doc benway

The word "God" certainly exists. Can you define what it is that words is trying to describe? If you can, it is not God.

Irrespective of whether CC was "telling the truth" or not, his work had a valuable effect on millions of readers, including me. I'd say he was my first exposure to a real spiritual search. I don't practice the methods that have evolved from his books like Tensegrity but I've also adopted some more mundane methods from reading his books and have had some interesting experiences with shutting off the internal dialog, power walking, lookinf for power places and the like. Recently, after a 20 year hiatus, I revisited his works. Read all the books back to back. What a wonderful ouvre! Whether fact, fiction, or a little of each, I don't care. Curiously, while re-reading his works, it occured to me to try dreaming one night. I simply decided to do so and had the longest, most detailed, completely lucid dream of my life. It was a blast. Sadly, it appears that some negative stuff developed around his circle towards the end. Many visionairies come to bitter ends but his vision lives on much like others of our times.

I remember some recent discussions criticizing Advaita and Ramana and so forth and talking about how this forum should focus on Daoism. What could be a more succinct expression of the parallels between Daoism and Ramana's expression of Advaita than this verse? This gives a very clear insight into the rationale behind why they approach the problem through self inquiry in the form of "Who Am I?" or for whom does ignorance and knowlege arise? There are so many aspects to this seemingly simple question. It is amazing.

Very well said!

9. The duality of subject and object and trinity of seer, sight, and seen can exist only if supported by the One. If one turns inward in search of that One Reality they fall away. Those who see this are those who see Wisdom. They are never in doubt. Another statment of the non-dual nature of being. Also, I think there is the implication that this is something that requires direct experience, rather than rationalization or intellectual analysis, in his last two sentences.

Great question! The Dao De Jing starts with a chapter that states that "The Dao that can be spoken of (named, described,...) is not the true Dao and the rest of the chapters speak about it... Words are symbols that represent images and concepts. They are always limiting and are never the real thing, yet they are our primary method of communicating. So we use this limited tool to try and communicate with each other so that we can teach and learn and interact. No where is the limitation of words more obvious than in the realm of the metaphysical and spiritual. I like the finger pointing to the moon analogy. The finger is not the moon nor even a representation of it but I can use my finger to help you see the moon. Likewise, these verses can perhaps help some people find an interest in beginning to investigate the nature of things and maybe even help get someone to the door but the seeker needs to open the door and step through (and leave himself behind...).

I think Scott Rodell is a pretty good resource for Chinese sword info: http://www.grtc.org/

That's a fascinating question! This verse really is the core of the teaching in many ways. We create an image in our mind based on our years of personal conditioning and aeons of social/cultural conditioning. We use this image to try and understand or realize that which is beyond all efforts at imagining. So the image can never be the thing, not even close. It isn't even that good a way to try and realize the thing. But it can be a stimulus to get us to look at the real thing itself - ourself - where the feeling of being comes from, our experience, our perceptions, and our sense of self. Like Mat said, it's a finger pointing at the moon. He's telling you that you are God (or whatever you want to call it) as are we all. There is no separation, no difference. Only you're stuck during life experiencing yourself throught this limited group of sensory organs contained within a bag of skin. This is what gives the illusion of separation - the sensory organs and the bag of skin that contains them. But this is something you need to 'realize' - to feel, to know, rather than to "understand" which is an analytical process composed of thoughts.

Belief is an interesting thing that I have thought about a lot - belief is what happens when you don't know... it is a product of conditioning and experience. What would it be like just to not know and be open to seeing what "is" rather than what your conditioning has led you to "believe." Just something to think about... Ahhh - I never limited this concept to direct human interaction. Just because a human doesn't see something doesn't mean that it is not there. If things are too small to see but still effect us in a way we may not be able to perceive directly, there is still relationship and interdependence there (ie quarks or strings or mitochondria). If there is a medicine waiting in the rainforest, it undoubtedly is part of that ecosystem and thereby has an indirect effect on life on this planet and, if discovered, will have an even more direct effect on us as organisms. Undiscovered galaxies still exert gravitational forces and participate in the structure of the universe, etc... You're making plenty of sense to me. Your comment about God-force is a nice segue to the next chapter: 7. Although the world and knowledge thereof rise and set together it is by knowledge alone that the world is made apparent. That Perfection wherein the world and knowledge thereof rise and set, and which shines without rising and setting, is alone the Reality. So I look at the rising and setting of the 'world and knowlege thereof' relating to human life and existence and the world of our perceptions and arguably we could include other life forms as well. The world and knowledge thereof rise and set with birth and death and it is knowlege of the world (can we substitute consciousness or awareness here?) that makes it apparent. So next he says that there is something that does not rise and set but continues to shine. That is, something is there that transcends birth and death or transcends the world and knowledge of it. I think he uses the word Reality to distinguish the permanent (Reality) from the impermanent or illusion (Maya). Back to Buddhist concepts - this is where they came from.

