Nikolai1

Hi all, First of all, I wouldn’t try to claim that I’m offering some kind of pure-bred Taoist product here. But I am saying that philosophical thought is relevant to the spiritual search, and I’m also saying that this makes it relevant to some Taoists. But we are on a Taoist site, and I hear what you are saying, so I will try and make sure that I relate what I’m saying to works like the Tao Te Ching. But to continue... We’ve talked a lot about notions like emptiness/heaven as it contrasts with the world of form/earth, and the importance of the ability to see things from either perspective. As with everything else, both perspectives are fully known to us already and to learn emptiness is not to learn anything new and exotic. But I can explain this further: Imagine you are looking at a tree. You close your ideas for 5 seconds, think about ice cream, and then open them again. We are looking at the tree again. We believe that the tree continued to exist, even while our eyes were closed and our attention was elsewhere, and that it is the same tree we return to. This is the belief in the world of form, of independently existing objects in a world outside of ourselves. Now imagine you are thinking of ice cream. You open your eyes and look at the tree for five seconds, and then return to your thoughts of ice cream. In this case we believe that the second thought of ice cream was a completely new thought, although on the same theme. The first thought ceased and became non-existent, was replaced by our awareness of the tree, which in turn was replaced by a new thought about ice cream. This is the belief in the world of emptiness, of ephemeral and transient flashes of consciousness that pass in a moment and are replaced by the next. Perceptions (of trees) and thoughts (of ice cream) both behave similarly as far as consciousness is concerned. Perceptions are constantly transforming as we look at the top of the tree, then the bottom, then the side – each view entirely unique. Thoughts too are constantly transforming, as they shift from chocolate ice cream to strawberry and then back again. In terms of behaviour, a thought and a perception are indistinguishable. They are both things that come and then in a flash are replaced. But for some reason we believe that a thought is empty of anything but the briefest existence, while a perception is a reflection of something objectively real – something unchanging that exists independently of our roving perceptions. This is the illusion that chains us to the world. This is the illusion that makes us believe that there is an inner subjective realm of thought, and an outer objective world of independently existing objects. Liberation come when we see that thoughts and perceptions are both the same. They are both the same by being just items of awareness. Things come and in a flash are transformed. When thoughts and perceptions are made the same, we are free to interchange how we understand them. A thought can be viewed as something ephemeral or as something eternal that passes in and out of awareness; a perception can be viewed as a reflection of something real, or as something dreamy like a thought. Our view of ourselves as individuals is entirely based on the belief in our own subjective experience- the realm of thought. But when we see that the outside world also passes before our ‘eyes’ as something ephemeral and transient we are no longer able to believe in the distinction between object and subject. Who we actually are seems to contain both thoughts and perceptions and by being neither transcends both. Just as the mug handle is neither left nor right, but in a sense both, and by being so, neither…so are we both subject and object, and therefore neither subject nor object. Just as it takes a certain spiritual vision to be able to see that the handle might also be on the other side, so too does it take a certain vision to be able to see that thoughts pass into awareness and transform, just as perceptions come into awareness and are constantly transforming. This is the hard problem of spiritual philosophy. We do not realise we’re doing it, but we are constantly living through our beliefs. We believe that we are subjects in an objective world, and that belief shapes everything we do and think before we can do anything about it. We live blindly and we are so blind that we don’t realise that there is an alternative way to see things. It is only when we first truly see that we are not our thoughts or our perceptions that we are free and are circumstances can improve. This is a fundamental and crucial spiritual vision that is emphasised in all religious traditions. Jesus tells us in the Gospel of St Thomas “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside…then shall you enter the kingdom” Buddha advises us in the Diamond Sutra: “Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream; A flash of lightning in a summer cloud, A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream” And in everybody’s favourite the Tao Te Ching we are told immediately in Ch 1 to see the Tao equally, whether in thought or perception “So, as ever hidden, we should look at the inner aspect/ As always manifest, we should look at the outer aspects/ These two flow from the same source though differently named” Until we have seen how the subjective world and the objective world are from a common source, the notion The Tao, God - cannot possibly occur to us. I’ve treated this subject pretty briefly considering its importance but it might be a good time to stop and make sure that I’ve been able to make myself understood. Best wishes guys

