Otis

Hi Everything, I just want to say, that I think you're asking excellent questions. It's easy for us all to say: oh Taoism is a nice philosophy, it's charming, and it makes us feel good to think about. But really, when we look at the TTC, we find that Taoism is a radical shift, in how we view the world. What it is not, however, is idealistic. It is not about pretending that there is not corruption and harm in the world. Chapter 49 describes the sage, but does not say: "and to be a good Taoist, you should behave the same way, even if it doesn't make sense to you". We should be careful though, not to judge the sage, by our limited standards. Do we look at Mother Theresa and conclude that she has a "personality disorder", because her boundaries are so much less than yours and mine? Right now, you're asking: "what's wrong with this picture?" And that's fine. But I don't think you'll find the answer you're looking for, because you're continuing to view it from the perspective of "I have to protect mine". If we want to understand the sage, I think we have to put ourselves in the realm of the sage within us, even if we haven't learned to live that way, all the time. You say you experience egolessness, and you experience equanimity. If you ask your questions from that state, I think different answers will make sense to you. The sage, as I understand her, is not a passive figure. She is the most dynamic person in the world, although not necessarily from an external point of view. She is dynamic because, like a champion surfer, she is riding on the very crest - of responsibility and awareness. In situations where most of us will jump to conclusions, she will see that reality is much deeper and more textured than our ego-formed opinions will allow. For example, someone cuts you off in traffic and gives you the finger. You have every right to think of this person as an a**hole. But, if you were to follow this person throughout their life, you'd probably find someone, who is very much like yourself. They have good days and bad days. They make mistakes, and the also do acts of generosity. They love the people close to them, and strive to provide for them. Once you get to know this person, it's likely that you will see this moment of road rage, as just one facet, one unfortunate example of the growth, that they have not yet achieved. The ego wants everything to be simple, to be black and white, right and wrong. It wants there to be "good" and "bad" people, ones you can trust and ones you can't. But the world is not that simple. People are complicated, and they are, at times, thoughtless. But few people are really "bad", just as few people are really "good". Sometimes, all a person needs to act trustworthy, is to be shown some trust. What we see as bad in others is often precisely their egos, not being able to handle complexity, and therefore acting from overly-simplistic dualistic paradigms. So, if we want to live as a sage, then we need to be able to do better, ourselves. We need to be able to handle complexity, not by knowing everything about everybody, but by being willing to be give others the benefit of the doubt, by being willing to be patient with our judgments, generous with our opinions, kind with our reactions. We become childlike in our willingness not to come to snap decisions and opinions, but we also become like a grandparent, in our willingness to allow children to be children. We do not have to spoil anyone, but we should recognize that being human, is a messy thing. Everyone thrashes about some, and those in pain, thrash even more. But just condemning others for their unconsciousness is to forget that we, too, are human, who sometimes thrash, who sometimes forget others' humanity. Freedom comes, more than anything, from responsibility. Only by being utterly responsible for our own emotions, our own perceptions, and our own reactions, can we see other people the way the sage does. Only when we're able to feel and perceive deeper than the superficial world our ego wants to create, can we make sense of chapter 49, and Taoism in general.

That's a great way of putting it.

I think you're hitting on something important here. The hard-core drug addict has tunnel vision. He sees nothing beyond his next hit. Family and friends are ignored, as if they're in the periphery. That clearly is not a path of freedom. But the surrendered ego does not have to have tunnel vision. Awareness and centering practice are about staying clear and calm, open and unhurried. Willingness to not make choices doesn't have to be a "turning off", but can be a "turning on" to awareness of the present moment. The important distinction, IME, is that "I" (my ego) has to be willing to surrender, while simultaneously staying present, aware. If "I" get distracted, or "drift off" from the present moment, then I am like the addict, my "spontaneous action" just arising from habit. But if I can stay present, without feeling the need to change what's happening, then I find that the greater organism seems to make the right choices for me.

