doc benway

That's interesting info. I've seen a medical technique attributed to him that is supposedly a sort of shamanic precursor to accupuncture using little cuts in the skin covered by bamboo reeds soaked in medicine. It's like a cross between bleeding and cupping and dit da jow. It's a cool technique to watch. It's called Hua Tuo Zhu Guan Jiu. Anyone ever heard of it?

I would guess that those who consider themselves Daoists know what they believe. I don't think it's that difficult to identify the basic principles, as long as you recognize that it is a moving target with no finite answer and remain flexible. In fact, I think I can sum it up, in my mind at least, in 2 words - wu wei. In my view, it is up to each of us to find our answers and our path. If someone finds it in a limited part of the Daoist canon and chooses to call himself a Daoist, I'm fine with that. It's not for me to tell them what to call themselves nor to judge if their chosen label is valid. I don't find labels to be of much value anyway.

It's not picking and choosing, nor are you a straw dog, if you live the core teachings, IMO. The 10,000 other complexities and window dressings that have been added over the millenia are artifice and politics. Christ's sayings applied to the religions of his day and to his teachings, of which there were relatively few, very basic, and profound wisdom. He was not referring to the incomprehensibly complex mess that has evolved since his death - he wouldn't have foreseen that and probably wouldn't approve of much of it were he alive today. Much of modern Christianity is as far removed from his teachings as it is from Daoism.

Daoism, like the Dao, is more than words. The words are not the thing. Daoism is to each individual whatever they choose to take from it. Debating about whether it's a religion, a culture, a philosophy, or all of the above is fine if you're into that sort of thing. But so is studying whatever parts of it are meaningful and using that in daily life. Just as Buddhism was, more or less, the salient core tenets of Hinduism (a culture) reformed for export (as a religion), so "pop" Daoism includes salient philisophical and spiritual core tenets of Daoism streamlined for mass consumption. If a Christian believes and applies the core teachings of Jesus yet discards the rest of the baggage, is that not Christianity? If a Daoist choses to make wu wei the prime focus of their life yet ignores the pantheon of gods and the magical aspects of cultivation, is he not a Daoist? Must one burn incense to General Kwan to be a Daoist? Must one be Chinese? Must one read Chinese to be Daoist? Do all Buddhists read Pali? I challenge anyone to adequately define Daosim let alone try and tell the world what it should be considered or should not be considered. Very interesting and well written paper, BTW.

Just stumbled across Ceu! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYc_g2eSX0U Here's her covering one of my favorite Marley tunes

Eternity now, Limbs entwined, how does one tell Where you and I end? Oops, I fiddled for too long and got bumped...

Too cool! We could be there now! Blind to the wonder of here Leaves crunch underfoot...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1952...uit-legend.html

Anyone familiar with a book called Drawing Silk: Masters' Secrets for Successful Tai Chi Practice by Paul Gallagher?

I just love the fact that the puppet heads in the media have to face the world without the benefit of their writers and show everyone who they are. This is more entertaining to me by far!

I begin anew As the phoenix from the ash Must not smoke in bed!

Interesting choice of title... What can one possibly say about the Upanishads? It's all there... AUM

Scientology is a particularly exotic delusion. To be perfectly frank, I've seen equally exotic and entertaining delusions described on this forum and just about everywhere else I encounter people. The funniest, and in some ways most harmful, is our persistent delusion that each of us is a completely separate, self contained ego encapsulated within a bag of skin that is somehow independent of the earth and the rest of the universe. That's a real hoot and gives us the excuse we need to perpetuate all kinds of terrorism on one another and the environment... Nevertheless, it's very convincing and is unlikely to change anytime soon on the large scale...

I am compelled to quote Karen's response again. Very well said.

I think that there was a purposeful progression intended from Part I to II to III, in terms of getting you to distance yourself from accepted dogma and consider alternative possibilities. I'd suggest watching the whole thing. They don't try to convince you of their point of view, just stimulate you to investigate the data and reach your own conclusions.

the path of power is tread to where? and by whom? Kui Xing shines above

Beautiful story - thank you

Nice - you've been blessed with excellent instruction. Unfortunately I couldn't download the Wu clip at work. I'll try again later. Steve

