Birch Tree

Hello friends, I would welcome your thoughts on a couple of things that I have been thinking about. First of all, I have been reading selections of the Pali Canon (an English translation). At any rate, I have been struck by a couple of things as I have been reading. First of all, I have been thinking about the Buddhist idea of impermanence. I find this idea to be quite appealing as empirically it seems that all things in this world are indeed impermanent. Thus, severing attachment to these things also appears to be spiritually and psychologically beneficial. I like this idea quite a bit and I've been thinking about it from a Taoist point of view. From my own personal readings, it does not appear that this idea is inconsistent with Taoist precepts. The Tao is unknown to us, but the manifestations that flow from the Tao (the "ten thousand things") are temporary, are they not? If this is true, then does it not follow that Taoist would also find refuge in the severing of attachments to the "ten thousand things"? Secondly, I am curious what some of my fellow Taoists think about karma and rebirth. Obviously these are central ideas in Buddhism, but I am curious to know what others think about these things. Lastly, I have a question for my Buddhist friends on these boards. As I have been reading these selections from the Pali Canon, I have a question that I ask in all seriousness about Buddhism: Is there a tension between the self-interest in attaining nirvana (enlightenment) and offerings for the benefit of all sentient beings? Let me explain what I mean by this question with an example: Suppose I just finished meditating and doing some mantras on my mala and I offer this up for the benefit of all sentient beings (which from what I can tell seems to be a fairly standard thing to do among Buddhists). Now to my question: why would someone do this--why offer for the benefit of all sentient beings? Obviously the pure of heart would do it out of love for others and I get that. However, I have also heard that doing this generates positivity for the practitioner and aids them on their journey to enlightenment (quite possibly through favorable rebirths). So is the idea to help oneself by helping others? Or is it merely an afterthought that one might actually help him/herself by offering for the benefit of all sentient beings? OR is this a way to get less developed practitioners into the habit of thinking about helping others? I also recognize that I could be way off on all of this as well and I implore your patience with me. My friends, I hope you will aid me by sharing your thoughts and wisdom on these matters as I try to clear up these questions in my own mind. I ask these questions in all seriousness and humility as I continue on my own spiritual journey. Peace and thanks, Birch Tree

Thank you, my friends, for your responses. I am sorry that I have had to be away from this thread for several days now--that was not my intention but rather I was called away unexpectedly but should have a bit more time in the coming days to post more detailed responses. As always, I sincerely appreciate the pearls of wisdom that you share with me. So many times you all have helped me on my spiritual journey and I am very grateful. Please accept my humble and sincere thanks for your responses, and I hope to respond on this thread in further detail in the next few days. I hope this is agreeable. Sincerely, Birch Tree

Hi Lucky7Strikes, I've never heard Krishnamurti, but I have a couple of his books. I've read "This Light in Oneself" which was great. I also have "The First and Last Freedom" on my bookshelf and it is a couple of spots down in my reading queue. I'll have to see if I can find some tapes of his somewhere. I really enjoy his discussions. All the best, Birch Tree