Hi Awake. I commend you on your ability to be so forthright and clear about what's happening in your life. I think that's a really great sign. As you mentioned, seeing what's out of balance is not the same thing as finding balance, but I do think it's a huge part of the solution. I also have a great deal of social anxiety. In fact, I'm really only recently waking up to that fact. One of my worst social fears is similar to what you described: my fear that I'll be in a bad mood, around people I like. When I'm in a bad mood, I just seem to say and do all the wrong things. The part of me that is able to stay aware and observe my action, seems to be in slow-motion, when I'm in a bad mood. Words are coming out of my mouth, and some part of me is shouting "noooooo......!" So, of course, I find reasons not to be around others, so I don't risk embarrassing myself. And over the years, it has been a self-feeding loop, so I've become more and more self-dependent, and I let people fade from my life. What is the answer? I don't know. Practice is the best thing I've found, thus far. Meaning to take the risk, put myself into the social situation, do my best, stay as calm and centered as I can, and most of all, enjoy myself. I've avoided a lot of parties over the years, but now, when I do go (and I try to make as many as I can), I rarely find myself having a bad time, or getting in a bad mood. Every once in a while, I still mess up, and speak harsher or plainer than I should, or receive someone's opinion with a "no", etc., but I try to see what I've done, clean it up as soon as possible, forgive myself, and then move on. As far as regret goes, I used to suffer a great deal from that, as well. Regret can be one of the most painful and miserable experiences I've had. Thankfully, I feel regret much less than before, I think mostly because I'm now choosing to follow my own guidance, to laugh about the mistakes, and to forgive myself. I am now dedicated to seeing all areas of my life as growth, not as "getting it right". So every mistake is just part of the process of learning, nothing more. That's more than just a mind-game, by the way, it really has become a way of seeing the world, which makes my clumsiness valuable, and useful, because I don't reject it; I let it be and learn by it. I let myself be human. I hope you too, will allow yourself to be human. Your clarity in looking at your life is very good; if you can also accept where you're at, I think you'll find it much easier to keep growing.

Yeah, the pronouns are pretty tricky. Yes, I am "it", and not something different. But I, the self-reflective one, cannot see the mind of the Buddha. I hear it sometimes; it whispers in my ear. And I see its effects, moving through my body, when I get out of the way and let "it" dance and play. But I do not own my intuition or my emotions or my body. I am not the one in control of my thoughts. I am a co-creator only. And my history (prior to doubting the "self" illusion) was of trying to control the whole organism, and the life. But I was never very good at it; and that's still true. I am absolutely not a master of life. I get glimpses, however, of a master within me (or rather, that I am within). But I am still trying to learn to humble/empty myself, so that master can stretch and grow, and live its life, without "me" always trying to be in the driver seat.

I don't know!

One way to look at this, is as a prescription for surrendering the ego. The act of judging whether someone is good or bad, keeps me in ego realm. The act of trying to figure out if I can trust others, locks me there, as well. If the ego can be let go of, then the "I" disappears, but the organism continues to participate in life. From the perspective of what had been the "I", there is just sensation, but no meaning, no story, no judgment. Somehow, those things are not necessary. The ego, it seems, is not required to keep the organism living its life. "I" have been spinning my wheels, trying to make my life better for "me", when it turns out, I am just an emergence, an arising, that appears to myself as a self. But I'm not a self; I am a cluster of habits. I have the illusion that "I" am something more than the body, but in truth, I am just a phenomenon in the brain, and perhaps not even a necessary one. Does the greater organism (the Buddha) trust others? Does it judge? I don't know, because I am not it. But IME, when I get out of its way, then it is wiser, smarter, more flexible, capable, powerful than I ever have been. I trust that it will make the right decisions about other people, and so I am able to surrender my need for judgment, and for parsing others' trustworthiness. Only if I am willing to do that, can I then surrender ego, around others. As long as I (the ego) tries to keep control by choosing whom to trust and whom to love, then I leave myself locked in my trap of self-hood.

It may be. I just got a strong impression. Thank you for engaging on this.

Thank you Vajrahridaya; I appreciate that. I hear from your response that we are not saying such very different things after all; I was just not understanding your context. Thank you for explaining further.