Hi Aaron, Yes I couldn't agree more! I am pointing out that one-sided viewpoints lead us into conflict with others, and that philosophy is a way of turning one-sided views into even balanced views. To have a balanced view is to understand your interlocutor and when you understand them you cannot argue with them. Thus comes the harmony with your surroundings that you define as the aim of Taoism. And you are right that thoughts and ideas are always a necessary complement to our perceptual life. Thought only presents a spiritual block when we take them as real and fixed facts, and cannot see that any given fact is also not a fact. You do well to pick me up on this, but I hope that elsewhere on the thread I have made it clear that wisdom is seeing that a concept is both a concept and a thing in itself, or neither, or in any situation one or the other. Talking about spiritual realisation is a real tight-rope because whatever you say is a crime. Most people come with the worldview of an independently existing earth- such people need to be told about heaven. Then people who still believe in truth take the emptiness of heaven as the truth, and need to be disavowed of this. I could make every sentence as comprehensively true as possible, but this would result in paradox that either confuses people, or it allows people to simply extract the half that makes sense and then disregard the rest. One wonders if one should stay silent. But Lao-tzu didn't, and nor did Chuang-tzu and neither do you. So I'm content to speak, and those that understand me shall, and those that don't shall tell me to stop. From my part, I can only try the best I can to talk about my path and my experience. I've never suggested that we start living some other place!. To be earthbound is to be intellectually chained to the concepts that make up the earth. Time and space are the most fundamental of these, as are self and world. Earth and all that happens upon it are just ideas to be tossed around in the palm of the wise person. And yet he stays exactly here...living his life - on earth if that's what you still wish to call it. All valid concerns. And I am trying to show how philosophy can clear the path towards knowing absolute truth. The thing is of course, that the absolute truth is nothing that you can think about, say, or in anyway grab hold of. To have your cup to the brim is to have a viewpoint that blocks out alternative viewpoints. Once you have seen that "what is isn't" then there is no more one-sided viewpoints you can possibly hold. This absolute truth will never fill your cup so don't be afraid of it just because I'm so audacious as to call it truth. All that goes under the name of Taoism from Tai Chi to magic ceremonies, through alchemy and philosophical dispute are all attempts to reveal the Tao to the person, and allow him to live the Way. The philosopher is not actually trying to understand the Tao...he is trying to understand the world. And it is by gradually stripping away his intellectual attachment to the ways of the world that the Tao is revealed to him lying beneath it all. Thus he realises is what he was searching for all along...when we read a book like the Chuang-tzu you see that he too was not a man fond of extravagant mystical speculation...he simply found it amusing to dismantle all the strange notions that people have in their heads. This is typical of the philosopher. Thanks for your post, it was so full of objections that I couldn't address them all...but if there is something I've missed that you view as especially important please do point it out Best wishes

