forestofclarity

Interesting quote from Zhuangzi (Ziporyn trans.): I am still not sure what to make of this Taoist "stillness of the heart." I suppose it is a natural stillness developed over time, rather than a cold indifference or an apathy. I can attest that when I am more aligned, things don't move the heart either-- not big things like my parents dying, but little things like people cutting you off in traffic. So I suppose it is possible. But is it worth it?

Actually, it is the Buddha who makes this distinction, not Western Buddhists. I think it is important to read traditions in their wider context, and condition the yi (to steal a phrase from Damo) by reading the source documents. Right concentration is samma samadhi, the 7th step on the Eightfold Path. Vipassana is the 8th step, samma sati or right mindfulness. You will also see this tracing through various historical sources, including Chan, Tien Tai, Tibetan sources, etc. This is not to say that the two are always or forever separate, but typically they are initially presented in that way. And this is how it is presented in the Pali suttas, so it is clearly not a Western innovation. I think if you look a little more closely at Nan/Bodri's stuff, you will find it in there as well. I think what is important to keep in mind with both dharma and Taoism is the overriding view (in this case, I must unfortunately refer to the conceptual view, which hardly deserves the label "view" at all). In both traditions, there is no fixed, permanent basis upon which to erect one's concepts. In Mahayana Buddhism, everything is empty. In Taoism, the source is mysterious and change is constant. It is said that the Buddha taught 84,000 dharma gates for all the various people, so to reduce everything to one teacher and one teaching is a bit off in my mind. In Taoism, it is said that the flexible tongue lasts until death, whereas the inflexible teeth crack and break. The Tao being formless, the tongue would be closer to it than the teeth, and likewise, I presume that an open flexible mind is closer to the source than one that is not. That is one reason why I am always suspicious of fixed views-- it is not unlike a qi block. When the mind is fixed, it doesn't flow and adapt which is a real problem since everything is flowing and changing constantly. This is one reason I am usually suspicious of "one way" or "only this" statements. You may be surprised that there is no agreed upon definition of samadhi or jhana in Buddhism. There are sutta jhanas, as elaborated in the Pali Suttas. These tend to be softer and easier to attain. There are Visuddhamagga jhanas, based on the ancient commentarial tradition. These jhanas are much more difficult to attain. And the spectrum continues--- some people say it isn't a jhana until it last 15 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours, 72 hours, a week (I've heard all of these!). This isn't to say that one way is right or wrong, it is to say there are different methods for different people. Now some teachers will say that soft jhanas are insufficient for sustained insight, and other teachers will say that hard jhanas tend to narrow and harden the mind, making insight more difficult. It can be hard to find a good balance based on one's personal karma and potential. I see Master Nan in a way as a sort of world class athlete, perhaps a triathlete. If you only take being a high level triathlete as being "genuine" exercise, then certainly you may look down on professional and Olympic athletes who only focus on one sport. You may also poo poo State champs, and definitely would not look twice at the best swimmer in the county. But you see, that is a narrow definition of "exercise." Quite frankly, even the average Joe or Jane who eats right and works out several times a week is engaging in exercise, and will certainly realize health benefits. Perhaps not the extreme bodily and mental control evidenced by a triathlete, but certainly getting their heart rate up may extend their life. Their mood will likely improve, they will weigh less, and so on. But of course if you are a busy person with a family and a job, and you work out often and watch your diet, you should be fairly happy with your health results. However, if you definition of "exercise" is what a triathlete does, you will spend your life disappointed. Of course, not everyone can be a triathlete, and many people I imagine end up with broken and damaged bodies for the attempt. If you are some one who has access to a great teacher, and you can spend 16 hours a day cultivating extremely high states of concentration, then I say go for it. However, Buddhas and realized beings have infinite compassion, and know that not everyone can achieve this way. That is why there are many methods. If you say there is only one method, or that the dharma is only for the few, then you are denying the limitless compassion of the Buddhas. One of the reasons Tantra arose in India is to assist lay people to achieve insight working with their circumstances. Later on in Tibet, of course, it was monasticized. Many Chan methods developed when Chan monks were unable to practice full time in meditation. Of course, the fruit of practice arises in one's direct experience. When it does, then it is not a matter of book quotes or conceptual debates, you can simply look and see.

