doc benway

Exactly! On the one hand, we can say that thought is against wu wei. It's just mind chatter. It's not instinct and doesn't appear to be natural and spontaneous action. On the other hand, it arises from the human brain and occurs in all of us quite naturally. How can it not be wu wei?

I don't know anything about skype but it sounds like a cool idea.

Osho - When the Shoe Fits Jiddu Krishnamurti - To Be Human Alan Watts - Eastern Wisdom

Aw, that stuff's easy! I can do it in my sleep...

These are some great questions! I'll add more - How do we know what is wu wei and what is not? If I perform some action that appears on the surface to go against the natural way of things, how do we know that action wasn't a part of that natural way? Who determines what is and is not wu wei? Is it possible for us to act in any way other than wu wei? This is a fascinating and important topic for me - I think about it alot.

"are others real?" No - there's only Me

With respect to the first part above - why is it that we should expect to lead a carefree, untroubled existence? If the Dao teaches us anything it is balance and mutual arising - there is trouble and there is peace, there are cares and there is acceptance. I don't know that it is a realistic (or even desirable) expectation to live a carefree and untroubled existence although it certainly is possible to practice wu wei and accept troubles and cares without too much anxiety or distress. Without troubles how would we appreciate or even recognize being trouble free? With respect to your second point, I agree 100%.

Winning is about control and possession - yang. Losing is acceptance and vulnerability - yin. Like Spirit Ape said, being addicted to winning, like anything else, is slavery, and unbalanced It can never be maintained. In Taijiquan, there is a valuable lesson - invest in loss. When we practice pushing hands, we learn much more by our losses than our wins. When we lose, we identify weaknesses and opportunities to grow. When we win, we are simply repeating successful patterns that we already know well - nothing is really gained. Look deeply at what you feel when you lose - don't judge it, just be with it, lean into it, get to know the feeling and it will be less threatening, it'll be gone in minutes. Similarly, look closely at what you feel when you win - sit with it, feel it, don't analyze it. You soon see that it's just a transient thrill, it's gone in seconds. When one of us wins, another loses, and vice versa - it's mutual arising. And the distinction between loser and winner is arbitrary and illusory, so the net effect is simply balance, taiji.

My interpretation of Qi is based solely on my personal experience through meditation and internal martial arts. I look at Qi as a process rather than a substance. It seems to me to be where a specific aspect of our awareness interacts with our bodies and the universe. I don't really believe in accumulating or storing Qi but rather becoming more aware and sensitive to it. Just my $.02. This has been discussed quite a bit in some older threads if you want to try searching the topic.

Very good points goldisheavy. I also enjoy your posts. Without awareness/mindfulness, we're doomed to act out of conditioning alone.

My pleasure - glad I could help!

+1 on 8 Pieces of Brocade.

I like how you fleshed this out. All too often, people are misled by the Taiji classics to believe that Taijiquan is always soft. This is a complete misinterpretation. Taiji, like life, is balance - soft and hard. I think the intention of the statement "soft overcomes hard" is to remind people to balance the two, not necessarily that either is superior. Remember the principle of mutual arising.

When you see your acupuncturist, they will usually do an evaluation and give you some guidance regarding which teas are best for you as well as dietary recommendations. That should be a part of their routine. I'm jealous!

Post some of your favorite quotes here! Here's one I just reread from a few months ago:

Thanks Bindo - My intention for this thread was a bit different. The sticky seems to be more about quotes from anywhere and anyone. I'm thinking it would be fun to repost favorite posts from Tao Bums' threads exclusively. If that's already being done, please ignore me!

I agree with forestofsouls - I'm not sure the Dao De Jing literally means that the soft always overcomes the hard. I take it much more loosely in terms of the flexible being more likely to succeed than the inflexible - and not just from a physical point of view.

I find it a bit telling that people who speak of there being no need for a guru, generally realize that after years of studying with one or more themselves. It seems to me that first there is this lack of satisfaction with the status quo followed by a resolution to do something about it. For the beginner trying to get a handle on where to go from there, it is very difficult and very unlikely that they will find a way forward (or back or sideways) without seeking some sort of direction from a "spiritual authority." The "authority" will help them get established on a path but eventually they'll need to discard their dependence on the authority and find their way for themselves. I personally believe that the really meaningful achievements are made without a teacher but through personal investigation. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that most of us could get to the point where we can make real independent progress without some preliminary guidance.

I'm certainly not the one to define those for anyone but myself, but, I think most people would agree on a few basics llike compassion, respect, wholeness or oneness of a sort, balance, cultivating awareness, love, peace, stuff like that.

Hell no!

Very good observations about the document. Especially the violence on a budget!

I think violence comes from the illusion of separation. Babies don't yet have this delusion, it takes years of conditioning for it to be established. By adulthood, we are conditioned to perceive ourselves as individuals, separate from each other and separate from our environment. This is already violence. To add fuel to the fire, we identify with others who have similar conditioning and form tribes (geographic, religious, political, cultural, national, racial, ...). So the illusion of separation is magnified and reinforced. So a number of different religious tribes now come together to try and figure out how to end violence. But their very existence is at the root of the violence. End the separation and eventually the violence can end. But ending the separation means that those tribes can no longer exist. They have to give up that which makes them unique and special. And that can only happen after the individuals who make up the tribe can let go of their individual illusions of separation. Is this a realistic expectation? Is it even desirable? Would we value (or even recognize) peace if we didn't suffer wars? Violence has always accompanied life. Every life subsists on the death of another. Can that end?

With respect to the Dao - what is the difference between dying and killing? I used to have very strong opinions regarding self-preservation, even at the cost of killing others. Then that certainty sort of got blurred. At this point in time, I'm not as sure that I would prefer to kill than die. It's much less clear to me. I guess I would have to be in the situation to know how I would react. Hopefully, I'll never know. PS - I would sign the manifesto without hesitation and I try to live it already more or less, although imperfectly

I recently had an interesting encounter with the two faces of Christianity. I never really saw much truth in the scriptures of Jesus when left to my own devices. I was not raised in a Christian tradition and only superficially studied any of the canon. Then I was turned on to Anthony DeMello. DeMello was a Jesuit whose work showed me how those very scriptures reflected the same profound truths that are at the basis of all the major religious traditions (Buddhism, Daoism, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, and so on...). He used the Jesuit tradition (and was probably also strongly influenced by his own Indian/Hindu culture and background) to uncover and transmit the core of Jesus' teachings (in my ignorant opinion) in a simple and elegant way. It gave me a new respect and admiration for the Christian traditions and those that achieve real understanding through them. Subsequently, I learned that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (currently known as Pope Benedict XVI), while serving as spokesman for the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith, condemned DeMello's beautiful and profound teachings with the following warning: "With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm." Furthermore, he banned all of DeMello's writings and put them out of print as the copyrights were under the control of the Church. And yet, those positions "incompatible with the Catholic faith" seem to me to be the very core of the scriptures. Fortunately, enough of a public outcry developed that the works are again actively published and readily available. It reminded me of the real motivation behind those involved in institutionalized religion - power. It also reminded me of one of my favorite Osho sayings - something like: a person's personal/internal search for understanding and truth is the only real religion, everything else is politics.

1. Corruption 2. Exploitation 3. A few profound, basic truths that are freely available to anyone who can sit quietly. 4. Enough power to truly make a difference if 1. and 2. could be eliminated.