contrivedname!

i wouldnt necessarily call it "control", i think i would use the term fixate the mind or attachment, because to me "control" has the connotation of one thing trying to overpower another, whereas fixation or attatchment implies more of a way of positioning your mind through its own action. maybe i am just being too semantic though . Anyway, it occurred to me that you can never think about the present moment. It is true you are always thinking in the present moment, like you are living, doing everything else, and etc throughout the universe. But as soon as you go to think about the present moment, it is no longer the present moment you are thinking about. It is that past moment "encapsulated" in thought, reflected on in the present moment. right arm ...that there is a place for ego still once ego has been removed as the controlling force. right; so i guess the question is: what is the ego trying to control? i reread what i just wrote and realized what i meant, which didnt seem very clear, is that we are seeking to unfixate the mind and move away from attachment to any given thought not to control thoughts by trying to repress them (which is the connotation that control has for me).

i would direct you to zhuangzi (chuang tzu) or liezi (lieh tzu) if you havent read either of those, find a translation that works for you

ahh because what may seem good to a person's subjective view of the world may not in fact actually be good for the whole

Dennis McKenna's brother Terrance McKenna has written an excellent book on the subject called "Food of the Gods"

touche.

being an "army brat" what knowledge could you have of zen?

a good idea but i think there is too much regiment and rules in what you propose(no drinking or drugs... bye bye any ikkyu's or trungpa's ). many who may like to join a commune would probably want to get out of societal structure and move into a place where individuals are mutually responsible for their own actions (though as darin pointed out, if you are looking for a monastic setting, the individuals you are trying to attract may be of a different grain). in some areas you can get realitively remote land for pretty cheap; i think it would be a good idea to get the individuals interested to pool some money and just buy the land outright then you would simply have to pay property taxes, or find someone willing to take on a commune who still has land in the family from the homestead act. also i would encourage a open type of spiritual practice setting where individuals from different "paths" could congregate and thereby compliment each others practices. i would also suggest a "leaderless" commune where all have say in decisions effecting the group as a whole. that said i think, if it is what you want, that a commune is a great idea

i agree so what of the chapters that state "he who speaks doesnt know he who knows doesnt speak" and then the passage about not wanting to become full [in this case of knowledge]?

hence the saying(s) of the so-called psuedo-daoist yang chu: ...As no one would do a favor for the world and no one would profit by it, the world was in a perfect state if the ancients could've given a hair on their arm for the world they would not have done it [ie if they could give up a hair to rule the world] you can do "good" without thinking about fame but fame will follow in its wake, fame makes no tryst with gain, yet gain will come all the same, gain makes no tryst with strife, yet strife will certainly ensue, therefore the "superior" person is very cautious about doing the "good" what say you grand master poo?

"no one has lived longer than a dead child and old p'eng tsu died young" good pointe to make. i particularly enjoy the sayings of Layman P'ang (which i just recently read); gotta love the zendaoist lunatics there is a story in lieh tzu that talks about the sage horsetrainer. he sent the king a sage horse and when the king asked what color and sex it was he stated that it was a brown mare, when the king saw it it was a black stallion and the king then wondered what kind of horse trainer couldnt even tell the sex or color of the horse

i can see what you mean by Treat your inferiors as you would want your superiors to treat you being a two sided concept of virtue hence ddj 24: "ONE on tip-toe cannot stand. One astride cannot walk. One who displays himself does not shine. One who justifies himself has no glory. One who boasts of his own ability has no merit. One who parades his own success will not endure. In Tao these things are called "unwanted food and extraneous growths," Which are loathed by all things. Hence, a man of Tao does not set his heart upon them. " as translated by John C.H. Wu, this could be seen as "acted" virtue, in contrast to the description of a taoist sage in ddj 15: "THE ancient adepts of the Tao were subtle and flexible, profound and comprehensive. Their minds were too deep to be fathomed. Because they are unfathomable, One can only describe them vaguely by their appearance. Hesitant like one wading a stream in winter; Timid like one afraid of his neighbours on all sides; Cautious and courteous like a guest; Yielding like ice on the point of melting; Simple like an uncarved block; Hollow like a cave; Confused like a muddy pool; And yet who else could quietly and gradually evolve from the muddy to the clear? Who else could slowly but steadily move from the inert to the living? He who keeps the Tao does not want to be full. But precisely because he is never full, He can always remain like a hidden sprout, And does not rush to early ripening." same translation, which could be seen as unacted virtue but i am curious what you mean by your rendition of 38 in the lines: "The precise take is a great ten feet high sage. Is his thickness existing or is his thinness existing? Is his greatness existing or is his magnificence existing? Because to do away with that, and so receive this!" ?

good point, though many overdose too, when they build up too high of a tolerance, and i would posit that it isnt the heroin killing them (it is physcially in a sense, but it is their choice [which really kills], though after a while it doesnt really feel like a choice, i'm guessing)

well i wasnt directing that at you necessarily, i was applying that little teaching to what paul had said. he was saying, imo, that you have to "kill" your ego and that this isnt usually a comfortable experience, and the saying i quoted is in regards to ego projections, the spiritually materialistic type in particular, well imo anyway...