@anshino23, hopefully I have addressed at least some of your points above. If not, let me know and I can expand, I am trying and failing not to write a novel here. However, keep in mind I do not see myself as a representative of the Tibetan tradition--- in fact, I am doing Taoist practices because I don't want to spend the time developing further in their system. I cannot do hours of prostrations/mantras/etc but I can do longer periods of tai chi/qigong, etc. Imagine if I come up to you and said "qigong is just waving your arms." In fact, this has been said on this board a number of times. Now, you say "well, that has not been my experience at all." You would not need contact with countless teachers and disciples in genuine lineages to know that what I'm saying is nonsense. You would know because having learned and practiced qigong yourself that it is not "just waving your arms." In fact, you would likely say that my conclusion expresses a fundamental lack of knowledge about qigong. But I say that I have had contact with qigong for a long time, and I know many qigong students, and all they do is wave their arms. Is my conclusion justified by the premises? It is not if there are in fact qigong practitioners who are not "just waving their arms." So it is not a matter of becoming familiar with all practitioners, an impossibility, but a matter of becoming familiar with a few knowledgeable practitioners. One black swan disproves the premise that all swans are white. The problem with most Western students in my experience (including me) is that we simply do not follow the instructions as we are given them. We add, we subtract, we do what we want. Then we are often surprised as the lack of result. In addition, most Westerners I have come across have not been given genuine teachings, and if they do, they don't follow the instructions. Accordingly, of course there are hoards of Western (and probably Eastern, but I don't know) students of Buddhism, Tai Chi, qigong, etc. who are in fact "just waving their arms" or "just imagining pictures." But the branch does not always reflect the root, and to say the root is weak because the branch is weak is not always correct.

Actually, that has not been my experience at all, although my experience is quite limited. In my experience, rigpa is integrated into deity practice, not separate or apart from it. If you were to join Tergar and work through their program from the beginning, you would spend 3-4 developing concentration and insight, 3-4 years developing Mahamudra, and then you learn deity practice. For more, see Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's Dzogchen Deity practice for a good start. I do know that getting advanced teachings from an actual Tibetan master before one has spent years in preliminary practices is very rare. Second, deity practice in my experience works if done properly. If it were a mere visualization exercise, I would not expect it to seemingly manifest tangible, real world results (even completely life changing results). Of course, it is possible that correlation does not mean causation, but for me, the correlation is too strong to be ignored. I suppose this is something people have to discover for themselves. Third, Damo seems focused on jhana and samadhi. Caveat here that I am not speaking about him as a person, but rather I am addressing his comments. Here is a further quote from his FB page: https://www.facebook.com/damomitchellneigong/posts/this-is-absolutely-the-truth-prior-to-the-above-listed-states-a-person-is-traini/2552179198342409/ Jhana and samadhi (depending on how you define it) are usually preliminary practices in Buddhism. Preliminary to what? Vipassana, or insight. Every Buddhist system has this separation. Why? Because jhana and samadhi on their own cannot liberate-- what liberates from a Buddhist POV is knowledge. Jhana allows you to settle the mind (to what degree is open to debate) so that you can then look and see what is going on in your experience. But it is the seeing that frees, not the stopping/stilling/tranquilizing, etc. But the Buddha was pretty clear that jhana alone cannot lead to liberate-- per the Suttas, his jhana mastery did not deliver him from suffering. Additionally, bodily or energetic transformation is no guarantee of insight. From what I have been taught, siddhis are tied to concentration (i.e. samadhi/jhana). So it makes sense that this would be a focus if one is trying to attain siddhis. So does deity practice give you knowledge? It can, because the way deity visualizations are constructed is very similar, if not identical to how the mind creates the world in dreams and in waking life.