WT, I think that you must have misread or misunderstood my post. I didn't intend to say that Wu Ji is not found in Daoism. Wu Ji is a principle fundamental to Daoist philosophy. Maybe it was my poor description of what Wu Ji is (or isn't) that was confusing. My point was that the Wu Ji and Tai Ji concepts of Daoism have strong similarities to Hindi/Vedanta/Advaita concepts as demonstrated in Ramana's 40 verses.

Very cool - notice that Awareness. Keep coming back to it when you get distracted. Then ask yourself - what is that awareness? Where does it come from? Is it me? Is is inside my skin? If so, where? If not, where? What is beyond or before it? What or who is aware of being aware? Investigate that but also just spend time being in it/with it without analysis. I think that we are certainly aware during day dreaming and night dreaming. We are simply aware of the world of our thoughts rather than our senses. The interesting and, for me, more important question is - are we aware during the deepest, dreamless part of sleep? Sri Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have interesting perspectives on what transpires then. They firmly believe consciousness remains in dreamless sleep. - "That which is not present in deep dreamless sleep is not real." -Ramana Maharshi It's not difficult to postulate continued awareness during dreamless sleep once you accept non-duality because consciousness is continuous and pervasive and infinite. Yet to ask the question of the individual organism is what we normally do and it's a very difficult question to answer from the perspective of duality. You may enjoy the ongoing thread here as it will be addressing these very issues: http://www.thetaobums.com/Ramanaand39s-40-...lity-t5270.html

The matter is simply one of perspective. Reality happens, certainly. Yet someone or something has to observe it or a secondary effect of it in some fashion for there to ever be any evidence that it happened. What if something happens and there is no person or living thing ever to observe it, EVER, either directly or indirectly. How do you propose to know that it happened? Is there any significance to it if it has never been directly or indirectly experienced? This leads to the other important quality of non-duality. Everything is inter-related. There is no real separation of events, objects, organisms. The separation is an illusion. THis is why everything that happens is real, because it effects everything around it, either directly or indirectly. This is why thoughts are also real, they effect actions, as do dreams and so on. Once the interconnection is felt (not understood, but really experienced), it makes more sense intellectually. It's interesting that you bring up Wu Ji - this is the state of nothingness. In Wu Ji, there is no form or formlessness. Reality does not exist or not-exist. There are very strong parallels between the Daoist concepts of Wu Ji and Tai Ji, and the Hindu / Advaita concepts being discussed by Sri Ramana. PS - Please don't apologize for your post - that's what this is all about. The tougher the questions, the more we all learn

Here is our first book discussion thread - Shambala Guide to Taoism by Eva Wong. Let's start with a discussion of the first section which covers the history of Daoism. With all due respect to Daoism, Daoists, and Ms. Wong - when I read through the history section, it reminded me of how much I dislike the trappings of religion. The ritual, ceremonies, superstitions, pomp, and circumstance, politics... all that stuff. I have very little use for it or interest in it. In any and all religions. I know that many folks really appreciate that aspect of it but it just reminds me of how illusory, superstitious, and political it all is... That said, I thought she did an excellent job of presenting the historical perspective of Daoism from the shamanic, prehistoric origins to the current, modern incarnations for someone interested in a concise summary. I can't speak to accuracy or bias, but it was enough for me to feel like I have a place to start from which I can base more in depth study if I chose to. The additional reading suggestions seemed worthwhile though I was only familiar with a handful of them and can't comment on their balance and scholarship. I think it was a very good selection for beginning our book club - thanks for the suggestion to all those who supported it. I'll also try to move the relevant posts from the previous thread which I'll close for clarity's sake...