My friends, thank you for sharing your wisdom and insights with me. Forgive me if I do not offer a personal response to you, some of the posts have similar ideas that I will try to address. Stigweard: Good to hear from you again my friend. I am still benefiting from the wisdom you shared with me from the last thread that I started (several months ago now). Unfortunately, I still find myself falling into the old duality traps. I know that on some level there is no self and no distinction known as the individual, but I am unsure how strongly I believe this because in my own writing, words and actions, I still find myself making these distinctions. For me, this is certainly an area that I need to work on and when I read your posts they make so much sense to me--you have a gift for explaining difficult concepts such as these. If you have any ideas to help me diminish the duality of thinking in my own mind (eg. meditations or exercises that worked for you), I would be greatly appreciative. Marblehead: Good to hear from you again my friend. I hope that all is well with you. Athanor: Thanks for drawing the distinction between good and bad karma and the idea of getting rid of all karma. I have heard it both ways, but you have provided an excellent discussion of the difference between these and it is now much clearer to me why one might want to get rid of all karma altogether. Because of your unique perspective, I would like to ask whether or not you think the Taoist concept of "wu wei" is the same as what you are referring to when you say that you are living in the present? forestofemptiness: Thanks for your thoughts. I personally have heard Taoism with and without the idea of rebirth as well and was wondering what members of these boards think about the issue. My reading of the TTC also points to eliminating attachments but sometimes I get the impression that some Taoists become attached to certain types of energy work, Tai Chi, internal alchemy practices, etc. Of course many of these methods are worthwhile for mind/body/spirit development, but I suppose the lesson is that they are tools or "rafts" as 3bob stated. 3bob: I appreciate the words of Buddhist caution. Is what you are referring to the practice or meditation of "killing the Buddha" (which I've heard about from Zen Buddhists)? durkhrod chogori: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with your individualistic ideas regarding spiritual development. I've recently just finished Krishnamurti's "This Light in Oneself" and I completely agree that one's own spiritual and meditative experiences are individually experienced. However, in writing this, I realize that I may indeed be falling into a duality trap (the type that I talked about above in my response to Stigweard). Would you agree with this assessment? This is a struggle for me personally--how to maintain an individualist view of spirituality while at the same time realizing that all things are one in the Tao? Any insights you have on this would be greatly appreciated. de_paradise: I agree that the language "offerings for all sentient beings" does seem a bit stilted and pedestrian. I am wondering if you think a more emotional response would be appropriate? If so, do you think this would make it more difficult to avoid attachment? I am thinking that if I were to reflect on suffering around the world when making a sacrifice, I could certainly become more emotional, but might I also run the risk of becoming attached to the sacrifice itself? Also, there is a chance that I could be completely missing the point of what you were saying--if that is the case I apologize and hope that you will clear things up for me. innerspace_cadet: I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of other religions as well. I had never heard the phrase about the greatest warrior conquering oneself, but that makes a lot of senses. Lucky7Strikes: Thanks for clarifying this. I had never really considered this distinction as deeply as I should have. Cultivation practices that I have engaged in have always on some level been about cultivating the self--but as you point out this seems like a misplaced emphasis. Cultivation of being indeed seems to be cultivation without center. baiqi: Death and rebirth appear true and empirically this is the case. I am curious to know if you think the spirit (Shen as it is sometime called) continues after death? Everyone: My friends, thank you for sharing your wisdom and responses with a poor seeker like me. Your answers have been very helpful and give me much to think about. With sincere thanks, Birch Tree

ralis: Ok, I think I may have missed the point you were getting at but let me try again. I've thought about what you said and I am wondering if you were referring to a question of epistemology. I made the claim in my original post that empirically we can observe the "ten thousand things" and see that they are not permanent. But if I am reading what you are saying correctly, you are cautioning against leaning too hard on one's own empirical observations. However, your final line suggests that you also believe in the impermanence of the "ten thousand things" ("...the only absolute is change."). Athanor: Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your explanation of selfish-selflessness--this helps a lot. If you don't mind my asking, do you suppose a person who makes offerings for the benefit of all sentient beings creates "good karma" (or gets rid of "bad karma") for themselves? If so, would this in turn give them a better chance at a favorable rebirth (or help them in some way toward enlightenment)? Also, I am wondering if such an offering would help others gain favorable rebirths (or help them toward enlightenment in some way)? I am curious to know your thoughts on these matters. Thank you both for taking the time to consider my questions and to help further my understanding. Sincerely, Birch Tree

Hi ralis, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I personally have come to see Jiddu Krishnamurti's view of meditation and insight as informative--which fits with your assertion that the individual defines the experience, subjective as that experience may be. I am not sure what you mean about the stories. I apologize in that I am unfamiliar with the story of the discussion between a God and Buddha. Generally speaking, I am not a "literalist" in my interpretation of texts like the Pali canon, and also I currently have no physical teacher other than myself and the world. This is also in keeping with Krishnamurti's idea of meditation and insight, but I would like to save a discussion of Krishnamurti for another time unless you (or others) think it relevant in the current context. If you are willing to share some more of your time, I would welcome further explanation on the God-Buddha story you are referring to and how it connects to the questions I posed in my original post. Peace ralis, Birch Tree

I would probably sit quietly with them.