So I watched the video. I found his take on Tibetan Buddhism interesting (in a bad way). Around the 29:00 mark, he is talking about people who say visualization works in Tibetan Buddhism. His response (more or less, boldface mine): To say that he is misinformed about something he claims knowledge of (had contract for a long period of time) is a bit of a red flag for me. As Wolfgang Pauli says, he's not even wrong--- because I don't think he honestly knows what he is talking about. It is a bit off-putting that he is so convinced of his point without showing any indication that he has learned anything about it. It sounds like he has heard about it (or had some cursory contact with it, but likely did not put in the time or effort to receive instruction in deity yoga). Deity yoga in Tibetan Buddhism is obviously a bit complicated, with general and special creation and completion stages depending on the specific vehicle. He is ignoring the fact that concentrating on deities and their environment develops shamatha, or concentration, and that building and dissolving detailed worlds can give one insight into the nature of all perceptions (i.e. vipassana). It also does contain stillness parts to it, so it is unclear where he is getting his information. But it strikes me as more than a bit arrogant to simply wave it all off as picturing deities. I'm sure others here can explain it better, I did not take to deity yoga personally. But I know this is a personal issue with me, and not a failure of the practice. Dalai Lama, who's own practice is centered around deity yoga, is a beginner? Um... ok...

Any insight on the theory behind it, and why it works or it dangerous?

Nice description of Ting. That makes perfect sense. Do they work at cross purposes? Or do they come together at some point? There's a similar debate in Buddhism, between "hard" (i.e. Visuddhimagga jhanas) and "soft" jhanas (i.e. Sutta jhanas). It actually goes beyond Theravada, because it also comes up in Mahamudra and Dzogchen. From my view of a Taoist perspective, the soft focus makes more sense since you're leaving room for wu wei and spontaneous arising. I like how Damo says you don't have to worry about feeling the right thing, it will automatically come up on its own.

I think the point is, if you only sink to the lower dantian, you won't open the legs. I appreciate the links: love the Tai Chi principles. Great! I will watch it today.

I've heard a number of debates whether these things are "created," or "uncovered," but either way the practice would be the same. Interesting point about sporty people reinforcing the machine-body feeling--- I suppose from a Taoist point of view, we could say that your intention (and until we reach wu wei, we probably always have one) is going to impact your practice one way or another. If I am following what he's saying, the yi would also shape the qi. I think this is why he is advocated the "relaxed" as opposed to "focused" approach. It may be that a focused intention would introduce contractions into the LDT that you don't want. Lately, I have been practicing sinking, so when I relax in standing, my awareness goes to my feet!

Well, Xing and Ming is a tangential point, and one I am not taking issue with. I would not say that cultivating the Ming aspects are unimportant--- if I did, I certainly would not be spending all this time on Taoist practice! When I first starting getting into this stuff, some one remarked that if you have a mind issue, talk to a Buddhist. If you have a health/body issue, talk to a Taoist. Of course, both paths include both, but I have found that as presented in the modern West in my personal experience, Buddhism has lost a great deal of Ming knowledge, and what is still available is difficult to obtain. On the other hand, most available Taoism I have had contact with has lost a great deal of Xing knowledge and tends to revolve around martial arts/healing (Damo being a notable exception to this!). After consulting the book, it is clear that Damo is a Ming to Xing person, and I am more of a Xing to Ming person. However, the point I was taking issue with was a reification of the mind--- using object-language to refer to what is objectless. I guess I was wondering whether this is an intentional strategic choice, whether it is a lack of understanding, or whether I was missing something. It probably doesn't really matter to me since I am working Ming issues and he appears to know his Ming well. I don't mean to undermine him or insult him if he is your or anyone else's teacher-- again, I don't really have much exposure to his stuff. TBH, I was just hoping to start a discussion because it is how I learn, and I was a bit disappointed no one was discussing this video that I thought was pretty informative. I appreciate the chance to work out some thought on this.