Hi cat – yes great idea. But before I do that I would just like to say something about philosophy and the process of transformation. Hopefully it will become obvious why I write this now. We are all wise in some situations and not others, and are able to demonstrate qualities of transcendent wisdom variably. We can imagine ourselves as having a ‘high-water mark’ of wisdom which is our greatest possible demonstration. If a parent is willing to sacrifice their life for the sake of their child then they demonstrate, practically speaking, the wisdom of the Christ – albeit in a very specific situation. When the philosopher realizes the timelessness of time, or the spacelessness of space he is becoming conscious of the highest understanding that we can make intellectually. But even though he is conscious of it, it is still at this stage just a high-water mark of the understanding. Speaking personally, this insight came to me in deep meditation. It was only a brief glimpse, and that it radically affected my intellectual life was obvious even the next day, but it was a brief glimpse gained in a situation radically divorced from my everyday life of work, relationships and children. The rest of me had to catch up. Maybe an analogy will help… Imagine an army, 100 strong, completely lost in the forest, starving, cold and being plagued by mosquitoes. They have no idea if there any towns any further north than here, but they send a scout ahead because it is their only chance for survival. The scout goes on ahead and after three days alone finds a town where there is food, bars and lodgings in plenty and a lakeside breeze to ward off the mosquitoes. He communicates his find on the radio, and every soldier hears the news in their earpiece. Even though the 99 are still suffering identical (indeed worsening) hardships as they were before the good news, their final three days in the forest are endured in a completely different spirit. The philosopher who has had the brief glimpse is like the army. He now has to make the sanctuary a reality for his whole 100 strong self, and not just one part of him. His transformation is therefore both sudden and gradual: sudden because the hope and certainty of liberation shall permanently lighten his every hardship, but gradual because he still has to continue with his life with his glimpse as his only guide. He has to make every moment an enlightenment moment, and the journey he will take depends on who is as a person. But all people start with the easy stuff. I remember doing my regular walk near my home in Salisbury and walking past some massive houses in my village, mansions practically and with Mercs and Jags parked outside. I remember thinking: whether I am stood here outside the gate, or inside as the owner…life feels exactly the same, life IS exactly the same. I was able to take this perspective because I had become able to see the truth of each moment prior to our thoughts. If we are to think about it, it seems obviously better to have the wealth, power and status of the mansion dweller. But because I could see that my life is the same is his, I was cured of the envy, acquisitiveness and selfishness that it would take to transform my circumstances into his. But, this was the first fruit and it came easily and effortlessly. Even though before, I would, along with everyone else, have liked a great house and car, it was not a deep part of my ego – my desires for them were probably adopted from society rather than coming from myself. Some spiritual searchers, be-robed and sat high on the dais, would have to fight their love of status until the bitter end, but for me it came easily because it was not deep-rooted. I therefore demonstrated the virtue of non-acquisitiveness, but almost by luck – an accident of birth. My philosophical insight was starting to purify me, but firstly of that which hardly tainted me. As we carry on, we learn that some of our fears and desires are resolved by our former philosophical insight only with long and protracted struggle. We do not consistently believe that our life is well in the Now…often we find the suggestion that we would be just as happy without our heart’s desire cold and excessively philosophical. But at the same time, we know the importance of our brief glimpse of liberation and it gives us the hope that we will be able to resolve it all satisfactorily. We hope that we know, we will soon learn to feel also. Some of you might ask…why don’t you just follow your bliss, follow your desires? Well so often we can! But very often we can see that following our desires is going to create situations that we fear. Why don’t you therefore face up to your fears? Well often we do! But then we find that facing our fears will cause pain to those who don’t deserve it. If we are afraid of losing our children, we don’t walk out on them just in order to face up to our fears! The deeper the desire, that is, the more fundamentally we as egos believe we need something, the less likely it is to yield to very high, very abstract philosophical insight. In these situations, philosophical insight can serve as a beacon of hope, but in terms of how to act now, we must use our heart and our conscience as our guide. We know from experience the universal peace and profit that comes from true understanding, and if is that not forthcoming then you can take that as a sign that you are not ready to act. Readiness to act is a whole readiness: of intellect, feeling and emotion and the consequences will always please you. So the philosopher is in a situation where he has become conscious of the highest understandings possible, but then finds that his access to this understanding in his heart is variable to say the least. There is also another problem for the philosopher, a problem also instigated by the moment of his highest insight. He finds that he is no longer able to consciously will his own spiritual development. Every time he reaches for the manual in the hope of a profitable idea or technique to use, he finds that he can coldly and clinically dismantle the purpose of it with philosophical analysis. He cannot consciously identify what he needs to do, because consciously he has reached purity already…it is in the darkness of his heart then he is still impure. From now on, profitable spiritual episodes must come to him inadvertently, when he least expects it. He will find that life alone is able to press his blindest, tenderest spots and mercilessly expose them. He has gone as far as his philosophical path can take him and for the rest he must hand himself over to the Tao – which shall set the curriculum from now on. The philosopher who has gained the highest insight is therefore no longer a philosopher as far as his spiritual path is concerned. He must proceed by other means: the true philosopher is therefore no philosopher. Before the highest insight comes, it may be well be possible that the philosopher does not see himself as a spiritual seeker at all, but rather as a seeker of truth. When problems arise in his life it is in his nature to delve and delve until he finds what he considers the root cause of the problem. His inability to remember all the household tasks that his wife wants him to do might well be bloody-mindedness to her, but to him a problem of time, memory and free will. Exasperating as this may be, this is his distinctive way. It is only when understanding comes, and this is the understanding that the question was in error, that his real world behaviour is likely to improve. I say all this because the spiritual philosopher before insight sees himself as just an everyday mortal, and the questions he asks are therefore about everyday mortal life. Because he does not see himself as spiritual, the questions he asks appear perfectly secular. There are many philosophical people, and few reach the heights of philosophical insight. But in all these people philosophy is a means of intellectual, moral and emotional growth as well as a key to the peace that attends these states (since Greek times there has been the term ataraxia for the positive state of mind that philosophy engenders) There is no prescribed path to truth – all we have is people living their lives and encountering difficulties. It is the conscious understanding and thence resolution of these difficulties that constitutes spiritual growth. Cat, in light of this what kind of an example would you like to discuss. Are you interested in the philosopher who has attained the highest insight and is struggling to realise it, or the philosopher is still searching? Best wishes

