Otis

I've only been here at TTB, for a short time, but I have to say that the discussion here is far more civil than what I'm used to, on the (now defunct) Myspace boards. So kudos to you all, for that. That said, I learned to enjoy being under attack, on certain boards. I wasn't engaged to win those conversations, but the rough-and-tumble of them forced me to be as clear, non-defensive, responsible and honest, in my replies. So some level of tension may be useful for helping keep us honest.

Good stuff!

May I ask: does that mean that you are practicing official Qigong from a book or other source, or are you finding your own Qi practices, following internal sensation?

Great responses, everyone! The only thing that I have to add is that time with family can be seen as an opportunity: not only to practice being centered, but also to bring to family that gift of calm and ease. Modeling that (without preaching about it) can help shift the dynamic for everyone. That way, too, when the triggering behavior occurs, your emotional response doesn't have to be: "oh, no, not again!" but rather "I'm so glad that I am choosing this path of calm". Rather than being an assault on your inner peace, it can be a reinforcement for seeking a path of peace.

That's good. Keeps things lively!

Stigweard, Kudos for seeing the contradiction within your previous presentation and the recommended flow of Taoism. Oh, and cool magic, too. I think you're heading in the right direction; creating a presentation that will actually bridge the gap to your clientele, without preaching a bunch of conceptual-, future-based mental mess. It's a tough thing to pull off, because there's such a culture gap between the Taoist and corporate postures. Best of luck with it!

I suppose this is true. It isn't relevant, however, in my personal practice, because I don't see any point in distinguishing "true compassion". I'll take what I can get. I remind myself to be compassionate, because my historical habits don't go in that direction at all, sad to say. What I am doing is just slowing myself down with the reminder, to see the situation from a less ego-centric point of view, before acting out of my old habits. Neither am I acting against my own desires, just reminding myself that compassionate actions are available in my repertoire, even if my instinct for compassion is not all grown up in me yet.

Well said, z00se. The way this has played out in my life, thus far: When "I" am too involved in the doing, I can feel resistance to my efforts, within my body, or out in the world. The extra effort is being translated into stress. When I am using my will to get things done, I tire quickly, and lose focus. But I have found that I can "lean" in the direction of growth, healing, etc., and my body will follow through and fulfill my desire, without a lot of effort or fatigue. I can't make it happen, because the tools belong to the greater me, not the smaller me. But "I" can at least be involved in helping corral my thoughts and energies in a useful direction, and then trust, as I get out of the way of the details.

Great! Well said!

Good question. In my own life, that's one that I face quite a bit: how empty can I be, without grinding to a halt (or crashing into something)? I think that's one of the reasons I love dance as a practice so much. All I have to do is get on the dance floor, and then my body takes care of the rest. I am practicing "not doing" in action. I learn to trust my body/whole self to do what it needs to do, without "my" interference (i.e. the interference of my ego). I see the truth in "wu wei", and experience the effortlessness of "not doing". But I am also cognizant that I am not yet balanced enough to let go of all trying. So I am choosing, for now, to see "wei wu wei" not as "doing without doing" but rather as a cycle: doing/not doing. "I" am involved as little as possible, try as little as possible, worry as little as possible, but I still make sure the bills get paid and dishes get done. I am also aware of the need for me to be gentle, aware and caring, else I bruise others with my spontaneous "wu wei" confidence. Again, I think the need for that fades with time and practice, but for the time being, it keeps me out of trouble, and is a decent discipline for my mind and appetites.

Nice.

In my view, we're all experiencing Qi all the time. We just don't usually label it as such, so we don't think of it as important. Qi, as I understand/relate to it, is merely the energetic version of my body. So, all I need to do, to feel Qi, is to listen to the sensations that my body already gives me. If I've been ignoring my body for a long time (as I was until a few years ago), then when I put my attention there, all I experience is chaos, random-seeming noise. But with continued practice (especially with moving meditation and stretch), I began to experience (much of) my body very clearly and fluidly (some parts are certainly more accessible than others). Especially in movement, I can feel the arcs and spirals that are inherent in the structure of my body. This is a big part of why Sufi whirling and, dancing, and Yogic stretching can be such excellent avenues in to understanding Qi. I can transform my experience of my body from one of a compartmentalized structure (the conceptual body map), to just an open column/sphere of energy/sensation, without distinct parts or separation (the sensation of internal unity), even without the distinction between pleasure and pain. As for getting a glimpse into that open, clear experience of Qi, I recommend exercises that involve balance. Anyone who does handstands knows that aha! feeling, when the body just finds its natural balance point. That sensation is a beautiful in, to improving my relationship to Qi throughout my body. Simpler balance exercises that reveal the aha! of Qi include: balancing a book on my head, balancing while sitting on a yoga ball, standing on a balance board, etc.

Wow!