The best advice I can give you is don't be discouraged. Just because you went back to the habits you want to break doesn't mean that the day was a failure. No doubt you have learned something about yourself from yesterday's experience. You can use that knowledge to help govern your actions today and tomorrow. Also, the first step is often one of the most difficult--that being a true desire to change. Concentrate on purifying your desire for self-improvement and desirable behavior will follow in time. Don't be discouraged even you revert back to your bad habits from time-to-time. If your desire to change is true, and your struggle is honest, then each day is a success (no matter how the day went). Hang in there!

I just finished Level 2 of SFQ and plan to take the level 3 class with him the next time it is offered.

Steve f is right--which is why Magik is not limited to any one belief system.

Hi Spirit Ape, Before I became a Taoist, I practiced Wicca. I was a solitary practitioner and practiced what is known as "low Magik" or "kitchen Magik". Basically, this is the creation of Magik through the use of intention with very limited use of tools and/or ritual ("high Magik" is very ritualistic but is generally not any more or less effective). When casting, I did do some basic ritual like casting the circle three times. Also, I did have a book of shadows (which I still have) as well as a wand and a couple of other items but I kept it pretty simple. However, I avoided entering a coven as there are pros and cons when it comes to coven practice, and for me at the time the cons outweighed the pros. As for the Magik itself, I myself did not cast many spells, but the few that I did cast were very effective. It is important if you are going to practice Wicca that you do so with pure intention. Your Magik should not do anything to harm anyone else nor should you try to use Magik to influence or curtail the free will of others. Love spells and stuff like this are generally not a good idea as they have a way of backfiring on you. Also, I avoided summoning spells--I didn't want to summon something that I couldn't get rid of. If you cast spells for the benefit of others--that is for the best. You can cast generic spells of protection for yourself--that is generally ok to do. For the most part, my time practicing Wicca taught me to be more selfless and considerate of others. If you are serious about getting into Wicca, I would recommend starting out by buying a set of Tarot cards. Cast a cleansing spell on the Tarot cards each time you read them (use a Celtic Cross tableau to start--it is simple enough) and don't read for anyone other than yourself or friends and family whom you trust. The cards will absorb the energy of those you read for, so if you read for individuals who harbor ill will in their heart, your cards will begin to take on that kind of energy and will provide deceptive readings. Positive energy and good thoughts will help your Tarot deck stay true and clear (providing trustworthy readings). Having said all of this, I myself have left all of this behind. I do not practice Wicca or Magik to any appreciable extent anymore since I have become Taoist (though I may still read Tarot on rare occasion). The best advice I can give you is don't be afraid of the unknown. Give it a try and see if it is right for you. If it is, that's great--if not then at least you know that and can go forward from there. I hope this helps you on your journey. Sincerely, Birch Tree Edit: Typos.

Hi everyone, I have been practicing the techniques in Taoist Yoga for a little while now--I've had some pretty intense energy experiences but nothing yet that I would consider dangerous. I'm past chapter 1 and to the point where I get spontaneous MCO energy movement and when I practice the MCO I have energy moving up and down my front and back simultaneously. I sometimes feel energy emit in what feels like a concentrated way from my face and head at seemingly random times during the day and that feeling gets more pronounced and regular when I do sitting meditation. I'm not sure if this is to be expected or not. That is all I can offer. I am sorry that I can't say definitively that the techniques in Taoist Yoga are safe or dangerous. Also, something to ponder: It seems there is some similarity between the method of turning the light around in Cleary's translation of the Secrets of the Golden Flower and Taoist Yoga (chapter 1 in particular). Anyone else noticed this? Sincerely, Birch Tree

Hi Seth, I wish you strength and peace during this difficult time. There is something about being there that is important--it is healing in some way. Your father seems like a remarkable person. I wish you and your family well during this time of sorrow. Sincerely, Birch Tree

