Otis

Sure! Actually, I wrote that for the sake of others, so that hopefully they'll take a deeper look at what you wrote, because there's so much useful goodness in there!

Nice conversation, everyone. Marblehead, I want to offer a little challenge. When you say that something is or is not reality, aren't you thereby being dualistic? From where I stand, when people use the word "reality", they're only talking about their own. The actual world is unknowable, so "reality" is always the simulacrum in our head, our model, our understanding. Therefore: "yo" or "manifest" only points toward the simulacrum. "Wu" points toward the actual world, which is unknowable, which is why it is mystery. Maybe there is a multiverse, in which Marblehead simultaneously gets up for coffee, and stays in his seat. We don't know, but it's a popular theory with some very smart scientists. So, even the most obvious "reality" is subject to doubt, because what we perceive is only our interpretation of what just seemed to happen. The call to mystery is the same IMO as the call to emptiness: the willingness to surrender my model of the world, and experience life without certainty.

Dear fellow Angeleno Bums, I just wanted to let you know about a "Tao Yoga" class being co-led by my friend, Baylen Slote, aka the Tai Chi Cowboy. He's a TCM practitioner in Santa Monica. Below are the details I copied from his Facebook announcement: tao yoga class with dr. mao and baylen Thursday, July 21 · 6:00pm - 7:00pm the wellness living store 1412 fourteenth street Santa Monica, CA come enjoy this opportunity to practice the ancient art of dao-in chinese "tao" yoga with dr. mao the lineage holder of the Ni family of taoist practitioners. this form of yoga is said to be the "trunk of the tree" out of which qi gong, tai chi, tai ji, and other internal and external energy moment forms have been developed from. see the link below for more information: http://www.integralway.org/chi-practice/dao-in-chinese-yoga.html don't miss the opportunity to get personal attention while this class is still small! we're looking forward to seeing you there.

In response to Blasto's request, I found out the cost from Baylen: The cost is $18 per class or $110 if you buy a package of 8. we also have a package of 4 classes available - they are transferable and do not need to be used within a given time period, and can also be used to take any of our other classes as well. it may seem a bit pricy, but remember this is an opportunity to study directly from an unbroken lineage of taoist practitioners. dr. mao (who has taught me)'s father literally spent 30 years studying and practicing in the mountains of china, so there is not only technology here but history as well.

Great sharing, Aaron. What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me, and I appreciate you putting it in context of your life. peace, otis

What I agree with in your post is "the view of the body" is delusion. That is: my concept of the body, is not what the body is. I wrote extensively about this in Twinner's "Who are you?" thread. So yes, I agree that I need to empty my concept of body, because the concept is not correct. This is part of the "I don't know" that I have been talking about, since I've been here. The reason why I'm talking about the body in this thread is because the "no self" preachers have chosen to totally ignore the body, when saying "there is no self that we can point to". Or "thinking, no thinker, hearing, no hearer". I am not saying that I know what the body is, but rather that we shouldn't ignore the very obvious possibility that we are nothing but animals, and that everything that we experience as "mind" is nothing but body processes. This seems like an extremely coherent, elegant, sensible and scientifically supported view, so it's foolish of us to just discard the notion of the body as the whole self, because of words in an old text. Again, I have been saying "the body (as far as I can tell) is the whole self". That's a factual statement, based upon observation, lack of any evidence to the contrary, and deference to the most reliable sources I know of (anatomy and neurology). What I am not saying is: "I" am the body, or "I know what the body is", etc. I've made that distinction repeatedly. And the quotes you put above are easily explained as "the body (that we think we know) is not the self". The concept of the body is not the real body, and so the concept must be surrendered. Emptiness doesn't imply that the body doesn't exist; just that it is unknowable, which I have been saying throughout this thread. From where I stand, there is no specific reason to think that materialism does not correspond to Zen concepts. I read the urging toward "no self" as meaning "no mind" (because the internal sense of self is the same thing as what we call mind), which makes total sense from a materialistic point of view.

Excellent!

Yeah, since "I" do not appear to be the source of thought, I don't put any effort into stopping thought. Instead, I let the thoughts be, and try to catch myself when I attach to them. It's making them into a belief, that ends up creating a view. That view may or may not be accurate; so it's up to me to hold lightly to my beliefs. Nor do I seek to avoid stimulation, but rather find opportunities to enjoy simplicity.

