doc benway

We should both go far and yet, if you should stumble... A kitten purrs offscreen

I don't have as much to say as I thought I did. I think you're on the right track Old Man Contradiction, it's not about belief or disbelief. It's about doing the work and finding your own answers. I do like Hummingbird, Rain, and Taomeow's posts quite a bit.

I loved Capra's Tao of Physics and a similar work called the Dancing Wu Li Master by Gary Zukav. This is a little different but if you like Capra, you may really like Goswami as well.

Thank you dearly, Seth, for sharing such a personal and important experience with us. I hope to be able to show the same love and compassion to my loved ones in their last moments as you have. I believe that many of our behaviors that surround death and dying are pathological and counterproductive. Approaching death with honesty, respect, love, and compassion is the only thing that makes sense. I am humbled by your honesty and strength. Steve I'm sorry to see how you are suffering Fizix. I don't have any words that will make it better. Given your history of addiction and your need to face such horrors at such a young age, I would suggest you try and find a therapist that resonates well with you to help you through some of these tough experiences. There are therapeutic methods that are founded in Eastern concepts and practices like mindfullness that can be extremely beneficial (ACT - Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is one example). Good luck - please feel free to share with us publicly or privately if it helps. Steve

Very well thought out argument. I will simply add that I don't see a difference between therapy and meditation. They are just artificial categorizations. There are methods of therapy that are nearly completely based in mindfullness practice without the analytical component - no tearing down and rebuilding, just observing with a loving attitude and accepting. This is what I practice. We get stuck in thought patterns and images like this. I say therapy and someone imagines Freud. I say meditation and someone imagines lotus position and a mudra. Meditation is not limited to sitting quietly with a quiet mind, that is simply an exercise. Therapy is not necessarily analysis and behavioral modification - hopefully it is healing and becoming whole. It's very nice to converse with you -O-, and everyone else on this thread. Thanks for very stimulating reading! Steve

Yes. They have impeccable literary credentials. Meditative and martial arts credentials are of a very different sort and much more difficult to verify. I maintain a healthy skepticism when it comes to 'masters' - I mean no disrespect. I've met respected 'masters' and been sorely disappointed more than once... Agreed! This is not limited to energy work. In fact, energy work, by virtue of it's empiric nature, is not a good example for speaking of evidence and proof. Nevertheless, I agree with you on this point based on my own empiric experience. I appreciate your intention and hope you will not delete anything on my account. I've introduced authors to the forum many times, some better received than others. I don't intend to flame or troll here. My post was not at all intended to be negative, only cautionary. I do not want to criticize you or the writer you quoted and I apologize if that was the tone of my post. I'm simply calling attention to what I feel to be an extremely important distinction. A great writer is just that, a great writer. Many people read what they write and take it as truth and then base their own opinions and practice on that. Unfortunately, when it comes to fields like Daoist meditation and cultivation, and internal martial arts, most of what is written is theoretical and has very little to do with the experiential aspect of these disciplines. Putting these things into words does not equate or even correlate with direct personal experience and achievement. Anyone can read and write and interpret classic texts and sound as if they are masters. My concern here regards the intersection between theory and practice in meditation, cultivation, and internal arts. Furthermore, even the valid work that is rooted in experience (The Secret of the Golden Flower, The Tai Chi Classics, and The Tai Chi Boxing Chronicle come to mind) is not terribly helpful to the student. These are works that serve to validate something that has already been experienced in practice. They do not help achieve experience in general. In fact, as mentioned in my earlier post, I find these sorts of works to sometimes interfere with progress by 1. taking up the students time that would be better spent practicing and 2. putting expectations in the mind of the student which can distract from real experience - for example, I expect to see a warm golden light and ignore the subtle blossoming of awareness arising from my meditation. If you (not you personally, anyone) want to be an expert in Daoism and Daoist methods from a theoretical and research perspective, I respect that but it doesn't interest me very much and does little or nothing to help my progress in my cultivation. If you want to practice Daoist methods, it is critical to do so under the (preferably) direct guidance of one who has gone before, not one who has researched, read, and written. Perhaps Reid has achieved a very high level of cultivation and I will someday eat my words. I have no problem with that. I know I'm an ass. It is my nature. I still stand by my caution - don't believe everything you read. And if you want to cultivate Qi, cultivate Qi - that cannot be done by reading and writing. I have several of Yang Jwing-Ming's books, not to mention Deng Ming Dao, and Waysun Liao. They are nicely researched theoretical works and, with due respect, have contributed nothing to my cultivation of Qi or development of meditative and martial skills. Let me take that back - Waysun Liao's book The Essence of Tai Chi describes a method of visualizing and imagining Qi when first beginning to practice. When I first started to practice Taiququan, the idea of imagining Qi flow gave me the freedom necessary to begin to experience it. There are examples of this cautionary point throughout Eastern spiritual tradition: Daoism reveres the simple fool, not the educated scholar Buddha achieved enlightenment by sitting, not studying Advaita Vedanta teaches nothing but one question - "Who Am I?" Zen advocates sitting and the koan (among other, equally non-intellectual methods) There is a beautiful tradition in Buddhism - I am ignorant of the details but in essence, there is an annual "reading of the sutras" in which the monks spin the scrolls which are mounted on vertical posts. They just twirl the scrolls round and round until every scroll has been spun a certain number of times or something like that. This process of spinning the sutras is felt to be equivalent and a satisfactory substitute for actually reading a single word! Brilliant! Blasto - please accept my apologies if I offended you and I also apologize to the group for my strongly biased and arrogant rant! Once in a while I have to let it out or it builds up and gives me heartburn _/\_

