doc benway

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.

Hilarious!

Or in an instant!

Regardless of insight or "enlightenment", I believe we remain human. We are bound by mental and physical limitations till the day we die. I went through several years of voracious spiritual investigation - lots of reading and study, practice and inquiry. One thing I found fascinating was to see how each guru's view of enlightenment and approach to teaching and life reflected some basic characteristics of their personality and conditioning. Gurdjieff, Watts, Nisargadatta, J Krishnamurti, Ramana, UG Krishnamurti, Osho, Demello, and others - their teachings always tended to reflect specific personality patterns. That's a bit presumptive of me because I never met any of them personally but if you study their teachings and their words and history you can definitely see interesting patterns. I think it's absolutely wonderful when gurus reveal their human weaknesses (and strengths). Hopefully, it helps us to see that it is not about them or their methods. It's not important whether we sit in lotus or chant sutras or read scripture or cultivate Qi or practice red dragon. It's rather about us - our own, personal, individual internal investigation of who and what we are and what makes us tick that is meaningful. Look at and into yourself very patiently and deeply - all those around you who would show you "the way" will only show you that, ultimately, you need to study yourself. If they show you anything other than that, they are wasting your time and very likely exploiting your confidence.

Why use the word "in"? Why assume that "me" is contained within "my" bag of skin (to borrow Alan Watts' wonderful imagery)?

Congrats to the new Mod Squad! Good choices all, Sean

Me too but I also thought it was pretty intense and disturbing when the warlord tried to take his arm. Loved the movie!

If you sit quietly and practice regularly you will have an insight into time.

I'd strongly advocate working with a teacher, even if only infrequently. The key is to spend a very long time walking the circle and practicing standing meditation. The most basic palm changes are the most important. Find someone who can teach you the basic applications and then drill those with a partner until you can really make them work.

Steven Harrison wrote a nice book called The Question to Life's Answers.

It is simply the arrogance of human thought which creates a moon for each viewpoint. The thought will never be the thing and yet they truly are one and the same. Nevertheless, try drinking the word water for one week. Buddha did not define the Truth of existence through words. He saw the Truth through meditation and did his best to help others reach a similar level of experience. It is the scholars who came after that made the error of becoming attached to the words. Peace

Ah but here's the thing, they both are always pointing to the same moon - there is only one moon. The moon is the truth, the fingers that are pointing may do so from differing conditioning. That doesn't change the moon. Don't get trapped in equating your intellectual exercises with reality.

To be accurate, the emptiness you describe is also not the Buddha's, rather it is Nagarjuna's, is it not? Nagarjuna developed the concept of dependent origination to interpret Buddha's much more minimalist commentary. Buddha's comments on the matter basically included the fact that the universe is without self "shunyata" and that one may be liberated if one understands this (meaning at an experiential, not intellectual level). All the rest comes from Nagarjuna and subsequent interpreters, in my understanding. Mind you, I'm not a Buddhist scholar by any stretch of the imagination so please correct me if this is inaccurate. I'm also not a Daoist scholar or a Daoist but based on my interaction with Daoists and my personal practice of Daoist cultivation, I see nothing that indicates the widespread belief or doctrine of a universal self or atman, which Buddha was denying. Priceless!

I love Thomas Merton's Way of Chuang Tzu in addition to others mentioned above. I first began to have a deeper understanding of Chuang Tzu after reading Osho's When the Shoe Fits and The Empty Boat.

I like the freedom in this forum and wouldn't advocate any restrictions. Even when the forum was completely overrun with Kunlun and then Mak Ti Sin, and now one or two Buddhists who tired of the Buddhism forum. This forum tends to get wrapped up in fads or biases from time to time. It's nice to see how it develops and it's an opportunity to practice Wu Wei and sometimes learn something. Then there are always a few gems that pop up with beautiful insights. I suggest that you read what you want and skip the rest, it's not that difficult. All religious traditions tend to bury the truth in mountains of wasted words piled on by generations of interpreters and wannabees. I don't care what flavor it is, they're all basically the same. The process of human thought creating different words trying to hint at the same underlying reality. I used to think I understood things, now I think I see the limitations of thought and that's enough. I'm not an -ist of any sort. I'm with minkus. These long-winded, analytical posts, be they Daoist or Buddhist, are either over my head or not terribly interesting to me lately. So many words, so little reality. They're really not the same, you know. I just don't have the energy to devote to thinking or debating that much anymore.

Coincidentally, a friend loaned me a book to read yesterday called Can Humanity Change? which documents a dialogue between Jiddu Krishnamurti, Walpola Rahula, David Bohm, and others in Walpola's entourage. Very interesting reading for those interested in Buddhism and Krishnamurti fans alike, I think.

Lately it seems to me that spirituality is more or less the same as a spiritual search or path. It arises when the mind is not satisfied with what is. It is looking for something beyond what it knows and sees every day. It postulates that there must be something above, beyond, or behind the mundane daily existence. Something sacred, perhaps eternal. The process of trying to understand what that is seems to be spirituality to me.

Je parle francaise un peu. Native English speaker and trying to learn a bit of Portugese. Eu falo um pouco portugues? I'm not fluent enough in either that I would participate much in subforums but have no objection to others doing so.

____________

Thanks for your constructive comments sykkelpump. I've been through those things you describe - the feelings, the changes, the awareness of energy, and many others experiences, some very intense and some of which are beyond my ability to put into words. All of that remains in the realm of the known. It's all stuff of the mind. It's pleasant and entertaining and even very useful but it's still all transient and impermanent experience. Meditation goes beyond attachment to such experience. If you have studied Bodri and Zen, I don't need to explain that to you. I currently practice Daoist meditation of the 崑崙仙蹤 sect as my primary method of cultivation I'm very happy with my teacher but thank you for your concern. I've practiced the white skeleton and I regularly practice Anapanasati. I often have my taiji students use that as a way to help them understand the frame of mind to bring to form practice. Be well