your quote made me think of "if you see the buddha, kill the buddha"

i like your rendition of "High virtue has no action, and thus no motivation. Low virtue is acted, yet has motivation. High benevolence is acted, yet has no motivation. High righteousness is acted, yet has motivation. High propriety is acted, yet there is no reaction." but when one correspondingly performs arm wrestling what is the underlying principle of that with which they wrestle?

nor would i, nor would i yeah and one of his drugs of choice was heroin, which usually kills most people pretty quick i need to read naked lunch, i have only watched part of the movie and it seems as though to make a screen play which captures the intent out of works from a writer like him would be quite impossible. i also understand that the movie is something of an amalgam of multiple writings.

your situation made me think of an interaction between two friends of mine that, until recently, had effectually put a huge strain on, not only their relationship but the relationship with my buddy and her husband whom is also our friend. my friend (the male) had the bad habit of drinking and driving, so my other friend in response to knowing he was about to hop in the car and drive away buzzed said "i hope you kill your girlfriend while you are driving"... harsh but he shouldnt have been drinking and driving. he barley had any contact with them for over a couple years as a result of this; however, he doesnt drink and drive anymore. so did what she say force him to learn something? may be or may be he ended up seeing the error of his ways on his own. see, in my preception she had been boiling about this for a while and then just kind of angrily went off on him, whereas may be if she had told him how much she disagreed with his choices, etc. from the get go in a more level headed manner, he might have listened and the relationship wouldnt have been strained. but on the other hand, may be he needed someone giving him the proverbial slap in the face in order to "wake up" chris

ahh monsieur lienshan, i thought you had abandoned posting at this forum, glad to see that wasnt the case

i am sure if we met in real life we'd get along just fine, too. i wasnt really all that upset by your preception, however, i did feel it was wrong, imo, so i decided to refute it i agree that i took the quote out of context, but misplaced... nah i thought (and still think) i was giving a proper interpretation of the meaning behind that particular teaching. i agree that i probably should've mentioned that Hui-neng was referring to sutra reciting somewhere in my post, but i disagree and think it is an excellent idea apply teachings broadly and unhindered by narrow dogma; hammer that maleable gold, we all have differnt temperments and if his teachings couldnt be applied to anything and had no modern use, they wouldnt be very useful in my opinion. to me, it is pretty obvious that "whether or not _____, will enlighten you or be of benefit to you depends on your mind." all situations should be regarded as having the essence of "guru" in them, so it really isnt that much of a leap to [insert your spiritual practice here] when understanding the meaning of what hui-neng was saying to fa-ta at that moment in time, based on his temperment. i dont think you really came off as abrubt (in fact may be overly cautious at times), you have some good insights when you actually post them and i would encourage you to not worry about coming off like an idiot, as long as what you type benefits yourself and possibly others, who cares if some people think you sound like an idiot (good advice for myself as well ) i also appreciate your integrity, something too uncommon in humans these day, imo. nice chat, and i am glad you didnt interpret my silly post as a personal attack @pranaman, i havent found anything youve written that i have read to be particullarly combative. you simply defended your point of view of something that has benefitted you in your life practice, no harm there, as long as you arent so attached to your opinion as being 'the only right one' that you ignore or intentionally do harmful things to others with differing views. though we havent interacted directly, based on my preception of your posts i believe you have strong integrity as well, good job for that chris

your statement about "intoxicants", as you call them, belies your ignorance w/ the types of intoxicants that many here are likely talking about, some psychadellics can be scary as hell; like YOU said "...not all in the same way" of course his statement was refering to "sutra reciting" at that moment to fa-ta, but the meaning of his teaching reaches far beyond a limited conversation w/ fa-ta, which is what i was trying to point out. as the zenster said to fa-ta "He who recites the Sutra with the tongue and puts its teaching into actual practice with his mind 'turns round' the Sutra. He who recites it without putting it into practice is 'turned round' by the Sutra" of course he did that, which further exemplifies our (me & pranaman's) point. the true essence of mind can be neither tainted nor defiled by externals it is the internal delusion which does so. for you to assert the things you have in this post is to contradict yourself. pranaman's last post far better illuminates the potential of the mind correctly focused during that experience. chris

that is hilarious! and seems to be pretty true at the same time; however i would add the word 'only' in front of once

i also should have qualified my "anything". by anything i meant anything you do that doesnt involve the creation of or the perpetuation of suffering; dishonesty creates suffering for one or the other so this is necessarily connected to the "perpetuation of suffering".

well, i'd posit that "you arent there" if you hit on any of your three bullet points (what i mean is you deliberatly hurt people, or were dishonest, etc.) however your last two points are pretty one sided. i agree that the drug isnt what makes you "enlightened" it is your mind. but saying that drugs are "superficial at best, and potentially delusional", while i agree that they are potentially delusional, is just your preception. drugs alter your preception, so does meditation, so does exercising, so does overeating, so does undereating, so does.... and these are attributable to chemical changes in your brain taking place (e.g. endorphins produced from exercising), or moving into different brain wave states. i feel like i quote this dude to damn much but what the hey i'll do it again: "whether or not ______ will enlighten you or not, or benefit you or not, all depends on yourself" (fill in the blank with anything please) -hui-neng 6th zen patriarch

or maybe you'll end up like william burroughs aka william lee