@Creation That's a good point--- as practice instructions, it makes sense. But I think it comes at a cost. Perhaps it is a provisional teaching later abandoned, but I found that refining the mind was extremely difficult. Of course, that difficulty may be due in part to too much focus on xing and not enough on ming. Nevertheless, such reification of the mind can lead to issues--- or at least it did for me. @anshino23 I appreciate Damo's knowledge--- I have listened to some of his talks and read some of his book. However, I see on this point I will have to respectfully disagree. Of course, I am coming from a Buddhist background, so naturally my propensity is toward Taoist teachings that are complementary with Buddhism. For example, Liu Yiming's commentary on Awakening to Reality (trans. Pregadio): Liu Yiming here is referencing the Platform Sutra of Hui Neng. This is important because of the difference between Hui Neng and his Shen Xiu in the famous "poem combat" --- Damo's view seems along Shen Xiu's line as opposed to Hui Neng. This ties Taoism into the mind-essence teachings of Chan. To paraphrase Mazu, "ordinary mind is the way." The Korean master Chinul puts it very clearly (trans. Buswell): From a Chan point of view, the fundamental nature is always here. It is not a "higher mind," it is the very essence of this mind right now. The trouble is that we fail to recognize it, or having recognized it, fail to sustain in (which in my mind, is where the Ming practices of Taoism come in. Chinul calls this sudden realization, gradual cultivation). And it must be so-- for otherwise, if the fundamental nature had to be cultivated or developed, it would be transitory and not fundamental. Of course, my knowledge is quite limited, both of the practices and of Damo's outlook generally. Again, I see much value in what he is teaching and am glad to accept the information he is offering. Appendix: The famous poems (at least how I recall them): Shen Xiu: Our body is the Bodhi-treeAnd our mind a mirror bright.Carefully we clean them hour by hourAnd let no dust alight. Hui Neng: There is no Bodhi-treeNor stand of a mirror bright.Since everything is emptinessWhere can dust alight?

I listened to this video yesterday. I found most of what he had to say interesting. However, there is something that I didn't like about it-- how he spatializes the mind @ 21:00 min. In this case, I don't agree that the mind has a location (i.e. it centers in the brain, and returns there when we have a thought). Rather, based on my (limited) experience over a long period of Buddhist meditation, location arises in the mind. It is more of a matter of habit where we typically center our attention. If you think about, it makes sense. If you look at a cup, the cup doesn't appear at the eye, where science says the light strikes. It appears like three or four feet in front of the eye. That's because it is not the eye that is projecting all of this, it is the mind. In this case, I think what he has done is built a habit of centering on the dan tian, and then relaxing into it. I imagine that many people when they are relaxed do not necessarily automatically sink into the dan tian unless they have already built a habit of it via qigong or some other exercise. If it were the case, I would expect many people would report dan tian-types of experience. On the other hand, people who intentionally place the mind in the dan tian do report many of the similar instances that he describes--- it happens a lot in Zen for example. Actually, what he says makes sense as to how Zen practitioners are able to generate quite a bit of internal power since they may spend quite a bit of time submerged at the dan tian, relaxed and concentrated. However, when I practiced Zen, this focus was let go at a certain point. Also, IIRC, when I practiced in Chicago, there was a lot of intentional dan tian placement. This is the only place I've practiced where people could do what I would call "spooky sh*t" that didn't make rational sense. Dwai still practices there, so he probably has better knowledge. Of course, there are instances where the center kind of dissolves and the whole panorama of experience merges together. I think many of his points are well-taken, but I decided I would discharge my thoughts.

Not to be the wet blanket, but trying a DIY approach based on online posts sounds like a really bad idea. If you want to do this stuff, you should find a teacher and establish a daily practice.

Can you provide a summary of the meditation? It is not clear to me.

I would add this as well: things are impermanent. That means naturally, things will dissolve naturally so long as we are not tightening on them. From a meditation perspective, there are at least two approaches to blockages--- 1) powering through them; 2) relaxing and dissolving. I find that 1) inevitably leads to problems. In the long run, 2) is a much better approach in my experience, although it may be more difficult to find. Before I was able to learn to relax the mind (an ongoing process, I assure you), I had to spend some time learning to relax the body (also an ongoing process). This is where some of the physical arts come in--- yoga, tai chi, etc. Of course, you will also find the two approaches there: some yoga teachers focus on stretching and holding, others on relaxing. If you learn to relax the body, you will eventually create a nice container for your meditation practice.