I think this is a great question and worthy of considerable contemplation. Just like the great koans imply, our original face before our parents were born - what is that? Pulling Edo out of my sleeve, the head of a dead cat, if you see the Buddha in the road kill him! and all that stuff. It's not beyond our ability to observe that. It just implies a shift in perspective. It's staring us right in the face all the time. On the other hand, it's nothing that can be expressed in words or transmitted. It's a subtle shift that is intended to be stimulated by a variety of techniques (koans, prayer, meditation, and so on...). A few respectful differences of perspective - I think you can observe it (prenatal existence) directly. It is not memory, it is not knowledge. It's simply experience. It transcends, predates, and outlives the ego. This is why it is presented in the form of a koan. Regarding psychology - I don't think it is a dead end. I'm not speaking of engaging personal daemons per se. Nor am I speaking of analysis or behavioral modification. I'm speaking of knowing yourself very deeply and fundamentally. Patiently observing yourself without analysis, without judgement, just becoming aware. There is nowhere that we are more closely connected to the possibility of knowing truth than through ourselves - our conditioning, our behavior, our sensations and perception, our biases, and the whole structure of images we have created through which we think we understand the world, everything that makes us what we are. That is a subject worthy of considerable attention, IMO.

Praying for an ace Unsatisfied with a deuce Source of suffering

The entire quotation seems to do just the opposite. I always question for myself what level the author of such a work may have achieved. Is he speaking from experience or research? It's very easy to write about advanced levels of martial arts and meditation - it's another thing altogether to actually achieve those levels. As my teacher has said - anyone who has the time to research and write books of this nature can't have enough time to put in the hours necessary to really achieve what they're writing about. I've been taught to avoid giving meditation students information about what type of experiences and benchmarks they can expect. This does not help the progress. To the contrary, it slows progress considerably by intellectualizing what should be an experiential process.

Really nice posts everyone. I'm not sure I have much to add but fingers are typing nonetheless... Would it be useful to define Ego? I'm not sure everyone is referring to the same concept. Are we speak of Freud's Ego? Are we discussing the experience of being separate or individual? Are we speaking of what Ramana would refer to as the "I" thought or the first thought. The thought that separates itself and creates the awareness of an experiencer that is separate from the experience? Are we referring simply to the nature of awareness? -O-'s post was really interesting. I fully agree that we seem to be focusing on the nature of the experience of feeling separate from the "outside" world. I really like idea of a "horizon of conscious awareness" as defining self and other. I also like bringing physical sensation and perception into the discussion. It is relatively straightforward to see how the illusion of a separate self stems from sensory perception. The tactile envelope of skin combined with the limitation of perspective to that which is 'behind my eyes' and 'between my ears' is a powerful experience. Nevertheless, establishing the origin of conscious awareness or non-conscious awareness is another matter altogether. My experience seems to be along the lines that there is awareness and each living organism experiences existence through its unique set of sensory organs along with all of the behavioral and cultural conditioning that comes along with it. The nature of perception is such that it implies an separate and discreet focus of awareness. On the other hand, a committed attempt at discovering the nature and 'center' of this 'separate' awareness in all mystical traditions leads to the same conclusion - non-duality. It has different names and subtle differences that allow each of our tribes to claim superiority but it's all the same glimpse of the same truth. This is what the newborn experiences - a lack of separation from those rudimentary sensory impulses. There is no baby that is hungry, there is just hunger and so forth. This is different than Ego or self in which there is an experiencer yearning for or avoiding an experience. Anyway - just a few random thoughts to hopefully add to the interesting thread. This type of thread is why I like Tao Bums, Buddha Bums, Jew Bums, Jesus Bums, Jaina Bums or whatever we want to call it.