Hey sister! Yes, you are right--all of the mice died after I cast that spell...14 died that same night and the other 8 died by the end of the week. I'm sure I'll be paying for that in my next life. I did do an offering of apology to the mice, so maybe that will burn a little of my bad karma. As for your binding of your manager, I wouldn't see it as restricting his freedom any. Like you said, he's like an energy vampire that feeds on negativity--you don't want him feeding of your energy--that's just going to lead to him having a greater ability to feed off the energy of others and cause more harm. Indeed, I can't see that there is any harm in keeping that proverbial clove of garlic (binding spell) around your neck when you are around him. If you think about it, he still has the freedom to wreak havoc on the staff and if he has enough energy to overcome your binding (it is doubtful that he does) he still could possibly unleash his fury on you--your binding spell is just making it so he has to swim against the current if he wants to try to torment you. No freedom is lost, you've just made it much more difficult for him to feed off your energy. I'll try to call you later tonight. I've been having some interesting third-eye experiences and would like to talk with you about them. Don't worry, I won't call during ghost hunters. Later sis! Birch Tree

Tree04: Hey sis, I can't remember--do you work tomorrow night? If not, I'll try to give you a call. Birch Tree

Hi sister! You and I have talked a lot about this experience already so I will keep my comments brief. I would be very interested in hearing what others on this forum think about what happened to you. In my humble view, I think your experience that day was a break-through for you. It was a signal that you are ready for more frequent stillness meditations to help balance the "internal" part of the internal-external balance that we have talked about recently. You are such a giving person, always thinking about and helping others and the world--be sure to take time to cultivate yourself as well (balance). Sloppy Zhang makes a good point--just making a more conscious attempt to be more mindful will also help. It could be good exercise for gearing up to do sitting meditation on a more regular basis. As you know, when I was Wiccan I did a few binding spells--the one that I did on the mice in our house to get rid of them was exceptionally effective, but looking back I realize that it wasn't very kind to the mice (I'm sure I racked up some karma for that one). I certainly would have done things differently knowing then what I know now. As I said before, I think you are on the right path for you. In my view, your binding spell/energy protection was successful energy channeling and was very effective. The aura you saw shows just the beginning of what deeper meditation can open. It seems that you are effective at channeling energy outside of yourself (not a common gift) and I am sure that with meditation you would become even better. I hope I am not being too pushy--I don't mean to be pushy at all. I just think that to have the type of experience that you did the very first time you tried sitting (energy movement) meditation, indicates that you are ready to go even further down the rabbit hole. I just realized that I haven't asked you recently if you've done any more of these protective barriers/binding spells before work? All the best, sis! Talk to you later! Birch Tree

Hi Flynn, I didn't know you then either, but welcome back. Sincerely, Birch Tree

Hello fellow Taobums, Recently, I had the chance to hear an authentic Tibetan Buddhist Lama speak. She gave an excellent talk about impermanence. It was a wonderful talk and I found myself (a practicing Taoist) agreeing with most of it. I was fortunate enough to have the chance to ask her a question and I asked her something along the lines of the following (I don't recall exactly how I phrased it, but it was something like this): "Many Taoists, myself included, handle impermanence by looking inward and seeking the Tao--which is permanent. It would seem to me that striving to realize the Tao would lead people to better understand their own true nature and thus make them more complete people. It also would help people come to grips with the impermance in the world around them. Can you expound on the difference between striving to realize the Tao and Buddhist enlightenment?" Allow me to paraphrase her answer (since I don't remember it word-for-word): "Why do you want to realize the Tao? What is your motivation for wanting to realize the Tao? Is it because you want to become wise? Or is it because you want to help others to realize the Tao? It may be possible for you to realize the Tao, but trying to realizing the Tao for selfish reasons or impure motivations is not the proper path. If you seek to realize the Tao for the sake and betterment of all sentient beings, then you generate virtue and your path is pure. Your motivation is the key. When your motivation (in all things) is completely selfless, and you have completely obliterated your self-centeredness, then you attain enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a phrase we should throw about carelessly. This is something that is different than realizing the Tao." I then kindly thanked her for her answer--it has given me much to think about. I have been under the assumption that I should look inward for the Tao, since as Chuang Tzu says: "There is no place that the Tao is not", thus if the Tao is in me that is probably one of the easiest places for me to find it. As I meditate and still the mind, my belief is that I come closer to realizing the eternal. In doing so, I make myself a better person and after significant cultivation I should then look outward to help the world. The Lama's answer suggests something completely different though: improve yourself by improving the world. This means that the process is simultaneously--one need not cultivate oneself first and then look to improve the world. One can improve oneself while improving the world at the same time. Maybe this kind of practice is seeking to see the Tao in the world as opposed to looking inward during meditation? Also, before I had heard her answer, I had never really seriously reflected on WHY I wanted to seek the Tao. Upon truthful introspection, I found my motivation for seeking the Tao quite selfish, at least in the short-term. I want to understand the nature of the eternal, and I want to get to know myself better in the process. I don't think these motivations are intrinsically bad, but they are certainly not selfless. So I ask in all seriousness, what about the role of motivation in the seeking of the Tao? After meditating and thinking about the Lama's answer to my question, I am coming to believe that one's motivation might be important. So, I humbly ask for your serious thoughts and reflections on all of this. I am not trying to start another Taoist-Buddhist border conflict here on the forums, (and I hope that we can remain civil and respectful in our disagreements). My question is a serious philosophical one and I look forward hearing your thoughts on these matters. Sincerely, Birch Tree