Hi cat When we see that left is the same as right we are doing something quite miraculous, and it’s not something simple! No object appears to us perceptually as both on the left and right. The mug’s handle is either on the left or the right or neither (the middle) but in any given moment it is never both left and right unless our temporal-spatial senses are supplemented by a kind of vision that is independent of them. This supplementary vision I call spiritual wisdom. Now because we all possess this ability we might be inclined to consider it simple. But we can all kick a ball and that doesn’t mean that the way Lionel Messi kicks a ball is simple. So when our spiritual wisdom is able to transcend the most fundamental categories of our earthly existence, time and space, existence and non-existence, it is something very amazing and not at all simple. What I wish to do with this thread is make clear that the abilities that the great philosophical yogis like Lao Tzu and Buddha demonstrate are amazing elaborations of what we all have and habitually use. Time and space are behind all our notions of what it is to live as a human being. When we have argued them away, then who or what are we? This is realization of our spiritual identity. The wisdom we are using to form the arguments is higher than could possibly belong to any creature in time and space – it is beyond time, space and creature. Every conceivable calamity requires time and space to make sense. So what happens when calamity no longer makes sense? To call this state intellectual peace is misleading – intellectual peace is the sense of knowing that we get when solving an arithmetic puzzle. Often we know we’re right before we press ‘equals’ on the calculator. But the peace that comes with high philosophical insight is simultaneously emotional, physical and spiritual. Our bodies and our feelings are, themselves, constructs based on time and space. When we see the fundamental unreality of our bodies and emotions – how can they continue to disturb our peace? Yes, emotional undernourishment can and does often characterise that kind of intelligent person that has achieved success in some areas but is still one-sided and dogmatic on higher questions. They tend to assume their intellect understands when it doesn’t. For a person to be like that one would assume that they have good reason to have so much faith in their intellect. In the modern world many people can achieve intellectual recognition in their education and work, and come to think of themselves as globally intelligent people, when actually their successes are confined to quite a low level and completely inadequate in some areas. The spiritual philosopher may not even have these razor sharp abilities that are so effective in the world. But their intelligence is accompanied by a kind of integrity, a constant self-reflection that prevents them from getting stuck at a lower level and constantly impels them onwards. They are constantly dissatisfied with their intellect and their skepticism may seem so extreme as to look like nihilism. Before the breakthroughs come they might despair that truth can be found and espouse quite anti-intellectual viewpoints – narratives that are quite common in religious people who have not allowed their wisdom to fully ripen. It is only with this ripening that the emotional under-nourishment disappears. As I wrote earlier, the mental life of the philosopher simplifies as insight increases – wisdom is a catharsis of illusory anxieties, and as you dispose of one you dispose of a whole host that are of the same genus. What is true for coffee cups is true for saucepans. Anxieties that would once have engaged thoughts, emotions and feelings no longer engage any of them. But if an anxiety does arise then head and heart and body are implicated. The three arise together -until insight comes, and then all three pass away together. As the philosopher’s mental landscape becomes simplified, he is therefore living more and more without intellectual or bodily feedback. This is living by instinct, as you put it. I know I’ve talked a lot about the philosopher’s two-sided understanding offering him options. This does not mean that he actually mentally deliberates over these options. But the opening up of the options by insight means that he is no longer compelled to act according to his former unconscious and unreflective beliefs – he acts according to something more adequate but just as instinctual, and we can call this mysterious guide the Tao, or God. If he is mentally deliberating over his options then that means that he is lacking insight, and then his body and feelings will be operating also – as with any anxious person. As the philosopher grows in insight, and his mind becomes clearer, he will be aware that anxieties that need to be overcome will be felt in the body as much as the mind. But he must resolve them in the way that best suits his nature. As he grows in wisdom these final challenges can be very powerful and really turn his world upside down. You asked also about the unconscious. It’s hard for me to know what you mean by this. All I would say is that as the philosopher’s identity becomes less individualized he would cease to think that his thoughts arise from some kind of repository within him. A thought would be a fresh new event in the Now, and not an arising from an enduring unconscious complex. Or, if there is some kind of reservoir for thoughts, then it would be a reservoir available to us all collectively. Ultimately, notions of self and others are not attached to, in which case the unconscious would be conceptualised as nothing more or less than the Tao – the mysterious void from which all thoughts and things come. I hope this answers your question but you perhaps guessed from the above what I would make of the unconscious. Best wishes

