forestofclarity

Depends on who you're talking to. Each person requires something different. I've seen many people who go nowhere because they try to do nothing, rather than try to learn some concentration or non-attachment.

I couldn't have said it better myself! Or could I?

Out of all the teachers, books, messages, etc. I've come across, in all traditions, a straight back is universally recommended. Now this is a hard thing to accomplish. There is a difference between feeling straight and being straight. It may be, sundragon, that what you think is straight is not straight at all. If you have some one take a long ruler (at least a meter or a yard), they should connect three points: the lower back, the middle of the shoulders, and the back of the skull. The first time I started doing this, I felt like I was tipping backward, which is not uncommon. Also, a lot of meditation teachers allow some people to reinforce their backs with pillows and cushions.

These strike me as the wrong questions. The question is whether so and so wrote a certain book. The question is whether the teachings, as applied, work as promised. And they do. How do I know? Because I use them and see the results. Suttas and sutras are only living in so much as they are experienced and lived, not as they sit on blank pieces of paper. When you say the ancient teachings may be irrelevant, I have to smile, for to me, it is like saying there is no such thing as sunshine. If the Buddhist teachings make you crabby, then by all means, set them aside. Luckily, there are many paths available.

I came across the 100 Character Stele the other day, which I found quite interesting. Instead of visualizations, chakra spinnings, tai chi, qi gong, and the rest, it seems to provide a rather simple formula to attain heaven's ladder. My questions have to do with the Chinese. For one, could the experts please tell me which characters are being used in the translated version, versus the reproduced stele at the bottom? And for translating "forget speech keeping," some translators interpret this to mean discursive thought, which sounds reasonable. I was wondering about other interpretations. http://gator.dt.uh.edu/~chong/CPoetry/luyan1.htm

Ha ha! I read it differently. Not surprising, given our different predispositions. I read it along the lines of not focusing on any particular phenomenon, but by being calm and focused, allowing the energies to arise on their own.

Some do, some don't. Gudo Nishijima and his students deny life after death. Others accept it. Ajahn Brahm says that it is not something to be believed, but to be found out for oneself. Zen, in my opinion, is not about trading in one set of beliefs for another, rather it is a way to transform yourself. Whether you believe in reincarnation or not is besides the issue.

It would seem odd to me that if this were true, than Lao Tzu wouldn't have chosen a better way to express it, such as "ducks" and "flowers" or "trees" and "horses" rather than choose the two life forms that happen to stand for something very specific (i.e. the sacrificial straw dogs). In fact, if I had to randomly choose a color and animal to describe interpretation, I would call it a "red herring".

Wu wei and non-attachment: Like all spiritual terms, they appear to be simple and easy, and they are. They are also infinitely deep and profound. This depth can only be experienced through ongoing practice. Attachment is what prevents we wei from arising. In a Chan/Zen context, there are seemingly paradoxical expressions such as the "mind of no mind," "speaking without speaking," "thinking no-thought." These are the same as wu wei. According to the Buddha, the problem is in the clinging, grasping, attaching, identifying, resisting, craving--- whatever word you choose. In Taoist language, you might call this "interference." Becoming free of this, one can allow all things to arise naturally and spontaneously. Our Buddha nature is our natural state. Ignorance and delusion are added to this. Accordingly, practice is about losing this excess, rather than gaining something new. As Lao Tzu said: Pursue knowledge, daily gain Pursue Tao, daily loss Loss and more loss Until one reaches unattached action With unattached action, there is nothing one cannot do Take the world by constantly applying non-interference The one who interferes is not qualified to take the world

This is not an economic or "Asian" problem. Google Stuart Lachs to find the scandals and problems in American Zen. No one should lose their common sense on the spiritual path, no matter what their route.

I think it really is straw dogs. Red Pine interprets it this way, too. For a good explanation, the sometimes Taobum allan blogged about this: http://atouchofancientszhouyi.blogspot.com...ch?q=straw+dogs

Non-attachment.

I would not say that this is wrong. Rather, like all truths, it is incomplete. Looking from outside to in, tuna and cows looks very different. But if you were to look from the inside out, then you would see how they are the same.

So when it rains, you don't get wet? Very sensible.

CowTao, I agree with you completely on this. In fact, I've made the same distinction on this forum. I actually cringed a little when typing out the quote--- I think non-attachment is much better. http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showtopic=10338&st=0

I wonder if the Taoist pope hangs out with the Buddhist pope!

According to Sheng Yen, when Buddhism came to China, it could no longer afford to be the forest-dwelling tradition it was in India. In India, there was a strong tradition of lay people supporting the monks, but when Buddhism came to China, there was no such cultural heritage in place. The pragmatic spirit of China affected Buddhism in the flowering of Zen (Chan). Now, it was time to cultivate in life, not away from it. "A day without work is a day without food," according to Hui Hai. This was driven home for me when I found this quote by Hui Neng: Yet this is just an extension of the three marks of existence. Having thought is a state. Accordingly, it is impermanent, not self, and unsatisfying. Having no thoughts is a state. Accordingly, it is impermanent, not self, and unsatisfying. Why cultivate the impermanent, the not self, and the unsatisfying? On the other hand, if we don't, then how do we learn it is empty?

Dwai, What Sanskrit word are you using for consciousness?

I attended a retreat there. Great center, beautiful location, good food, 100% on dana. Bhante Rahula is a great teacher. I highly recommend it.

I vote for knowledge is problematic. As a source, I cite the TTC below, and also Confucius. Anything that is added on, be it power, knowledge, possessions, family members, etc. is not a part of what we truly are. Anything that has a beginning must have an ending. Anything we receive, we will lose. Once we reach the limit, then we recede. The only thing we have is what we are, all the time. Everything else is just a guest. Confucius said:

Finding the truth isn't as much fun as arguing. Even if, in the end, no one changes their mind.

Granted. You find yourself in maximum security, solitary confinement, under a life sentence. The bad news: only one hour of exercise a day. Good news? 23 hours of cultivation. I wish there was no more clinging.

All methods are just methods. People get so attached to the methods! If you're to the South of where you want to go, you need to go North. If you're East, you need to go West. If you're South, going South won't due. So the question is not: which method is best. The question is, which method is best for you.

Mindfulness need not depend on whether one uses a mantra or some other object of meditation. In Buddhist thought, concentration and mindfulness are to be developed together, not one or the other. It does no good to have good concentration, but a dull, unaware mind. Or a sharp mind that can never stay put long enough to investigate anything. Having said that, I've found that concentration comes and goes, but the mindfulness I develop in meditation directly carries over into daily life. In Chan Buddhism, a student might start out chanting "Amitofu." Later on, the master may ask, "Who is reciting the Buddha's name?"

Not all Buddhists hold the world to be illusory. Theravedans often break the world into mind and body. Some Zen Masters would certainly smack the student if one said the world was illusory. Buddhists state that upon investigation, the world turns out to be empty. Because it is empty, if you cling to the world, you will suffer. So a Buddhist may say, that face will eventually turn to wrinkles, so why cling to the smooth face? And what is the relationship between physical health and enlightenment? At most, physical health is a temporary phenomenon.