Maybe I should wait until there is a "raising children" thread (or start one myself), but I want to jump in here. (Warning: some gross generalizations ahead). The problem is not that we want our kids to learn about virtue; it's that we enforce virtue. What we really teach kids is: "do what I say, and you'll make mommy/daddy happy." We teach obedience, rather than foster awareness about consequences. Morality is usually taught in context of an authority figure; that's a big part of why new parents tend to turn back to their religion of birth, because they don't know how to teach morality without it. The only morality they were taught themselves, is that which is reinforced by the concept of God the rewarder/punisher. The other lynchpin in moral education is the Western version of Karma, what Xtians would call "fairness" or "Justice". It is the magical belief that if you just do "good" that you will be rewarded with pleasure, and that if you do "bad", that you will be rewarded with pain. What a shock, for every kid, as they emerge from their parents' belief bubble and find that the world does not work like that at all. This is why shame and guilt are such potent teaching tools for parents, because it's a way of inculcating pain (from within) as an automated response to "immorality". The only way to keep you obedient to my concepts of right, is to teach you to be your own punisher, in lieu of me. I will even teach you that your inner punisher is actually the voice of God, letting you know that you have displeased him. How to raise kids to recognize and embrace virtue, without the carrot and stick of authority figures and shame? That's the material of a full thread, but I'll try to summarize my view: Teach them awareness by exposing them to as many points of view, as many different facets of life, as possible. Always point out (preferably without punishment) how other people might view their actions. Don't make the lessons black and white, don't talk down to the kids, always treat them like the Buddha that they already are. IMO, what they need from us is guidance in maturation, not a whole conceptual framework on what is real, and what is right.

Good distinctions.

This reflects my view as well.

Great discussion and contributions, everyone! My distinction between the two: Belief is always a conceptual thing, a crystallization of an idea/thought into a fixed perspective, a node of "assumed reality". Belief comes with an "is" attached. The purpose of belief is not to make the world larger, but to make it smaller, more manageable, less scary. If I believe that "America is always right", then I have pushed away all the possible beliefs that might contradict with that. Faith, however, has room to extend beyond the conceptual, into the mystery. It is merely the lack of doubt. The above example about gravity is apropos, because we don't have to have any beliefs about gravity, whatsoever, in order to be calmly without doubt about it. Faith often coagulates into belief, which is how mysticism turns into religion. I had an amazing experience of the sublime! Unfortunately, now I'm going to claim that the sublime was named "God", and that I now know the nature of God, based upon my experience. I do think that what Taoism recommends is surrendering belief, but living in Faith. Let go of the "is" and of the "I know" and instead live fully (without doubt) in the mystery. This is a very scary place to live in, especially at first, because the beliefs that I've accumulated in my life had at least helped manage my interaction with reality. They've been my training wheels. How can I not be clumsy, at least at first, when I move into the unknown? But if I'm not willing to surrender the training wheels, I will never learn balance, never learn to ride the bike. My personal position is: have as few beliefs as possible, and make sure that the beliefs that I do hold on to, make as much sense as possible. And all my practice is toward living in Faith (i.e. without doubt).

LOL! This reminds me of the joke: "87% of all statistics are made up on the spot!" I do hear a great deal of people in this thread saying: "it can't be!" But it's impossible for you (or anyone) to have the experience of "it can't be". That experience doesn't exist. Your view has to be opinion, which could never be proven. No one here is arguing that "drugs are the way to go". They're just saying: substance did, indeed, help me out. Why not trust them, that their experience actually worked for them, as they said? Are the nay-sayers going to insist that others' experiences are not valid? Talk about a belief system closing off someone's minds to other possibilities!

Are you going to start a new thread on that? I'd love to take part in that discussion, as well!

Aaron, Goldisheavy: frankly, I agree with both of you. I think all of Gold's critiques of religion and thoughtless belief are right on target. Institutionalized provincialism (whether in the form of religion, tradition, expectations, etc.) is one of the great sources of misery and conflict in the world. I also think that Aaron is right about his "accept the world as it is" point. How can I find peace in the world, if I am always focused on "what's wrong" with the world? Isn't it possible to embrace both points of view? That we can see and point out what is wrong with our society, without being emotionally embattled by it? I don't think that acceptance means "don't do anything about it." It just means, "don't struggle against life". So my steps in life are to 1. accept the world as it is (yin), and then 2. do what is within my power to change my environment for the better (yang). I think that is what Thich Nhat Hanh was advocating with Engaged Buddhism, and what Gandhi and MLK were practicing with Nonviolent Resistance.

I liked your OP quite a bit, Aaron, but I like this post even better. Cheers!

May I share? I do some stunts/pranks/dance, as part of my searching for paths of least resistance:

Your post is a bit brutal, but that said, I love it. It would be foolish of us to wag our fingers at Abrahamic dogma, but then embrace Eastern traditions and practices with blind faith.

**a little let-down** Not that I needed to know what you looked like naked, Steve, but it is one helluva great avatar!

Regarding the nature vs. nurture sub-topic: it is striking that siblings often have fundamental world-view and life strategies differences, even when essentially "raised the same". Even taking away gender differences, the second-born son may have a very different "environment" than the first-born, especially for the formative first years. With two children, there is a new concept of scarcity (mostly of the parents' attention) and competition. This suggests a very different set of strategies for getting each kid's needs met. And, IME, many of those strategies learned in the first 5 years, become part of the (unconscious) world-view and reaction habits, for the rest of the person's life, if they don't wake up from them.