I agree that suffering can also have joy in it, no doubt. That's a very important realization; not to be afraid of suffering, because it is only one flavor of life, and life can be inherently joyful. As I wrote above, I think that the tendency to avoid or tune out from pain is a huge trap. But I'm not sure what that has to do with "detachment from senses". Is a baby detached from senses? Or is it just detached from story and permanence? I don't agree with this. I don't think that apologizing was the "right" thing to do. Nor do I think I should necessarily "avoid suffering". To come to that conclusion would be creating an inaccurate story about the meaning of the events, and I think, if anything detachment should be from stories, not from feelings. In the case of me and my friend, if I look at story, I still think she over-reacted. But if I just experience feelings, then I realize that the story of who was right and who was wrong, is entirely irrelevant. My friend is usually very warm and receptive to me, and doesn't hold grudges. This time, she did hold the grudge, and the suffering that came from it, helped me realize that the gulf between us, was mine to bridge, or ignore. So I built a bridge. It wasn't the "right" thing to do, but merely the recognition that my senses, including my suffering, were more important, than being "right". Suffering was my beacon, leading me towards peace with my friend. Of course, it would have been a mistake to resent my friend, for the suffering I was feeling. That resentment would have arisen from a story of what caused what (e.g. "you made me feel this way"). I think it is detachment from the story that is important, but it was full involvement with my senses, that led me toward making peace. I appreciate you sharing your personal story. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, however, because I'm not quite sure I follow your conclusions. As you say, you had a deeper yearning. It was your connection to your feeling of that lack, which led you to rise above the situation you lived in. Had you been "detached from your senses", it seems likely that you would have just stuck with what was known and exciting, and ignored the emptiness inside you, that was calling you towards something more subtle. It seems that it was precisely suffering which helped shake you out of the stupor of over-indulgence. IME, over-indulgence actually comes from being "detached from senses", because simple sense input is no longer enough. In general, I think the world suffers a great deal of "detachment from senses" and over-reliance on meaning. I don't want to project any more onto you or you story. But I don't yet hear from what you say why "detachment from senses" is an ally, rather than just numbness. To me, emptiness is surrender of story, of belief in "truth", of trying to derive meaning. Full involvement in my senses (i.e. allowing "me" to become nothing more than a conduit for awareness), IME, is precisely the path to letting go of those attachments.

Clearly, you have spent more time there, than I have. I have not engaged in any direct conversation with them, but have just read through Ciaran's pinned posts, and a few of the "pit" and "dueling ground" threads. From that experience, I saw a bunch of red flags. For example, the fact that Ciaran's gospel is all about no-self, and yet he openly called himself "half-God/half-genius". There seems to be a big disconnect between those two things. How do you preach no-self, but have an enormously important self-image? If anything, self-image is the most contaminated part of the "self" illusion, the first thing that needs to go. Secondly, he has created a structure, whereby "realization of no-self" = enlightenment. That seems pretty questionable, to me. No-self seems, to me, like just one part of the bigger picture of waking up, hardly the one true realization. For example, it was my first awakening, but hardly my last. Even if he believes in no-self, he obviously believes that his insight is so deep, that he now can ascertain what it means to be "enlightened", not only for himself, but for others. When he draws a (what seems to me, very arbitrary) line in the sand, saying this is where enlightenment lies, it is not an act of emptiness on his part, but arrogance. How does he know that that's what enlightenment is? "No self" appeared to me, ten years ago, and I certainly don't think I'm enlightened. Nor do I think it makes sense for me to tell others what will save them. Since I have never been anyone other than me, how could I make that claim? Thirdly, I don't think that "no-self" is literally true. The "thoughts, no thinker" argument has no validity, that I recognize. Of course there's a thinker. No-self is fine as a metaphor, but not a "truth". The distinction, IME, is that the thought is not from the same source as the sense of I. But we both originate from the same brain; just different parts of it. If the site was willing to make subtle distinctions, instead of just banging the "no-self" drum, then I might see wisdom there. Instead, I see "gospel", which is a sign of fundamentalism. Fourthly, the site and the doctrine are all about duality. You either exist, or you don't. You're either enlightened, or you're not. Nothing else is even allowed to be talked about. When a member asked the group: "how have your lives changed since you became enlightened?", that member was immediately shouted down, told that was off-topic, and shouldn't be discussed. WTF? If a bunch of people are going to call themselves "enlightened", then I think the question of how they live their lives is extremely relevant. This is very cult-like behavior, to forbid any questions that don't directly support the main message of the leader. Fifthly, Ciaran proclaims "no self", but in his rants, he projects like a mofo on people. He tells them who they are, and what they're doing. But that "you" delusion is 100X more flimsy than the "me" delusion. Of course, everyone believes in "me", because that seems self-evident. But to believe that I know who "you" are, especially when you're just a screen name and an avatar, that's just sheer arrogance. It doesn't seem very "enlightened" to act as if my projection on the world is actually accurate; that's what delusion is. And yet, that's never discussed, never considered. Sixthly, of course, is the fact that Ciaran himself relies on badgering as his main tool. Now, others have said that he's chilled out since his early days, but he has pinned those early vitriolic threads as a flag, something he's proud of. He even sets up his site in combat terms: the pit, the dueling ground. Is "overwhelming" people really the path of waking them up? I don't even know anyone who is ever convinced by badgering, except perhaps those who feel the need to follow "authority figures" (i.e. good subjects to join a cult). His approach seems to be similar to one of the pick-up artists (or the cult leaders in the video above): isolate the one with low self-esteem, and f*ck with them, until they capitulate. So, again, I haven't gone through what you went through. I'm just speaking from my observations, from spending several hours on the site. But those red flags were bright and shining, and the hypocrisy of the leader seems too obvious to miss. I don't know how you rationalize these things, but they sure spell "cult" to me.