My friends, Thank you sincerely for all of your thoughts on this thread so far. William Douglas Horden: Our discussion certainly has been no hinderance, indeed it has been very illuminating. When I was reading your post on nature and how one merges with space when one allows oneself to fall into the bounty and awe of nature, I couldn't help but think about how I feel when I am out in my old rowboat on the lake. The space, the breeze, the birds and the sounds. It is astheticly pleasing to be sure, but you are right--there is something deep and spiritual that one finds in nature. I must agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Also, I see your point about language not being able to express what we are *not* talking about after the light is turned around. Thank you for elaborating on this and for kindly answering my question. Vajrahridaya: Thank you for sharing this "Rigpa Glimpse" with me. You are right--it is deep and profound if one allows it to become so--and it is very relevant to my original thread question. Thank you for shring this. Marblehead: Thanks for your thoughtful response. Your answer correctly exposed the limitation of my either/or line of thinking when I asked this question to you. Indeed, I agree that it make sense that the true nature of the self lies both within the Manifest and the Mysterious. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Everyone: My friends, you have given me much to think about by sharing your precious treasures of the heart and mind with me. I am honored and humbled that you have taken the time and spent the effort to help a poor wanderer like me. I hope you know that I appreciate all of your contributions very much. At this point, I would be happy to consider my original question in this thread answered--indeed it has been answered in several different ways. I feel that I should take some time to reflect on the variety of responses that all of you have shared with me--I hope you will not hold such a selfish request against me. Please accept my heartfelt thanks for all of your thoughts and contributions--these discussions have helped me personally a great deal and I hope you have found them to be thought-provoking and enjoyable as well. I look forward to seeing you all on these boards in the future, and thanks again. Warmest regards, Birch Tree