If I were to look at it again, I would definitely want to learn it from a teacher.

I was looking for something Taoist to read in my large collection of Buddhist books the other day. As it turns out, I have very few Taoist books, and most of them are boring academic treatments or obtuse Thomas Cleary translations. What is (are) your favorite Taoist book(s)?

I’ve been unable to penetrate the I Ching it even in English! 😂

I don't think it is the case that people with high intelligence are necessarily in a better position. I have spent a lot of time with very smart people at some very top level institutions. Many of them were stuck in their heads. Many of them were stuck to the surface of things. Most of them probably suffered from some degree of depression. I would say any "internal art," whether tai chi or meditation, would enhance your mental functioning for a few reasons if performed correctly. One is increasing basic concentration. If you can be present or focus for a practice period, you will build your concentration. A second is spending less time is distraction mode. If you practice tai chi for an hour instead of surfing the internet, you will be affected differently (for a Western take, see https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/). Third, I think it increases your efficiency. I can say from experience that meditation has helped me in my work life because I don't get distracted by irrelevancies--- I can separate how to think about something from how I feel about something. Many people cannot and end up making bad decisions. However, I doubt that practice alone can make up for one's potential, which is probably determined by your genetics, upbringing, karma, etc.

What I find interesting is the difference between the two translations. The Westernized translation, per Moeller, deals with very Western concepts--- the unchanging, soul-like "I" (a word that does not appear in the Chinese); the insightful moment of recollection (as opposed to forgetting); the doubting of what is real, the subjective POV, etc. The Western version is more about a transcendent soul that rises above the changes, whereas the Chinese version is more about leaning into the changes and immersing yourself into what is currently arising. My first go around with tai chi/qigong reflected more of this Westernized mentality. I can see this in the questions I asked: how do I make this happen? How do I accomplish this? How do I direct the changes that I want? I am driving the chariot and whipping the horses in this example. But now I can see this may be an error. It seems the better attitude is not asking how to direct the changes, but to let go of the resistances to change. Things are already empty and impermanent, and letting go will allow them to do their thing, or return to the source. It is less a matter of gaining (like an insight) and more of a matter of losing (opening, relaxing, sinking). Letting go of tension/blockages/etc. so changes can happen. Becoming the empty space at the center of the wheel so the spokes can balance of their own accord.

I have downloaded Seven Taoist Masters on my kindle and I am waiting for the Nei Yeh. In the meantime, I got Daoism Explained by Hans-Georg Moeller. I have been listening to it on my bike ride. Very interesting. Check out the butterfly story: Translation by Giles (i.e. Westernized): Once upon a time, I, Zhuangzi, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of following my fancies as a butterfly, and was unconscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly, I awaked, and there I lay, myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Between a man and butterfly there is necessarily a barrier. The transition is called Metempsychosis. (Giles 1926: 47; Moeller 2006: 44) Translation by Moeller (based on ancient Chinese commentary): Once Zhuang Zhou dreamt – and then he was a butterfly, a fluttering butterfly, self-content and in accord with its intentions. The butterfly did not know about Zhou. Suddenly it awoke – and then it was fully and completely Zhou. One does not know whether there is a Zhou becoming a butterfly in a dream or whether there is a butterfly becoming a Zhou in a dream. There is a Zhou and there is a butterfly, so there is necessarily a distinction between them. This is called: the changing of things. (Moeller 2006: 48)

We don't often THINK (or FEEL) it is a posture thing, that is why it is useful to have some one else check you. But to each their own.

It could be bad alignment, or it could be you just need to toughen them up. Hard to say. Do you have a teacher nearby who can check your posture?

As it happens, I have it and the Cleary translation. I haven't looked at them in some years, but last I did, I could not really make heads or tails of it.

Did you check it out?