Do you think it's important not to have "an iota of psychological suffering?" It seems to me, that suffering is a useful part of life. If I'm ruled by suffering, that's a different matter. If I lash out, or suffer over meaningless things, sure. But when a loved one dies, I won't enjoy the experience, but I'm not sure I want to be detached from that suffering, either. In a less extreme example, a dear friend and I had a fight recently. For a few days, she was mad at me, and yes, I suffered some, because of it. But that suffering led me to go beyond my previously entrenched position, and apologize to her. I stepped up, precisely because the suffering revealed what was important to me: not "winning the fight", but being at peace with her.

Can you explain this further? What does it mean to be "detached from our senses?" And why does that bring freedom?

Am I the only animal in here?

There are rare times, in which I think we get to get a glimpse of that. Falling in love, going on vacation, hanging out with old friends, creating art, playing with kids... These moments are inspiring, to work towards making life more and more that kind of continual opening to joy.

I don't know about that theory. I've never had experiences which suggest that. IME of conflict with this particular friend, my anger just increases her anger, and vice versa. Nothing moves. We've tried that already. Being patient and non-confrontational has yielded me the greatest results, since what I want is not to "win", but to enjoy her friendship.

LOL! This list really sounds like it's describing the Vatican.

It's not that I disagree, but I would like to hear your reasoning on this. Why do you say that this belief is the root cause of suffering?

I think it's also worthwhile, taking another look at a group like Ruthless Truth, after seeing this video. On Ruthless Truth, there are two categories: noobs and enlightened people (the believers). The only way to become "enlightened" is to agree with the "truth" that is being shoved at you. Once you become "enlightened", you are given a specific profile picture, the avatar equivalent of the light blue shirts in the video. The concept "there is no 'you'" is never fully explained. It is only preached, growled, cajoled, exhorted, angrily shouted. Exceptions to the concept are dismissed without discussion, and are usually reacted to with epithets and loud "shut up and get over it"-type responses. Noobs are challenged to do all the heavy lifting, to come up with a "self" that will somehow convince the believers, which is, of course, impossible. The disbeliever is bullied, and eventually, ejected from the forum, if he doesn't show signs of caving. The new-found believers, on the other hand, are rewarded by being made special, "enlightened", and then are recruited to start "waking other people up". The founder of the group is treated as a messiah, and refers to himself as "half-genius, half-God". Meanwhile, his epistemology is very self-contradictory (e.g. there is no "me", but I don't mind telling you exactly who you are), but that is never discussed, because discussion is verboten. Only the one "truth" is acceptable.

