RyanO

Looks awesome thanks, will definitely check it out.

This kind of reminds me of how enthralled I was by J. Krishnamurti. He argued against reliance on techniques and recommended no practice but choiceless awareness. But then I have to wonder: What does this sage's day look like? What does he practice? It's all well and good to talk about the method of no-method, and the realization of our intrinsic connection to the Tao. But surely there is also a place for methods and practices? And that Buddhist and Taoists practices might differ in a significant way and lead to different results? For instance, Krishnamurti practiced hatha yoga for hours everyday. He never talked about it in his lectures, but it was an integral part of his practice. I think it's a little patronizing to tell someone that methods are silly and then go and practice meditation or yoga without mentioning their importance. Still, I do resonate with the philosophy that by practicing methods you are not becoming more perfect or divine in the eyes of the Tao, you're just achieving harmony with something that is already there. But methods are important and worthy of investigation.

My friend just got a new smart-phone and is constantly checking it. I'm pretty sure that's not healthy.

I love it. IMHO, experiences like this are what separate Taoism from other more transcendental religions. A great insight into the nature of the manifest realm. Your words have the true oomph that only comes through direct experience. Nice!

Nice. Me too. They are very profound practices. Where did you learn them? Have you checked out Michael Winn's ebook? It's a great read and really puts it into theoretical perspective along with his version of the practice. He takes it to other levels and applications (eg yang practice smiling out to your aura, space, etc.), as well as elaborating on its dissolving potential, something I have not seen mentioned in Chia's materials. I realize I'm sounding like a cheerleader , normally not my style, but I just think it's that damn good.

Maybe today? I was going to start a thread on this very topic so it's cool I found this. I think the dissolving potential of the Inner Smile is often overlooked. I've found it to be profoundly effective. Pietro, have you read Winn's ebook on the Inner Smile? If so, what do you think about his take on it as a dissolving practice? He definitely takes to a different level than Mantak. He says that the cultivation of unconditional love, which is basically what the Inner Smile is, aids in the dissolving process. As you say there is some confusion over what exactly fire and water means. Winn says that the Inner Smile process is ultimately neither as it cultivates yuan non-duality. I agree that it is difficult to do and is best learned under a teacher with close instruction. This is one reason I regret that it's potential, especially as a dissolving practice, is often overlooked in the Healing Tao school. It is quite interesting for me to see the differences in emphasis these two schools have on dissolving. Does anyone else have any experience with either or both these methods and care to comment on their experience?

So this is one of those threads that makes TTB my version of a soap opera. I read this whole thread instead of watching TV and it was awesome. I mostly enjoy the communication of spiritual knowledge and other edifying aspects of this forum, but I don't know if it would be the same without all the drama. Like a soap opera, but real life!

Repeated for truth. Getting into the observer mode and just watching is very beneficial. It helps to have a regular meditation practice as this takes skill. I like the Inner Smile approach to becoming the observer. For more check out Michael Winn's ebook on the Inner Smile at http://www.healingtaousa.com/ Also you can check an article I wrote about a technique I learned from his Sexual Vitality Qigong called Deep Earth Pulsing which gets us in touch with Earth Jing and is very satisfying: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/14041-making-love-with-the-earth/

I also learned TM oh about 8 years ago. What rex says is generally correct. Initially I benefited from TM, but not because it's anything special. The technique you can learn for free on the internet, it's basically the same as Deep Meditation on http://www.aypsite.com/ I have problems with the organization. You can do some research on former TMers who had issues with its cultish tendencies. Check out http://www.suggestibility.org/ for a very critical opinion. I worked at Heavenly Mountain this summer where the Healing Tao retreats were being held. It used to be a TM center, but check this out: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7375/heavenly-mountains-developer-cuts-ties-with-group The funders had a serious falling out with the Maharishi. Bottom Line: The technique works on a basic level because meditation works. But it's not worth the money and the organization is suspect and demonstrates cult-like behavior. Much better to learn the AYP method.