Thanks for the share, HE. A little bit ago, on a different thread, someone and I were disagreeing over something, and this may bridge our gap. He was insisting that "detachment from the senses" was a path of liberation, whereas I was saying: "paying attention to senses is vital, but surrendering story is liberation". Perhaps he meant the same thing as your "cessation of the sense-minds", which is essentially in agreement with what I was saying: surrendering story. I wonder how often disagreements happen here, not over meaning, but purely over choice of word or metaphor.

Stretch is one of my main practices. In many ways, stretch and dance are just different points on a continuum, but in a way, they are mirror practices for me. Dance is about allowing the ease and effortless pathways of the body to lead my movement. Stretch also has that quality, but is specifically about listening to, and being led by discomfort. The only stretch that really makes sense to me, is a spontaneous one, one that is based upon how my body feels, right now, as opposed to some concept, of where it's supposed to go to. Stretching is an entirely internal art, and outward appearances are inherently misleading. An anatomy book reveals that each muscle is composed of a bundle of fibers, none of which share the exact same orientation. The fibers complement each other, so that a full and subtle range of movement is available. Therefore, to stretch one muscle means to stretch in many slightly different ways. Also, each muscle is balanced by other muscles in the body, so the stretch is not just about opening up tissue, but also regaining internal balance. These aren't things that technique can fully cover, but can only be felt into. I do think, however, that technique can be very useful in illuminating pathways that the body may not find on its own, as long as the technique is not religiously followed. Technique is always based on someone else's body. Also, there are many natural pathways that involve and span the entire body (e.g. asanas or break-dancing "freezes"), which only make sense, once they've been discovered from the interior. Yoga technique may point in the right direction, but IME asanas should not be forced into, because the shape is not what matters, but rather the interior communication, ease and flow of the dynamics. The shape is the appearance, but it is sensation (particularly pain/tension), which steers the body into its native possibilities. Coming up with a "right", either in yoga or break-dancing, only serves to eclipse all the other unexplored possibilities. It is crazy how much our society feeds only a couple of body postures: mostly sitting, standing and lying down. The rest of the body's built-in vocabulary is lost, through the ossification of these main postures. (Repetitive work, of course, creates its own specific shapes, as well as its own specific syndromes). Freedom can only be found, IME, by surrendering the idea of "right", by learning to listen fully to the body, by being very curious and joyful in exploration, and by allowing the body to find its own pathways of stretch.

I've had chronic back pain and frequent spasms, my whole life. My mom first took me to the doctor for it, when I was ten. Only in my early 30s did I start to find insight into my back, and began the unwinding, leading to the various stretch and dance practices I've talked about here. One thing that has led me to, is appreciating a very firm, thin futon. My body doesn't want to be pampered, so much as it wants to feel its own tension, so it can surrender it. And yes, ShaktiMama, I sleep in the nude, because clothes add too much information. My body wants to be able to feel itself, without too much interference from super-band waist-bands, and other signals. Before I had roommates, I spent almost all my time in my apartment, nude, for the same reason. (Plus, all my clothes are loose, and I go dancing in pajamas).