If a tree falls with no one to hear, there is no sound. THere are disturbances in the air but no sound unless a tympanic membrane is vibrated and connected to a cerebral cortex to interpret it as something meaningful. Does color exist to a congenitally blind person? I agree that animals are aware and perceive and are a part of the Mind. I think there is much more to the world than is available to our senses yet, unless I can perceive it, either directly or indirectly, how can I know if it exists? I think the most important point is the concept of non-duality. The Mind is not one individual's awareness but the aggregate awareness - the multitude of dewdrops on the spiderweb or the candlelight reflected in infinite mirrors, to use two Zen metaphors. The Mind is aware of everything because it is all minds. Every death is the extinguishing of but a single sensory aperture. Each new birth, yet another perspective of the Mind.

I hate to sound like we're trading compliments but I've got to say that your raindrop analogy is perfect! You can look at the raindrop as the physical organism but also as the conscious self. Very nice.

Here, here!!

6. The world is nothing more than an embodiment of the objects perceived by the five sense-organs. Since, through these five sense-organs, a single mind perceives the world, the world is nothing but the mind. Apart from the mind can there be a world? From a practical standpoint, can we define or confirm a world other than using our senses? Is there sound without an ear, sight without an eye, texture without touch? a single mind perceives the world This is really the crux of the matter for me. When you look for a long time for the source of the "I am" thought, this is a feeling that can arise. Each of us experiences independence and separateness due to our sensory perceptions, memories, and so on. Yet when you peel away the layers looking for the source of the "I" thought, it seems thtat there is a common awareness that is embodied in all of us. Again, very difficult to capture in words.

Very nicely stated!

I think it's perfectly safe and potentially beneficial to mix taijiquan with yoga. I also think proper practice of the small heavenly orbit is fine with both. In fact, sitting meditation is critical in achieving high levels of proficiency in taiji, IMO. Good luck

Real, honest communication is difficult. We basically function based on images created by our conditioning, experience, desires, fears, and so on... I have an image of myself and I have an image of you - these images are, by definition, finite and imperfect and often very inaccurate. So communication usually involves my image of myself interacting with my image of you - think about that for a while. Once you see how that works, see if there is a way for you to drop the image... It can be done - it involves a great deal of receptivity and opening up and mindfullness - it's very yin. See if every moment you are with the other person can be as if it is the first time you've met. No preconceptions or assumptions. Just be with that person as fully as you can and see where that takes you. That's what I'm working with in my relationships. If you can drop the images and two people can really be with each other fully, with no assumptions or preconceptions or expectations, that's relationship... Good luck!

I'd like to see proof that we exist.... What constitutes proof?

Very good obserations. Yup, Ramana had a body and senses. I don't think that being in touch with the Self, even on a constant basis, is fatal. The body remains there and with the body the senses and that is how the Self experiences form. Self also experiences formlessness but I think that is something we don't experience during life. THis is very relevant to a profound experience I had a few years ago that has me convinced that Ramana's verses are reality and that Mat is absolutely correct in one of his points. There are certain things that are primarily experiential. That is, if you haven't felt it, reading about it doesn't really mean much. Once you've felt it, the verbal description suddenly makes perfect sense. I've noticed that a lot with my Taijiquan practice and meditation, and, more than anything else, with reading Ramana, Nisargadatta, Watts, Osho, and so forth...

What makes you think the observer is not already free? Is it not just attachment to and identification with the five-fold sheath that's restricted? What is a sensation without the sensory organ to transmit it and the brain and conditioning to perceive and record it? Is there something that is there beyond the realm of the senses? I think that's what we're trying to get at. Our experience of the universe is all there really ever is when it comes to form. It is all the interpretation of formless energy, given form by the miracle of our senses and brain. Without the senses and brain to "make sense" of the infinite patterns of energy, there is no form. And to think we only are tuned in to a minute fraction of the possibities existing in the universe. It's astounding! Yet there is something beyond form and the senses. And I think Ramana is pointing to that indirectly because it defies description or even experience in normal terms. PS Very nice poem - I can see how it reminds you of what we're studying

Ron Jeremy's posts are very hard to read.... Interesting stuff back then - I agree with Darin - Sean is a great moderator for this forum.

A cool song by Don Ross played by Antoine Dufour yu0FjmcJva8