I love Michael Winn's free ebook on the Inner Smile: http://www.healingtaousa.com/ Just enter your email and he'll send it to you (you can unsubscribe later if you wish).

No hatin' here bro I like your answer, especially the rich multifarious part, sounds fun! Though maybe I need a lesson in Buddhist cosmology. Taoism's beginning begins in Wuji, what about Buddhism? The previous universe? What about that universe? If it's beginingless cycles of dependent origination, how did that get started? It seems dizzyingly impossible. How did karma come about? The only thing that makes sense to me is a Primal Fire in the Wuji that's purpose is to create and explore the possibilities of reality. To me, the reality of this Fire is compatible with the Buddhist insights of DO and impermanence. My way of understanding the First Cause dilemma, anyway. OK, gotta get off computer

I think that even if this completion stage is reached, though there might not be a 'need' to return, beings might still engage with creation and still have some 'substance'. I feel like when I become liberated, I'll still want to have some fun and create some new things every now and then.

We're dealing with some heavy stuff here, though I like you don't mind engaging in heavy metaphysical debates. I also would like to say that while I don't agree with you I admire your passion and knowledge. My difficulty is how absolutely sure you are about what it is you believe. I'm guessing this is both from personal insight as well as things you have been taught. And while this response of yours sounds nice, underneath it is your belief that any purpose we make will lead to suffering and we will have been better off without having made that purpose and instead have focused our efforts on attaining liberation. Despite your arguments to the contrary, it still seems nihilistic to me.

Creating

Hi Vaj, Two questions: 1) First, I agree with Apech. Something that troubles me about your belief system is the possibility of being stuck for eternity in Samsara. It seems to me like this instills needless fear and serves as a conversion point for Buddhism, as in, you need to try for liberation now (adopt this religion) or else you will keep putting it off in future lifetimes as well and be stuck forever. So, according to you, does Samsara last forever, and if so, are there beings that will be forever trapped? 2) In your view, why is there creation? What is the purpose of existence? Is it a mistake or random accident or something else? Thanks.

Mantak Chia is coming out with a new book on the Taoist Medicine Wheel: http://www.amazon.com/Taoist-Shaman-Practices-Wheel-Life/dp/1594773653/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1288994433&sr=8-23 Sources say its estimated in December. But check this out, its the blog by the co-author: http://krisdevanorth.blogspot.com/2010/10/taoist-medicine-wheel-1st-instalment.html Looks like he has his personal version of the book out electronically (pdf and kindle), and the first four chapters free on his blog. I haven't read it yet, but it looks awesome and very relevant to this topic. Peace!

I hear ya Sloppy. I too have been looking for a comparable system of magick that works with the Taoist system in the same way that Bardon's works with the Western. I was considering doing Bardon's program but for one thing couldn't get past the discrepancy in the element system (since this is a huge aspect of his work). I've been researching how to synthesize the element systems. Eric Yudelove writes in his Tao and the Tree of Life (a comparison of Kaballah and Taoist alchemy) that since Bardon recognized the polarity of air and it's role in mediating fire and water that in fact wood is air(+) and metal is air(-). I like this analysis. Here is a link to my question to him and his response: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/14058-beginning-taoist-practices/page__st__80 I recently read this book and recommend it, especially for this topic. Fiveelementtao is coming out with a book on his Thunder Wizard path, which is distinctly Norse. http://www.thunderwizard.com/ However his understanding is heavily influenced by the Taoist system, in that he understands the elemental truths as being phases. So he has matched ether (spirit) with wood and air with metal. It makes sense but personally I prefer Yudelove's intrepretation. The spirit element in Bardon's system is akasha and doesn't seem to share the same properties as wood. I also have a book called Magick, Shamanism, and Taoism which attempts to combine Crowley's style with Taoism but I think it fails. Though it might be worth a look, as it contains ideas for tools, altar set up, etc.: http://www.amazon.com/Magick-Shamanism-Taoism-Richard-Herne/dp/B000B8K7L8 I have a Kindle and purchased the Taoist sorcery book because of my interest in this topic, haven't read it yet though, thanks for the link. Though I don't like the title (art of getting even). I currently do Healing Tao practices and my primary teacher has been Michael Winn. Though he doesn't label it as such, it is very much Taoist magick. I practice Primordial Qigong, which is very powerful and magickal: http://www.taichi-enlightenment.com/ I dont like the tai chi enlightenment thing but I guess that's marketing. It deals with the directions, elements, etc. Might be worth a look. It's 'sister' form, Deep Healing Qigong, is also very magickal. In general the Healing Tao is a kind of internal magick (alchemy). It's not so much focused on the outer. But Winn says that holding an intention and doing primordial is a powerful way to manifest that intention. Though he's careful to say ask for what you NEED and not what your ego desires, though what that means is another topic in and of itself. Anyway, thanks for bringing up this topic!