You're preaching to the choir, Bluefront. What I'm saying is not in disagreement with your post. I am not saying that "I" am the body. I am saying that "I" am the ego, one small portion of a portion of the body. What the body is, as I have said, is beyond my knowledge. Of course the body is here, even when I'm in ego. And the body (as far as I can tell) is the whole self. However, when I am active as ego, then the unity is not there. There is a breakdown, caused by my habits of trying to control. As ego, I end up trying to control myself, to rule myself, as opposed to just being myself. My favorite analogy for this is a pup tent. A pup tent is a light weight structure that looks like nothing, when it is disassembled. When put together correctly, however, by dynamic balance it forms a robust structure that is useful. If one pole is out of place, then the pup tent no longer functions well, listing to the side and somewhat collapsing. Likewise, the unity of my consciousness and body is prevented, by my habits of ego, my insistence on being a 'self'. The entire pup tent is there, but because I am the pole that is out of place, there is suffering, there is inefficiency and internal conflict and confusion. When I talk about "plugging in", IME, connecting to this path/Tao/God is what puts "me", the errant tent pole, back into place. The greater organism emerges in easy balance, with an efficient relationship between its various parts. This is what "waking up" means to me: not being this ego, which is trying to manage itself and its life, but suddenly being the Self, being the life, without pretense or need to control what happens. (But of course, the I/mind disappears, returning to its role as a conduit for awareness. There is awareness, but there is no "me"). This is just my way of describing satori, or "giving my life to God", or these various metaphors that describe rising into one's greater self. The greater self is not something separate from me; but I am only a small portion of it. What is it that I'm "plugging into"? I don't know. It's beyond "my" comprehension. All I know is, it calls me to it, and when I heed its call, then the pup tent becomes robust and seemingly whole. And "I" disappear. BTW, "ego does not exist" shouldn't be taken literally, either. Ego is the constellation of habits, including those of consciousness. And yes, the ego does exist, in the same way a "society" exists. Neither is a literal thing, but is a description of what emerges from a cluster of components. The reason why we can say that ego is an illusion, is precisely because it is a constellation, that is: an apparent thing, without a reality to its "thingness". Does this make any more sense to you?

Not stupid or senseless, Mahberry, but I think we're just talking about different things. I totally agree with you on the sense of I being an illusion. That was my first major epiphany, that started my practice. The realization that what I had up-to-that-point always thought as "me" was not really in charge. What had always felt like the driver's seat, actually turned out to be a seat on a ferris wheel. "I" was not particularly skilled at getting things done. Rather, I witnessed things and thoughts happening, and created stories about them, explained how they fit into my model of reality. "I" am not the function of inspiration, or of creativity, or of thoughts, or of emotion. Instead, I appear to be a conduit for awareness. I say this because when I re-assume the role, as conduit for awareness, then the sense of self vanishes. Specifically, I am a loose connection; I am supposed to connect into the next function along this chain. I don't know what this function is, exactly, but it feels like God. When I connect to this path, this Tao, this port, that's begging me to plug into it, then I disappear entirely, and my body continues without me. My body acts as its own being, totally separate from my control, my interpretations, and my beliefs. This is why I say the body is the whole self. Because when I "plug in" to this source, the body comes alive, and becomes its own being, something that I am just a function of. Of course, from this perspective, I cannot say what the body is; I can only say what my various senses and what reliable sources suggest about the body. But this "greater self", this body, this Buddha, is something I cannot view, because my presence is precisely what keeps its unity from taking place. So I can only have faith in the power of this greater being, and be willing to sacrifice the importance of the self, in order to wake up the whole body, which has been eclipsed, for all these years. I don't know where in the brain the illusion of self is. But I don't think that it's necessarily unknowable to science. There is at least one neuroscientist who suffered a stroke herself, who experienced a prolonged nondual state, because of it (she gives one of the Ted talks). There's also a lot of evidence about people who suffer head injuries entering temporary nondual states, and being opened to them, thereafter. I don't believe in over-intellectualizing the self. But I don't think it makes sense to come up with simplistic "self" or "no self" conclusions either. What's wrong with seeing nuance? I don't think we should discount science in our discussions, either, because after all, science is some bad-ass sh*t. Science gets stuff done, and I think we should be careful before denying or ignoring what science has to say about consciousness.

If it's science then it would be the brain sensing the senses. The senses only takes in stimuli and it's not obvious at all if not for our education but it has been so ingrained in us we forgot it was taught to us. What I meant by "obvious to the senses", is that when I look out at people, I see bodies. When I look in the mirror, I see a body. It is the most obvious thing in the world, that these bodies are the people I'm referring to. It takes some huge assumptions, to think that I am something other than my body, because the body is so obvious. I am not saying that what is obvious is necessarily the truth; but I don't think it makes sense to ignore the obvious, in order to believe in the subtle. As far as I can tell, the body is the whole self. "I", on the other hand, am just a small portion of the functioning of one organ of the body, the brain. So, of course, "I" (the smaller part) does not own the body (the whole). I don't see any contradiction in your "lose a part of us" question. It's not "me" that I lose, when I lose a limb, since I am a cluster of functions in the brain. ("I" may, however, vanish, if the body loses a hemisphere). What is this thing that exists, prior to or after losing a limb? It is no more or less than the organism. It is not the same after losing a limb, of course, but it is not for me to say what its identity is. That is beyond "my" scope, because I am just an ego, not something with an objective view of myself.