My friends, The advice and wisdom you are sharing with me is priceless. Many thanks. Stigweard: Thanks for the explanation of the role of virtue. I apologize for not having seen those posts already. I really like your definition of virtue: "It is the spontaneous expression of one's personality when one is living true to one's nature." This makes a lot of sense, especially in the context of Wu Wei. Your second post references the teacher-student relationship, which as William Douglas Horden pointed out, most of us (myself included) do not live in areas where the the teacher-student relationship is mainstream. So, the question then becomes how does one realize their true nature in the absence of a teacher? As I wrote earlier, I myself have avoided seeking out a teacher because I consider my path to be my own. Maybe that is a bit of arrogance on my part, as I clearly have much to learn from others (this post is certainly proof of that). However, without a teacher, is it possible for one to discern their true nature? If I am reading your second post correctly, practices like Taijiquan and the classic texts like the Tao Te Ching are mirrors that help us discern "the core" by examining the 10,000 things. I also have had to learn virtually everything about Taoism from books (I am wondering if William Douglas Horden had to do this as well). Yet this has not been so terrible. I am beginning to think that one may be able to catch glimpses of one's true nature in the depths of meditation. For me personally, this is always when I have felt the closest to the Tao, and also when I have felt like I've learned the most about myself. I don't know how far meditation will get me, but I have been pleased with it so far. Thanks again for sharing your other posts, which were very relevant to our discussion. By the way, I didn't know about the Celtic Ogham script--thanks for sharing that too. William Douglas Horden: Thanks for the reply. Like you, I too have always been drawn to nature. I love nature, and the Galapagos Islands are on my list of places to visit before I die--that is really neat that you were able to visit there. In fact, before I was Taoist I practiced Wicca. I was drawn to Wicca mostly because of the high reverence Wicca places on nature. After I discovered Taoism, I came to realize that Taoism places a similar high priority on nature as well--and Taoism has other metaphysical and philosophical aspects that appealed to me more than Wicca. So I too must echo your reverence for nature. Nature is wonderful. Thanks for sharing this with me. Marblehead: Thanks for your clarification on steve f's post. I see that it is the state of Manifest where distinctions arise, but not the state of Mystery. If I follow you correctly, it seems that the state of Mystery is the spiritual realm (spiritual essence). This is thought-provoking and helps me to understand steve f's point of view. However, I am wondering how the state of Mystery relates to the true nature that Stigweard had referenced (in the second quoted section). This opens up a new question that I have: in which of these two realms (Manifest or Mystery) should we suppose that the true nature lies? If it is in the Manifest, then it is individualistic, personal, and probably different for everyone. If it is in the Mystery, then by definition it would seem that it would have to similar or even the exact same for everyone. I would hazard a guess (and please correct me if you think I am off course here) that if there is no distinction between the self and others, then the true nature of the self would reside within the Manifest. I would like to know if this seems correct to you or not. Thanks again for your clarification. Easy: Thanks for your response--you are definitely right--Lama Shenpen Drolma certainly has got me thinking. I am interested in your distinction between the Tao (which I take to be the universal) and the tao of Birch Tree. The first (Tao) is probably unknowable. As goldisheavy pointed out, we can probably get close to it, but will probably never actually get there. Still, this bring up the question--what does it mean to get close to the Tao? Is getting close to the Tao the same thing as getting close to the tao of Birch Tree (or Easy, or anyone for that matter)? If I may, your response about the old cat stalking reminded me of a poem that I read once. I don't remember the entire poem, but the part I remember went something like this (also your screen name reminds me of this too): "The right way to go easy is to forget the right way and to forget that the going is easy." I hope to hear from you again soon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts--they were very thought-provoking. Once again, thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts and for humoring me in my ignorance. I hope to hear back from all of you again soon. Sincerely, Birch Tree William Douglas Horden: Yes, definitely a happy coincidence! After reading the excerpt that you quoted, I couldn't help but think about the method of "turning the light around" mentioned in the Secrets of the Golden Flower. Do you suppose that the "the mind within the mind" referenced in the Original Tao is what is to be found when the light of consciousness is turned around on itself (turning the light around)? I'd be curious to know if you think these are the same thing. If this "mind within the mind" is something similar to our spiritual essence (for lack of a better term), do you suppose this is the part of us that existed before language? steve f: Thanks for the words of encouragement. I wish you all the best in your journey as well. Sincerely, Birch Tree Note: Edited because I didn't expect my new response to William Douglas Horden and to steve f to get appended to a previous post.

Hi steve f, Thank you for offering your thoughts. I have to say that everything you stated makes a lot of sense to me. If I may, I'd like to start with some of your last points and then work my way up to the beginning of you post. I must say that the experiential aspects of Taoism are one of its attractions to me. I have found much in my own personal self-searching and within my daily sitting meditations. This brings me to your second to last point, which is in regard to the realness of one's own personal experience. I am wondering if this is at odds with the idea that there is no distinction between oneself and others. Certainly, one's own experiences and perceptions define reality--I would definitely agree with this. Still, if I am the world, then is there any conflict between my acceptance of my own subjective reality and the objective idea that I and the world are one? I don't ask this question to quibble, but I ask in the spirit of honest curiosity. For me, this has still been a difficult point. As I wrote in my response to goldisheavy, I still have trouble seeing no distinction between myself and others around me. Perhaps this is a result of the poverty of my own spiritual growth, but I am not sure how I can bring myself to this conclusion, at least at this point in my spiritual path. Certainly, if I can make this leap, then your next assertion flows naturally and makes perfect sense: "If you strive to improve the world, you improve yourself. If you strive to improve yourself you improve the world." If you don't mind my asking, I would greatly like to know how you came to conclusion that self and others are one. I have heard others (some on this thread) who have stated something similar. I think this is a crucial idea, but I'm afraid that I'm not quite there yet. That said, this simple phrase you wrote is priceless: "Questions are alive - they keep you investigating. Answers are dead, they trick you into thinking that you understand." There is much truth in this. Lastly, I also agree with you that the Tao (Dao) is undefined. Thanks again for your thoughtful "rant"--it was probably the most thoughtful rant I've ever read. I hope to hear from you again soon. Sincerely, Birch Tree