Hi Cat, The system is materialistic because everything is talked about in terms of existence, and doesn't also recognise the interpretation of non-existence, as would a philosophical system. Subtle energies materially exist, it's just that we are not able to see them; angels, goblins and beings from the demi-world are likewise described in the book as really existing...but in parallel worlds that we haven't yet learnt to travel to. People may die, as did Yogananda's guru, but still continue to exist in realms that we cannot normally see. You'll notice that supernatural claims, and the book has many of them, are not necessarily non-materialistic. While all these supernatural experiences are common to anyone who develops spiritually...the philosopher would still remain agnostic as to to their existence or non-existence. It is only this that would satisfy his naturally sceptical spirit - even supernatural experiences with his own 'senses' must be doubted. It is only with the transcendent recognition that all things can be explained either in terms of existence or non-existence that he will find intellectual peace. Anybody who is able to see that no calamity can befall them is already fully emotionally healed. To be under the one-sided illusion of individuality and mortally in time and space IS itself emotional undernourishment. And furthermore, anyone who knows that they are beyond misfortune themselves is free to assist anyone who is not lucky enough to share the same vision. Insight into the emptiness of our own ego and compassion for others are simultaneous processes. Where help is needed, help is forthcoming. For most, self-interest prevents the offering of help... But when you 100% know that you are beyond misfortune, it becomes the rational and instinctive course to help those who are vulnerable to misfortune. There is no other direction for the wise person to go. Water must flow somewhere. Self-help is no longer rational if you don't need the help. Calamity is followed by the remediation of calamity, just as night follows day. If the calamity is not yours then you find yourself remediating another persons. These are general remarks. If one can preserve one's physical self at no cost to others then why wouldn't the wise person do so? But in a 'last lifejacket on a sinking ship' scenario the wise person may see no real need to take it for themselves. Best wishes

Hi marblehead Oh no, please don't think that! I said at the beginning of the thread that for most people the philosophical Tao is quite unimportant and unnecessary, you can manage perfectly well with other ways. Plenty of spiritual people have achieved full realisation while holding thoroughly materialistic views. I don't know if you have read Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi, but his whole system and that of his teachers is thoroughly materialistic, but their Kriya Yoga compensates for their philosophical dubiety with a physical yoga based on breathing techniques for example. This approach will only chime with some people, but I'm perfectly fine with that. If, for whatever reason, you are interested in why the philosopher goes beyond materialism I'd be happy to discuss that further. I would however, be drawing heavily on Buddhist teachings on this question, but that doesn't make me a Buddhist, still less some kind of evangelist! With my best wishes!

