever change the world. Ultimately political and religious leaders don't matter, the individual matters. I see this as the reason for the very potent Daoist message that the individual is so important. Not so much that the intention is one of personal power over others or a selfish approach to life. Rather, that the future of humankind rests on the individual choices each of us makes. I am the universe. If I change, the universe will change. If I expect change to come from government or religious leaders or any outside source - HAH! They've had 40,000 years to make a difference in our lives and here we are facing the same problems humanity has always struggled with.

I know this may sound a bit mamsy-pamsy to some but when discussing debate that verges on personal insult I would also add the following. I carefully reread every post I write in its entirety AT LEAST once. I consider whether the words I'm using will be hurtful, embarrassing, or insulting to anyone. If so, I rewrite or delete. As I'm writing I also consider whether there is a way to make my words encouraging to people rather than discouraging. Sometimes I'll even go so far as sharing something about myself that shows the other person that I understand how they seem to be feeling or have experienced the things they may be relating, or that I at least recognize that I'm no better than them. I hope that comes through in my posts and if it does not, I will try harder. What would it be like if we all tried to develop skill in communicating in such a way that we build each other up rather than tear each other down? What if we actively tried to express love, compassion, and support in our communication? For all the Buddhist words bandied about on this forum, and all the debate intended to demonstrate the depth of Buddhist knowledge and thought, I see very little expression of love, compassion, and metta. A few really beautiful people have abandoned this community due to this lack of compassion and civility, and that's OK, forums, like life, change. So I would simply like to offer the perspective that communicating our ideas from a place of love, compassion, and mutual support is possible even during a heated and intellectually honest debate. Insults are never "healthy," period. Insults are never necessary, there is always a more skillful alternative in communication. Sure, most of us can shrug them off and see the humor in them, and just see them for what they are - which is an expression of the character of the person offering them rather than an indication of the character of the person on the receiving end. They are an indication of lack of skill or lack of maturity in communication, in my opinion. They are intended to cause pain or embarrassment and there is always a healthier alternative. Sometimes, an insult is unintentional, and that may be unavoidable. But if we think about what we are saying before posting, most can be avoided. Hence, if my expression of this opinion causes anyone embarrassment or pain, then I apologize, but I do think this is an area where we can all grow and better ourselves. If we can become more skillful in our communication, as a community, imagine how healthy and supportive we could be for each other.

Reminds me of a joke my daughter told me when she was about 17 - it's a bit heartless so read on at your own peril... So this baby seal walks into a club....

"i have meditated for about maybe 2-3 hours today.. didn't keep track as i kept losing consciousness.." I loved this post - really got a belly laugh. I won't post the author since he's not in a position to defend himself currently. I like it in a good way. It's like something one of my kids might say - adorable.

It's started in Taiwan! Watch to the end. Sorry, can't seem to get the file to embed properly