I want to make clear, that I'm not trying to contradict the concept of anatta. I just don't think it makes sense to take it literally, but instead find a "middle way" of understanding the self/no-self question I think what anatta points at is: what I experience in my own head as "a mind", as "me", is neither. It is merely a cluster of processes (biological and/or energetic), that is self-reflective. Particularly, the precise function that is "I" (from what I can see) is the function of attention, of awareness. Since the attention is often focused inward, it mistakes all the other internal functions, like thoughts and emotions, to belong to the same entity. (And of course, they are all part of the same body). However, the "entity" (i.e. structure/function) that is attention is not the source of these other functions. It is aware of them, and gets caught in a feedback loop, in which it mistakes them for its mind, its self. It is so full of it's self, that it refers to the body (i.e. the whole) as "my body", whereas, of course, this mistaken "self" is only a small portion of a small portion of the entire body. (Of course, attention doesn't tell the story of "my body"; that's from the story-teller function, which the attention mistakes for itself, as well). (As for dividing the body into physical, energetic, and spiritual, that seems like unnecessary concepts and divisions to me. There is the body, which encompasses these various metaphors. What exactly the body is, is something "I" can only observe, intuit, and make a rough estimate of). "No self", as I understand it, is a useful belief, encouraged precisely because the previous belief in "me" is one that leads to a lot of suffering. That doesn't mean, however, we should take the concept of "no self" literally, especially when we can point to the body, and say "here it is". (If we ask, where is the dog?, we point at its body. Why should we be different?) I talk of "surrender of self", rather than "no self", because the former is not a belief, but an action, a perpetual letting go of the importance of what my "sense of self" tells me. The latter is a concept that doesn't even hold surface validity to me, so I wouldn't encourage a literal interpretation of that, at all. (For example: "Thinking, no thinker?" WTF? I've never heard of thinking without a body).

I totally agree with this.

The body is the the self that feels pain and wants pleasure, right? That's not conceptual or intellectual. It's something that's obvious to the senses, and well supported by science.

Yes, other than "the body", I would say there is no singular point of reference for the self. Plus, I have to caveat that what exactly the "body" is, is unknowable.

I'm saying the whole body, as far as I can tell, is the whole self. Of course the whole self is not the parts; it is the whole. If I lose one of my limbs or my hemispheres, then that is, indeed, a loss. There is less of the whole self left. (Of course, this is not a value judgment on amputees and stroke victims; I'm not talking about value at all. Just whether there is a self to point at).

Actually, I don't quite understand what you mean. What I would say is: my body is my whole self, as far as I can tell. However, "I" don't know what my body is. It is the whole of me, so the "I", which is just a miniscule part of me, cannot say for sure what it is.

Well, my body, of course. I can point to it.

I'm sorry for your loss, Ben.

Beautiful share, Ulises. When I first started exploring blissful practices, I began to think of them as "right", and the mundane world as "wrong". After all, one was light and easy and full of joy. The other, by contrast, was staticky, tense, prone to panic and contraction. After some time, it became clear that practice was necessary in both realms. Surrender of self AND acceptance of my ego, my limitations, etc. If I turn away from the world as I habitually see it, then I never resolve those habits, I only drive them underground. And I also thereby fuel dualism in my beliefs: a right path, a right philosophy, a right state of mind. But freedom, as I see it, has no "right". Instead, all states of mind are permissible, acceptable, useful. Everything has its place, including pain, fear, stress, disorder, confusion. The need to escape is another trap. Now, I practice as much as possible, in both realms. And more to the point, I try to bring light into the mundane, and use the light realms, to accept the mundane. Everyday living is practice, not at being more than I am, but at being exactly who I am.

Excellent topic and explication, Marblehead. And Steve F., I love what you wrote. I actually think that Manitou would say: "If we held love firmly at our center we would spontaneously choose the path that considers the other." I guess we'll have to wait and see.