Contradiction is an important concept in spiritual philosophy so maybe we can talk about that a bit. The two men at the coffee cup rejected each others view because it could not be reconciled with their own - in other words they were keen to avoid contradiction. The rest of us in our spiritual wisdom are able to see that the handle of cup is 'on the left hand side therefore not on the left-hand side' We are comfortable with this statement even if the words, taken literally, present a paradox. The 'handle is on the left hand side and not the right-hand side' is logically more coherent, and we can accept it up to a point - but most of us would prefer the first paradox because it seem to contain a more universal truth. We all therefore live with and accept paradox, indeed we recognise that recognition of paradox can be a pre-requisite of a certain type of wisdom. Most intelligent people can accept paradox even in important existential fields like morality. What's good for the hunter is bad for the hunted. But when it comes to the fundamental structures of thought, like time and space, paradoxical statements becomes much harder to understand and much more threatening to our sense of intellectual security. Paradox in spiritual writings. "He reached out his left hand and picked up the cup and then he put it down and he picked it up with his right hand before he picked it up again with his left hand" There is only one personal pronoun 'he' in this sentence, but because of what we know from this thread and this scenario we are able to let the same word 'he' signify two different people and be switching erratically between them. Our spiritual wisdom allows us to follow the action smoothly and the varying meaning of the same word 'he' is followed intuitively. In spiritual teachings, whether books or interactions, the personal pronoun is so often 'You'. "You should try this and not that". But just as 'he' meant two different things, 'You' means two different things; the egoic you that corresponds to the form perspective, and the non-egoic You that corresponds with the emptiness perspective. Now unless you understand from personal experience how you and the world both exists and doesn't exist, you are going to seriously struggle understanding a lot of spiritual advice. It is going to sound utterly comprehensible, and even if you understand the words you will find it painfully contradictory. Much harm and spiritual confusion results when people try to implement advice egoically in the world when the advice was presented to our spiritual identity. If you do already understand both perspectives on 'you' you will be able to follow spiritual teachings smoothly and intuitively. So if you find yourself reading ancient and revered texts and find yourself despairing of all the paradox, it is a good indication that you are lacking an important understanding. Its amazing how one year you can find something completely impenetrable, and then a year later it is so crystal clear it is like a close friend wrote it just for you. The text hasn't changed, the writer hasn't become more logical...but you have learnt to understand and accept the paradox. best wishes

Hi cat, Yes time and space are concepts which structure the world of form; timelessness and spacelessness are also concepts that pertain to emptiness. Liberation from time and space is recognising that all that appears old, for example an old chair, is also, at the same time, a completely fresh perception that is happening now!...and in a flash of a moment won't be happening at all! Liberation is therefore not being taken by just one perspective. It is having the flexibility to see things both ways, and with flexibility comes the ability to choose the one we like the best. Say we drop 100€ on the floor and it flutters away in the wind. We can either view it as an unmixed bad, in which case we'll feel very pissed off. Or, if we are liberated, we are able to see that 5 people are each going to find a €20 noted and feel happy. If we are distant enough from our self-concern we are able to take pleasure in our own misfortune. This is the flexibility that comes from liberation. What is bad is also good - and we can skilfully look for the good in all situations. Liberation from time and space is the greatest liberation of all because it is the intellectual structure that lies behind everything. Every single one of our human anxieties is made from thoughts about time and space. Indeed, every thought is structured by time and space and without thought there is just the present moment. And we all differ in how much we realise just how wonderful and amazing this present moment really is. When we analyse our fears they tend to boil down to fear of future-based physical pain (eg illness), mental pain (eg shame, distress) or death. When we are able to clearly see that these fears are just passing thoughts that will extinguish in a split-second we can no longer take them seriously. The will vanish because they are not believed in. The liberated person has the option to eradicate all his fears simply by focussing on their unreality. On the other hand, thoughts about the future that the liberated person welcomes and consents to can be indulged whole-heartedly. He is free to believe in the reality of his thoughts, 100% if he wants to. If he likes the thoughts of his future, his present will be made happy and confident. He will live as though his future is already assured. And living with this happy confidence will make him feel that the present is the product of a previous desire. He will feel like he willed this moment to happen because it pleases and suits him so well. So just to reiterate, liberation from time and space is being able to see that they are just one-sided interpretations of the present moment. It does not mean that they simply disappear from our life.