Mointu ben! If I can listen to samba funk and hang out with Brazilian folks while watching these guys do their thing, I'm in! Great clip - I haven't seen the movie yet but it might be worth watching.

We are still primitive and tribal in so many ways. Where is human evolution? Technological and intellectual advancement are obvious. Emotional and psychological advancement? I don't see much. What would it take for us to really make meaningful change in those areas? It hasn't happened in human history so far...

Hi That Guy - I think this is a great post! I took your post to be offered in the spirit of real interest in the topic and real concern for members of the forum. (my second rant this week!) Of course we are delusional! I agree with you and I still participate. It's kind of like Castaneda said - it's all controlled folly. Absolutely none of this stuff makes a bit of difference. We will all age, get sick, and die. Having cultivated, prayed, or not, will have little or no effect. Not everyone will agree with that statement , but that's ok it's only my assertion. Nevertheless, we have several years to live and get to choose what we wish to do while we are able. I've practiced Daoist cultivation consistently for ~ 6 years now and there is no question that we create a very complex system of experience through visualization, imagination, and intention. At the same time, once you begin to get deeper into the experience of these things, there is a quality that suggests a process of discovery as much as creation. I honestly will not claim to have any way to know which is occurring - discovery or creation, but then again, who cares? What is the difference? Are we not creating the world every instant? Isn't is miraculous that we are capable of both? How do we experience the world? Through sensory organs that take raw, meaningless energy and convert it into electrical signals that are interpreted in our brains in very specific ways. That is not by any means a complete and accurate reflection of "reality" but rather a very limited slice of experience that is somewhat consistent from person to person due to our physiologic similarities. We are like antennae that pick up and interpret certain specific wavelengths of energy while totally ignoring an infinite number of others! We are only tuned, based on our physiology and anatomy, to a very narrow spectrum. Other organisms "create" a very different experience of reality due to how they are "tuned." Who is to say what is real? You know, like the blind people feeling different parts of an elephant and describing it in so many different ways. To take it to another level, the whole of society is a delusion. We are a product of millennia of conditioning. The things you suggest would be better to do than cultivating are nothing more than a reflection of your conditioning. It starts way before you are even born - it's a product of the conditioning of your entire culture. Do you think everyone from every culture would find TV of value or even interesting? You talk about sitting and doing nothing then talk about fairy tales - what is TV? Sitting, doing absolutely nothing, looking at fairy tales. We are all delusional. We have been taught that we are separate from each other, from nature, and we have bought in to a complex fantasy of what is important, what is good, what is bad and we are completely oblivious to reality most of the time. We live in our heads most of the time, believing that we understand everything around us when all we really know are the images we've created that help us muddle through our robot lives. You mention math and science. Is life with math and science better than life without? Think about that carefully before answering. Certainly life is longer with math and science. It's easier to satisfy the needs of survival so there's more free time. Does that make it better? Is my life better than an indigenous person living in the Amazon basin? That's simply a matter of perspective. Many of us yearn for a simpler, more natural existence. All of the math and science are exactly what has taken us so far from our true nature. On this forum you will find a lot of people who use spirituality, magic and all that sort of stuff as entertainment (not much different from your recommendation that they would better spend their time watching TV or painting). You'll find others just trolling or looking for companionship. You'll even find a handful of people who see through the delusions of society and are genuinely looking for more satisfying answers and a more fulfilling life. Are they trading one set of delusions for another? Often the answer is yes. However, which of us can honestly say that we have a clear enough answer to all of creation to know for certain that this is always the case? I have derived considerable benefit in my own life from my spiritual investigation in many different ways - in how I relate to my family, in how I relate to my profession, and so forth. I would suggest that, if you have any degree of interest or curiosity, a careful and skeptical approach to the investigation of spiritual matters is a worthwhile endeavor. If you feel the drive, there is no benefit in resisting. On the other hand, if you are not driven then it is a waste of your time to bother. Follow your heart in the matter but beware of distraction - much (and yes, possibly all) of what is out there is simply entertainment and self indulgence. Kind of like painting and television. In summary - it's critically important (at least for me) to put all of this stuff in perspective. I have a low threshold for BS but I still try to have an open mind and enjoy investigating things beyond their superficial appearance. Perspectives like yours are a breath of fresh air on this forum (IMO) - and it reminds me how much I miss Buddy!!! I hope he is well wherever he may be.

I agree completely with Marblehead. We are nature (we've just been fooled into believing otherwise by conditioning) and Wu Wei is simply acknowledging this fact and living accordingly. If we were not nature, what could we possibly be? It is a trick of awareness that makes us feel separate due to the nature of our physical and psychological makeup.