I wanted to follow up on my earlier statement that I "feel called to practice being vulnerable". I had that opportunity this week, with a dear friend. She and I had a disagreement, which left us both angry at each other. After the fight, I tried stepping toward her with kindness a couple times, but both times I was rebuffed, because she was still angry. When I looked at the situation, the stories in my head still told me that I was justified, that I was being reasonable, etc. I was tempted to just give it time, wait until she cooled off, and reconnect then. But when I looked at the fact that I want this dear friend in my life, I realized that "justification" was useless. What was important was that I did what I could, in order to make peace with her. Even if my "rightness" was never acknowledged, it was still my responsibility to do what was available to me, rather than wait for her to choose what I wanted her to do. (Her anger with me was not typical at all, so I was not encouraging a chronic problem). So I apologized, without reservation, or any kind of demand that she meet me halfway. Just said that I was sorry for getting angry at her. And we are much better off, as friends, because of it. When I think back about the fight, there is still a voice in my head, which claims that I was in the right. But it doesn't matter; what matters is that I did what I could to make peace with my dear friend.

Excellent (and counter-intuitive, I think, to most non-fighters). In my swordplay, I have been facing Jeffrey, my most fierce opponent, for years now. I started primarily on the defensive, and it was useful to learn defense. But finally I realized that I had to learn to attack, as well, and in order to do so, I had to surrender my fear of being hit. Since the attack opens me up to blows, I had to let being hit be okay, and just focus on the attack. Now when we do battle, I do most of the attacking, because it's the most fun, and because I learn simultaneous attack and defense. But I could not have done so, without first surrendering my fear of being hit. Likewise, I learned to punch, without hurting my hand, by striking a metal lamp-post. I started very light, and working my way up, but that experience showed me clearly what resistance I was putting into my hand, and thus, was endangering its health. And yes, this is very much my logic in the series of public interaction videos I've done. I get to face my bugaboos about being seen as foolish, weird, gay, old, whatever, by exaggerating those qualities in myself, and not being apologetic about them.

This is an excellent video, and a good reminder for seekers. Of course, the cult has appropriated some language from ancient traditions (such as letting go of the ego), but that language, of course, is not what makes it a cult. It is the insistence that the individual surrender his or her own decision-making right, responsibility, and power (by giving it to the group or leader), which is the sign of the cult. The big red flags are dogma, insistence on esoteric jargon/methods, and the raising of the leader/guru as a superhuman figure. Unfortunately, most of the world religions have cults in their center. All fundamentalism is cultism.

There's one habit, in particular, that I think needs to be faced directly, and practiced with thoroughly. And that's the habit of avoiding pain. As long as I tune out from my pain, then I am controlled by it. As long as I am controlled by pain, then I have to cling to habits of pleasure, because they are what allow me to cover up suffering. If I recognize pain, not as a harmful invader, but as a necessary sense, then I can embrace it, and follow its message, which is "pay attention here!" Pain is the body's way of begging the awareness for attention. And attention hugely speeds up healing in the body, whereas "tuning out" just puts it off, makes it chronic. Pain is the road map to self-healing. The same, IME, is true with emotional pain. If, while contemplating a physical or emotion sensation, I find myself wanting to dissociate, to distract myself, then that is a habit that will postpone healing, indefinitely. Dissociation may be a useful short-term remedy, when things are overwhelming, but the compulsion to do it, is a signal that I need to pay more attention, not less. The more reactive I am, about my internal responses to things, the more necessary it is, that I practice loving the experience of pain, as being just one of my necessary and glorious senses.

Thank you.

Hi Bluefront, I have a lot of experience with healing muscle and connective tissue in myself. What I would do, is to make the injury into my moving meditation. Find a good, non-stressful posture (even lying down), relax, and then slowly, lovingly, activate the areas that hurt, through movement. Get the pain to be just hot enough to be intense, but not enough that my system shouts "no!" at me. Basically, I listen for the "no!" and back off, just a smidge, and make that my arena of play. And I emphasize "play", because it is better, IME, to be guided not by technique or concepts, but by the actual parameters of the injury. Every injury is unique, and the body's signals are there, precisely to guide me toward self-healing. Also, because that level of intense (but not freak-out) pain, can actually be a very joyful experience. If it is not, then I'd recommend slowing down, paying still more attention. If I'm tripping over my body's "no!" signals, then I'm not listening enough. The more I can utterly and joyfully "fall into" the sheer sensation of the pain with my awareness, the faster the injury heals. Good luck! Edit to add: once I learned how joyful it can be to pay attention to injury, and how easy it is to heal myself, it totally changed my relationship to injury, risk, and fear. So, this (and all) injuries can be true gifts, if they reveal the body's joyful capacity to heal itself.