Hi marblehead The funny thing is, you can declare yourself a materialist and yet it can be clear from your behaviour and your attitude that are living as if you understand emptiness. This goes back to something I was saying earlier. It is possible to demonstrate all the fruits of a virtue without being consciously aware of it. To the spiritually minded philosopher, the conscious realisation of emptiness is the supreme achievement. With this insight comes the end of intellectual attachment (belief), although emotional attachment may persist. It is in the nature of the philosopher for his thoughts to be in the vanguard, his emotions the rearguard. His recognises his insights as magnificent, but at first cold and austere. The non-philosopher is of course the other way round. For a Buddhist to 'prefer emptiness' is as near as they come to a heresy! I'll explain... Because the world of fulness (form) is the original viewpoint that we are all born in to, most spiritual teachers have to very strongly emphasise the other perspective: emptiness. Until we have our own inner realisation, we are vulnerable to taking these teachings on emptiness as the truth, and rejecting our former views as being false. But this is just to swap one illusion for the other. It would be like one of the men at the table suddenly capitulating and saying "yes you are right and I was wrong - the cup is indeed for left handers" Spiritual teachers are those who are able to show us the alternative view, but this view and their teachings are not the final truth. Only when we see that the world can be viewed both as form and emptiness and is therefore intrinsically neither will we understand the liberation from the life of intellect, and therefore of time and space. When you say "I prefer the concept of fullness" you are saying something that, philosophically speaking, is quite crude. But as I said, this does not mean that you aren't redressing the error in other areas of your practice. best wishes

Hi notovid and marblehead - interesting debate you're both having about concepts. For me the sheer difficulty of the discussion is encapsulated by things like this: The trouble is, this opinion is itself dualistic - the dualism being that we are individual mortals trying to endure in a separate world outside of us. Non-dual realisations are, by defintion, contradictions of dualistic sentences like the above. The proposition that 'dualism is useful' therefore becomes as false as it is true. The concept viewed dualistically is a symbol of reality; viewed non-dually the concept is a reality in itself and symbolises nothing. We can meaningfully discuss concepts in either of these ways...and yet understanding will never be final. whatever we say will also be false. The aim is therefore not to dismiss concepts, but rather to not take them seriously...to let them come and go and be above them. This will only become actualll possible once we have realised the emptiness of the world that the concepts represent. Bah, this Tao business hey??

The moment we try to turn the Tao into a 'thing that exists' we create the concept of something that 'isn't the Tao'...and then we get into a muddle because the tao is meant to be the ultimate category that contains everything. The Tao can only be understood with our spiritual wisdom. We must know it in a whole other way, a way that can't be talked about. How do we know if we know it? Here is how... The knower of the Tao knows that he is not a mortal being who can suffer death or misfortune. He knows with absolute conviction that misfortune is just a transient dream, that in a second passes away into nothingness. He is therefore confident. Everything that happens is fine by him. He trusts exactly what is before him and rejects nothing. It does not occur to him to call anything good or bad, he therefore does not dwell on whether things are of the Tao or not of the Tao. Because he does not question he does not deviate from anything. All is accepted, even his non-acceptance. The average man thinks that to call things bad suggests a non-accepting attitude. He therefore thinks himself bad for thinking things bad, and goes round in circles. Only when we spiritually realise that we are not the thinker thinking these things can we truly accept all that comes our way. Until we make that realisation we cannot help but distrust certain aspects of our existence. If we are totally under the illusion that we are mortal, and buy into all the ideas about what is good and bad for mortals, then we will distrust. To distrust some things and to trust in others is what the sages call being far from the way...but as it is through the pain of distrust that we learn the truth about ourselves then to be far from the way is to be squarely on it. I hope this makes sense. For what its worth, the paradox over what is or isn't the Tao is an incredibly fruitful philosophical exercise, and even if it feels like you go round in circles, you will know when you have solved it for yourself. And you have to solve it for yourself, because the spiritual realisation needed to solves the question has to come from you. best wishes