Vajrahridaya: Thank you for your very thorough explanation. I will be thinking about it for some time to come. Much of what you had said in your post was also touched on in one form or another by Lama Shenpen Drolma in her talk on impermanence. I also want to thank you for sharing your own personal experiences about when you first began your spiritual journey. I remember feeling that way (the "I'll show them" mentality) when I was in college and embraced Atheism. It was an emotional reaction to my Catholic upbringing, but as I found out--it was a necessary step for me personally if I was to continue on my spiritual path (both me and my sister, Tree04, came to a point where we felt that our Catholic upbringing was limiting our spiritual growth, though our other siblings have remained Catholic). At the time (when I was Atheist), I soaked up the rationalistic views of Bertrand Russell and put my faith in intellectualism--vainly believing that it was rationality was superior to faith. I no longer hold this view, however, but rather I believe that both faith and rationality are important parts of a complete spiritual journey--and I have come to believe that spirituality can be found in this life in a meaningful way. This was one of things that drew me to Taoism. The search for the undefined Tao, with the idea that one can gain spiritual insights by looking inward. These two ideas are very appealing to me. Taoism has also afforded me a chance to know myself--I feel that I have learned a great deal about myself from my daily sitting meditations. However, my motivations have been "selfish" in the sense that I practice Taoism to advance myself further along my own spiritual path. The reason why I started this thread was that the Lama's answer to my question seems at odds with this motivation. However, you have offered me something new to think about--the idea that my motivation should be for the benefit of everyone and that I am part of everyone. I had not considered this before and I think it is an important insight that I will need to consider more fully. Still, I ask you this question in all honesty and respect: if my motivation is for everyone, and I am part of everyone, is that a motivation that reflects pure altruism? If not, will this motivation be sufficient to realize the Tao (or attain enlightenment in a Buddhist sense)? Once again, I thank you for your thoughts. I enjoyed reading your last post (I read it twice to soak it all in), and I look forward to your next reply. Sincerely, Birch Tree