What he said! _/\_

The concept of movement in stillness and stillness in movement is much easier experienced than understood intellectually. It's an integral part of Taiji practice. It has to do with movement occurring in the waist and torso moreso than the extremities. It has to do with the body remaining relaxed and 'song' during movement. It has to do with the mind remaining quiet during movement. Movement in stillness includes the movement of the circulation of Qi awareness in the absence of any physical motion. It has to do with guiding the Qi with the intention. It has to do with cultivating sensitivity in pushing hands. It's a really fascinating experience but doesn't mean much on paper, I don't think. What are you waiting for? Find a Taiji program and jump in! YOu'll love it!

Looking forward to it!

Do you practice Taiji?

What feels right? This may sound corny but it's something meaningful (to me at least) that I got out of reading Carlos Castaneda many years ago - What would you decide if it were the last thing you could do before your life ended?

Savor awareness Drink deep of life's bounty, then... Take two aspirin!

Really nice post and provocative questions - I think that as long as there is something being sought, this defines the seeker. The seeker can be none other than the Ego (with its desires and ideas and conditioning and so forth). Is there a state in which that can be let go? All the desires, expectations, images, and conditioning... What would that be like? My question is, do we have the enormous amount of energy and passion required to find out?

Hi Birch Tree, I really appreciate your kind words and sincerity. I don't know that there's much I can say to help or to explain the paradox here. There's a level at which I know that we are one and there is the reality that my own awareness is limited to my personal sensations, perceptions, and thoughts. For what it's worth, I do think that you are on the right path and I wish you luck and success with your efforts. Warm regards, Steve

Hi nac, I appreciate your comment but that is not exactly what I mean. I don't mean to imply conscious intent or exclusivity of purpose. Regardless of the intent behind it, there is a component of self-serving behavior at some level, even behind seemingly completely selfless, compassionate, and altruistic behavior.

I don't have any answers but here are a few thoughts - (Gee, this is fun - I haven't ranted in a while!) Rant on - - Motivation: Your motivation is no more selfish than your Lama's motivation. Why is it more pure to strive "for the sake and betterment of all sentient beings" than it is to seek the betterment of oneself? Firstly, there is no real distinction between all sentient beings and oneself - this is an illusion. You ARE the world. If you strive to improve the world, you improve yourself. If you strive to improve yourself you improve the world. Secondly, selflessness is a sham. Look deeply into your motivation for trying to help others! Is it not because that makes you feel better about yourself in some way? When you help others you feel good about yourself for doing so, when you hurt others, you feel bad - this is equally selfish. It may be a more refined form of selfishness (to borrow imagery from the brilliant Jesuit, Anthony Demello) but it is selfish nonetheless! Be very observant and very honest and you will find this to be true. Finally, how can one really know what others need if one is not first balanced and at peace with themselves? Too much harm has been done by the well intentioned. I'm not saying that compassion is not important, in fact, I believe it is beautiful and that nothing is more important. That does not mean that it is not selfish. What I am saying is that you must first understand, love, and show compassion to yourself. That is every bit as important and pure as doing the same for others. - Dao: What is the Dao? Can anyone define it? Laozi could not and would not define it. It is beyond words and thoughts and images. If it is beyond words and thoughts and images to define, how can we know whether it is permanent or impermanent? How can your lama state with certainty that "realizing the Tao" and enlightenment are different things? Can either be defined? If they can't be defined, how can they be compared? She admonishes you to not throw the phrase about carelessly while doing so herself! Too many gratuitous assertions when it comes to spiritual matters. - Your own personal exploration is infinitely more real, meaningful, and equally as valid as the opinions and explanations of anyone else, living or dead. Keep investigating with an open mind. Beware the explanations and biases of "spiritual" guides, leaders, and (shudders) "experts." They are no different than you. They can only offer you their interpretation of whatever it is that they have been conditioned to believe. Their answers are as meaningless as anyone else's. Their answers will not help you in any way, only your own questions will help. Questions are alive - they keep you investigating. Answers are dead, they trick you into thinking that you understand. Reality is to be experienced, not understood. That is the message of the Dao and that is the message of the Buddha as I see it. BUT - that is only my perspective. Not something I am suggesting that you agree with or accept. That is for you to figure out for yourself. Rant off - PS - the lama is probably a very beautiful, wise, and intelligent person and I mean no disrespect -

The placebo effect is a beautiful thing. It reminds us how powerful perception is. It is not limited to medicine, it's very effective in the spiritual/religious realm as well! Just watch all the videos of no-touch healing and martial arts. It's all the same thing! It's beautiful.