Very well put and sobering post Ian. Quite worthy of a genuine attempt at a sincere reply. Clearly one of the tougher questions we can wrestle with but here goes... I am actually trying to be in a "let go" as Osho liked to call it - I don't want to have a goal and I don't want to not have a goal at the same time, I'm looking to connect deeply with life, for what else is there to do? and when all is said and done I hope to be remembered as having been compassionate. Thoreau put it well: "I wanted to live deeply and suck all the marrow out of life..." Having a goal or not having a goal both arise from the illusion of duality. There is no separation so of what use is a goal? I see this fundamental truth but it is another thing altogether to remain in the world and live it. My illusory, or should I say transient, goals are to provide as much security and nourishment for my family and loved ones as I can, to provide the best possible care for my patients, and to be a good teacher, student, and training partner at my school. Behind that is the knowledge that it's all a game not to be taken too seriously so that there doesn't have to be so much suffering. My practice methods are no better (or worse) than any others. No method can show you the truth. Method is folly but understanding this does not mean you cannot practice and derive benefit and enjoyment from the practice. The truth emcompasses all methods but one must transcend method to reach it. Methods are useful but ultimately limiting. The same is true for gurus. Method implies duality, guru implies duality. They are necessary for most people to guide them to the door, and many methods can do that well, but you must open it and step through yourself, naked, vulnerable, and without desire or goal. No one can do that for you and the process is necessarily unique for each of us. There are gurus out there that have an aura of insincerity and exploitation about them. I respond to them negatively and make my opinions known in an effort to help people avoid pain and disappointment. Once I've spoken my piece, I let it go and move on, as I've done on this forum. Beyond that, I try not to denigrate anyone's practices.

I watched the whole thing a few months back - www.zeitgeistmovie.com. I liked it. I suggested my parents watch it and they loved it - my father is still freaked out, not by the first part but by the third part. Part I shows the sources of the Abrahamic religions in astrology and nature - very common sense stuff yet surprisingly compelling if you're not familiar with it. It serves the purpose of causing you to question what you tend to readily accept as the truth as being what you've been taught to believe. It asks you to be open to seeing things and reaching your own conclusions. Part II demonstrates disturbing and inadequately explained aspects of the 9-11 attacks and asks you to question the "party line" explanations. Part III gets into who controls the US and world economies and what their motivation, history, and potential future goals are - to me, part III was by far the most disturbing. I think it's well worth watching. PS For people who are interested in the exploration of the origins of Christianity theme, there is another well done film that borrows some footage from Zeitgeist and is called "The God Who Wasn't There." It's worth renting the DVD and listening to the extra materials which are extensions of some of the discussions in the main film.

The fruit has ripened and ascends to heaven's gate "I" am left behind...

Let go.... Sort of wu wei, sort of receptivity, ... Be present, we are always so yang, find the yin. Feel the feelings, experience the senses, be with whatever you are doing fully. Be spontaneous - don't try to interpret, analyze, second guess - just do what is to be done in the moment. I would have just said wu wei but there are too many preconceived notions about what that means; it too often is interpreted to mean not getting involved and I think that can be misleading. It's critical to get involved, why else are we here? The key to wu wei is to be involved deeply, but to be spontaneous, genuine - not letting the intellect interfere with the heart... or something like that. At least that's what occurs to me at the moment... Sounds to me like a Daoist koan - I like it....

I am not here now Nor ever was, nor will be... A loon calls at dusk

Agreed

Qi is a word - nothing more. The word is never the thing. This particular word is very problematic because of it's wide variety of usage. It is a useful word if the parties to the discussion can agree to a definition, otherwise we're always comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, many people rely on the concept to make a living or to feed their ego and exploit the word and gullible consumers. The vast majority of superhuman qi power demonstrations are parlor tricks or examples of a sort of hypnosis as nicely demonstrated by the youtube video above. (...edited to avoid unnecessary conflict...) On the other hand, I would be comfortable saying that just about everyone who practices internal cultivation methods (esp Chinese but also tantra, kundalini, and so on...) genuinely experiences an ineffable perception within the body at some point that is new to them and can be developed over time with training. I'm not going to try and describe it in words - I can't. I can say that to me it seems to be better described as process or relationship than by stuff or something tangible. Even energy is a suboptimal word as that implies something measurable. The taiji classics, neigong and Dao cultivation (as well as tantra, buddhist, hindu, yoga, kundalini...) writings all refer to it in some fashion and those of us who spend time in these practices know that it is there by direct experience. The "belief" in qi for me was primarily a matter of attaining the right perspective in the beginning of what the word was trying to represent. So maybe I'm just hypnotized too... To me it is nothing at all magical. It is not something that one person has and another doesn't. It is part of absolutely everything and everyone. Cultivation of it to me is much more a process of sensitizing the organism's awareness than it is building up a reservoir of stuff or even energy. That perspective goes against the grain for most but it works better for me in terms of trying to communicate and understand it. I've yet to see or feel a demonstration of the type of magical qi power a lot of people like to fantasize about and mock up on videotape and in demos. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I haven't experienced that particular manifestation and, until I do, I'll maintain a healthy skepticism. I do feel and use something everyday in my meditaiton, neigong, xingyi and taiji practice (not to mention every other activity in my life) that I currently refer to with the word qi and I understand how it is used for martial as well as spiritual pursuits but I don't try to apply that word to something superhuman that I have no personal experience of.