http://www.healingtaoretreats.com/ Still plenty of great retreats to go, last minute sign ups welcome. And when you get here, drop me a line, I'm working in the kitchen

Yeah it's a shame vampires (esp. as seen in the media) have such a romantic, glamorous appeal. In reality true vampirism (to the extent that it is real) is anything but beautiful.

Says video is 'blocked in my country'. Where do yall live?

Mysticism isn't irrational. It's non-rational.

I used to meditate in this position often, but have since adapted because of the pain not during the meditation, but the coming out of the numbness afterwards. It was painful and just didn't seem healthy. Nowadays I mostly sit in a chair (especially since I've had a recent ankle injury). As Michael says, though, Seiza is a useful position because it is easy to stay upright. A Zafu between legs and butt is a good way to go. One thing I like doing is spreading your knees and legs so that your butt is sitting on the Zafu and the Zafu is on the ground. It is quite comfortable.

I highly recommend reading Harris' The End Of Faith, especially its last chapter on spirituality. He advocates for a rational spirituality, one that is non-rational but not irrational. Anyways, considering all the discussions we've been having on Buddhism I thought I'd throw this into the mix. I'll let him speak for himself. Pretty cool stuff. Killing The Buddha By Sam Harris “Kill the Buddha,” says the old koan. “Kill Buddhism,” says Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion. The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Like much of Zen teaching, this seems too cute by half, but it makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught. In considering what Buddhism can offer the world in the twenty-first century, I propose that we take Lin Chi’s admonishment rather seriously. As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism. This is not to say that Buddhism has nothing to offer the world. One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. In a world that has long been terrorized by fratricidal Sky-God religions, the ascendance of Buddhism would surely be a welcome development. But this will not happen. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Buddhism can successfully compete with the relentless evangelizing of Christianity and Islam. Nor should it try to. The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism. Even in the West, where scientists and Buddhist contemplatives now collaborate in studying the effects of meditation on the brain, Buddhism remains an utterly parochial concern. While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced. Needless to say, all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion—and, what is more, they are quite certain that it is the wrong religion. To talk about “Buddhism,” therefore, inevitably imparts a false sense of the Buddha’s teaching to others. So insofar as we maintain a discourse as “Buddhists,” we ensure that the wisdom of the Buddha will do little to inform the development of civilization in the twenty-first century. Worse still, the continued identification of Buddhists with Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world. At this point in history, this is both morally and intellectually indefensible—especially among affluent, well-educated Westerners who bear the greatest responsibility for the spread of ideas. It does not seem much of an exaggeration to say that if you are reading this article, you are in a better position to influence the course of history than almost any person in history. Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, and impedes genuine inquiry, I believe that merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree. It is true that many exponents of Buddhism, most notably the Dalai Lama, have been remarkably willing to enrich (and even constrain) their view of the world through dialogue with modern science. But the fact that the Dalai Lama regularly meets with Western scientists to discuss the nature of the mind does not mean that Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Dalai Lama’s own lineage, is uncontaminated by religious dogmatism. Indeed, there are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison. No one is served by a mode of discourse that treats such pre-literate notions as integral to our evolving discourse about the nature of the human mind. Among Western Buddhists, there are college-educated men and women who apparently believe that Guru Rinpoche was actually born from a lotus. This is not the spiritual breakthrough that civilization has been waiting for these many centuries. For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity. The Problem of Religion Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it has been at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in recent decades. Why is religion such a potent source of violence? There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully articulate their differences from one another, or cast these differences in terms of