My friends, Thank you all for your replies--this has given me a lot to think about. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I love this forum--one can ask a serious metaphysical question and receive serious answers. Please humor me as I would like to address some of your responses in turn: Tree04: As always, you have a way of cutting right at the heart of the issue. I did not want this thread to become an "us vs. them" thread. Especially since if it did, you and I would technically be on opposite sides (me Taoist, you Buddhist)--but clearly we are on the same side. I certainly would not have found Taoism without "going with my gut" and I think you are right about this. I've no idea where the rabbit hole leads, but I have enjoyed my journey so far--from Catholicism growing up, to Atheism, to Agnosticism, to Wicca, and now to Taoism. I have been a spiritual wanderer, but as the saying goes: "not all who wander are lost." The truth is that I have always been attracted to good ideas--and the message that I heard from Lama Shenpen Drolma was a message of introspective love and extrospective compassion for others. That's what I have come to think the crux of her answer to my question was: seek spiritual fulfillment with pure motives and a selfless heart. That is a powerful message and one that I don't see as being at odds with Taoism. Her answer allowed me to think about my personal search for the Tao in a different way. Also, you and I have had many personal conversations on these topics and I have the highest respect for your opinion. I appreciate your vote of confidence. As you know, I have come to understand the benefit of following good ideas, not dogma. Thanks again for your vote of confidence and for weighing in on this. William Douglas Horden: Thanks for your thoughtful response. It is interesting that you recommended "Original Tao: Inward Training and the Foundations of Taoist Mysticism" as I had just checked this book out from the library. I plan to read it sometime next month. The distinction that you brought up between the sudden schools and gradual schools of enlightenment is interesting. I just finished reading "The Secrets of the Golden Flower (Cleary translation)" which I found very thought-provoking. As I am sure you know, much of that ancient text is heavily influenced by Chan Buddhism, and I believe you are correct in stating that Chan Buddhism gave rise to the Complete Reality School. Honestly, I personally see the search for the Tao as a gradual path. You also make an excellent point about impermanence and the ungraspable "what". Seeking the ungraspable "what" can indeed carry you away to the non-dual unitary experience of the Tao. I suppose it doesn't really matter if the Tao is permanent or not. I've always thought of the realization of the Tao (as I defined it in my earlier posts) as equivalent to Buddhist enlightenment. I thank you for such a well-considered post. It has given me much to think about. durkhrod chogori: Thanks for the link to the videos. They are very interesting. Like you (and like I told William Douglas Horden above), I've always equated the realization of the Tao with Buddhist enlightenment. I see from your post that you would agree with this assessment. Your simple statement on experiencing it for oneself digs right at the heart of the matter for me. As I told goldisheavy in a previous post--I am an honest student of life, and I am willing to walk the path that I talk about. I have largely eschewed seeking out a teacher to this point because I want to discover my own path. Sometimes I have gotten lost in my spiritual journey--no doubt about it--but wherever I have spiritually been I have always learned valuable lessons. I just wanted to tell you that I appreciated your simple yet immensely important statement urging me on in my practice. Thank you. Stigweard: Thank you for your questions in return. The answer I would give is that in all of those instances, that which is happening is natural. If I extrapolated this answer to my original question about motivation and the Tao, is it reasonable to say that those motivations which are natural are the ones that lead one to seek the Tao? I'd be interested to hear your reply to my answer. goldisheavy: Again, I thank you for your response. I have no doubt that you are quite learned in the texts of the Tao. I understand your point that the Tao is undefined. It was not my intention to misrepresent the words of Lama Shenpen Drolma--I hope you will attribute any error in her teaching to my poor memory and not to her. I am humbly trying to relay the crux of what she told me as best I remember. I am not learned in the text or traditions of Buddhism, so I was trying to use my limited Taoist understandings as a perceptual frame with which I could relate to her answer. Also, I found your comments about selflessness intriguing. I personally did not know what the four extremes of Buddhism are. It seems to me that if one is to closely follow the avoidance of these four extremes, it is very difficult to talk about much of anything. Perhaps that is the point...the less said, the better and retire when the work is done? Still, I have to admit that the idea of motivation for seeking the Tao is something that I am still grappling with. If there is no distinction between myself and others, than seeking the Tao for selfish reasons will also benefit others--perhaps at some higher level of thought this makes sense, but I'm not sure that I've achieved such a non-dualistic mode of thinking yet. My honest introspection has led me to believe that I have been seeking the Tao for largely selfish reasons (my own spiritual fulfillment). But my interpretation of the Lama's message was that if I seek the Tao with a pure and selfless heart that is full of love, that would be best. It would generate virtue. There is a lot of appeal in this line of thinking to me as I find it hard to argue against such loving motivations. Maybe I need to see the duality between myself and others more clearly before I can realize the falsity of this duality? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Vajrahridaya: I have read many of your posts and even though I do not consider myself a Buddhist, I appreciate your point of view on many things. From my reading of some of your previous posts, you seem to have a thorough knowledge of Buddhist precepts and a good understanding of Buddhist texts. I would welcome your thoughts on my original question regarding the role of motivation in one's search for the Tao, as well as your thoughts about the similarity or difference between the search for the Tao and the journey toward Buddhist enlightenment. Please accept my sincere thanks to all of you for your thoughts. It is honest and forthright discussions such as these that make this forum the great place that it is. I hope that to hear more of your thoughts soon. Sincerely, Birch Tree

apepch7: I applaud your will-power. Best of luck to you. Birch Tree