everlasting rewards and punishments. Religion is the one endeavor in which us–them thinking achieves a transcendent significance. If you really believe that calling God by the right name can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and unbelievers rather badly. The stakes of our religious differences are immeasurably higher than those born of mere tribalism, racism, or politics. Religion is also the only area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give evidence in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet, these beliefs often determine what they live for, what they will die for, and—all too often—what they will kill for. This is a problem, because when the stakes are high, human beings have a simple choice between conversation and violence. At the level of societies, the choice is between conversation and war. There is nothing apart from a fundamental willingness to be reasonable—to have one’s beliefs about the world revised by new evidence and new arguments—that can guarantee we will keep talking to one another. Certainty without evidence is necessarily divisive and dehumanizing. Therefore, one of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith. While there is no guarantee that rational people will always agree, the irrational are certain to be divided by their dogmas. It seems profoundly unlikely that we will heal the divisions in our world simply by multiplying the occasions for interfaith dialogue. The end game for civilization cannot be mutual tolerance of patent irrationality. All parties to ecumenical religious discourse have agreed to tread lightly over those points where their worldviews would otherwise collide, and yet these very points remain perpetual sources of bewilderment and intolerance for their coreligionists. Political correctness simply does not offer an enduring basis for human cooperation. If religious war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed with the dogma of faith. A Contemplative Science What the world most needs at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community. For this we need to develop an utterly nonsectarian way of talking about the full spectrum of human experience and human aspiration. We need a discourse on ethics and spirituality that is every bit as unconstrained by dogma and cultural prejudice as the discourse of science is. What we need, in fact, is a contemplative science, a modern approach to exploring the furthest reaches of psychological well-being. It should go without saying that we will not develop such a science by attempting to spread “American Buddhism,” or “Western Buddhism,” or “Engaged Buddhism.” If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist.” No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this, but most Buddhists do not. Consequently, even if a person is aware of the timeless and noncontingent nature of the meditative insights described in the Buddhist literature, his identity as a Buddhist will tend to confuse the matter for others. There is a reason that we don’t talk about “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra,” though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra. Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all. In the same way, once we develop a scientific account of the contemplative path, it will utterly transcend its religious associations. Once such a conceptual revolution has taken place, speaking of “Buddhist” meditation will be synonymous with a failure to assimilate the changes that have occurred in our understanding of the human mind. It is as yet undetermined what it means to be human, because every facet of our culture—and even our biology itself—remains open to innovation and insight. We do not know what we will be a thousand years from now—or indeed that we will be, given the lethal absurdity of many of our beliefs—but whatever changes await us, one thing seems unlikely to change: as long as experience endures, the difference between happiness and suffering will remain our paramount concern. We will therefore want to understand those processes—biochemical, behavioral, ethical, political, economic, and spiritual—that account for this difference. We do not yet have anything like a final understanding of such processes, but we know enough to rule out many false understandings. Indeed, we know enough at this moment to say that the God of Abraham is not only unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man. There is much more to be discovered about the nature of the human mind. In particular, there is much more for us to understand about how the mind can transform itself from a mere reservoir of greed, hatred, and delusion into an instrument of wisdom and compassion. Students of the Buddha are very well placed to further our understanding on this front, but the religion of Buddhism currently stands in their way. Killing The Buddha, Sam Harris, Shambhala Sun, March 2006.

Underwater footage: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=10735329

I am filled with sadness about this disaster. Tragic.