Hi Cat Spiritual gifts are completely known and familiar to us all. We have all developed them to a greater or lesser extent, but because they are so often the norm we fail to identify them as 'spiritual'. We all frequently demonstrate truly Christ like qualities. The average mother loves her child as purely as Jesus loved his disciples. We think the mother unremarkable, and yet in her behaviour is pure saintliness, nothing different...this is how saintliness looks. and yet we fail to recognise it just becuase it is a bit more selective. Spiritual gifts in the egoic life are a series of peaks and troughs. We are all monstrously developed in some areas and not in others. Some people are truly monstrously developed in some areas: musicians, artists, sports people, supermodels. As we grow spiritually the spiritual gifts that seemed so distinct start to to become increasingly interdependent. We find that we cannot love and show empathy unless we also, in our wisdom, see that we are not paltry individuals who need to ration out their love lest wego without ourselves. We then start to say things like 'God is love' or like Keats, 'Beauty is truth, and truth beauty" We start to identify spiritual gifts with each other and then the labels start to break down...all gifts become the same, just as you say. Such a great question, I love the way your mind works! If you are still thinking about your Qi Gong practice in terms of physical things like energy blockages then that means that you are blocked philosophically as well. To think of a block is to have a block. When your block is also not a block then you will find yourself unblocked (of something that was never a blockage of course)

Hi Stosh The philosopher doesn't transcend the world. He transcends the concept 'world'. The philosopher discovers that 'the world' is a kind of one-sided opinion...and that it is equally true to say that there is no world. Just as the coffee cup is not intrinsically right-handed, things and events in the world are not intrinsically real. The world both does and does not exist in the same way as things can be both left and right handed. The philosopher has the flexibility to take the world as real or as a dream. Both are valid appraisals and he will find himself switching between them as appropriate. He sails through life skilfully because he has options. The ignorant person has no options when the world lets him down. Misfortune is misfortune, no two ways about it. But the philosopher can enjoy good fortune as being real and tangible, and then disregard misfortune as a mere meaningless trifle. He is able to make every situation a winning situation. You say that "I as an individual have an existence". Well, guess what... I say there's another side to this coin: you as an individual do not exist. East and West, the best philosophical argument to illustrate this point I have encountered is Buddha's teaching on impermanence. It's a breathtakingly radical argument that goes widely misunderstood, perhaps because most don't realise just how deep it goes. If you want to talk more about this we can do so. Best wishes

Seeker of Tao And going further, prajna wisdom is beyond even perception, Yes, I agree. I said at the beginning that philosophical enquiry will only take you so far…it must be complemented and facilitated by non-intellectual practices if it is to bear fruit. In my case philosophy was complemented by sitting meditation. One thing I am keen to point out in this thread is that we are all in possession of prajna wisdom, and it permeates all our lives. To see that right and left are the same, and yet, in any different situation different is an insight that goes beyond mere perception – perceptually the coffee cup will always appear either right or left handed. Yes, exactly. Until we meditate we find it very hard to distinguish raw naked perception from conceptually guided perception. Best wishes

Pythagoreanfullotus I think you raise an interesting question and now is as good a time as any to address it. It is certainly true that practices like Qi Gong yield the exact same benefits as philosophy does, despite what seems like huge differences between them. Philosophical Taoism is all about removing the mental clutter from our minds. To remove mental clutter is to remove our involvement with time, space and earthly existence. Why? Because time and space exist nowhere except in our thoughts, as mental concepts. The less cluttered our minds are, the more available we are to live in the ‘present’, which is actually an atemporal realm where our spiritual selves live. Qi Gong techniques access this eternal present through bodily feelings. We cannot feel anywhere except in the present moment. To feel is to transcend time and space and the earth. It is often said the Qi Gong cultivates and strengthens vital energies. We must remind ourselves that are awareness of these energetic processes occurs through feeling and feeling alone. If we cannot feel the energy then all this talk of dantians, meridians and chakras, is, spiritually speaking, empty theology. The Qi Gong master is a master of feeling, a master of feeling directly and deeply the power of the eternal. This strength of his connection to the eternal means that he is little side-tracked by all the time/space based intellectual clutter that beleaguer the average person. He does not hear, he is not detained by the senseless superstitions of those around him. His Qi Gong practice is constant. He is fixated by the superiority of the spiritual present In this he is exactly the same as the philosopher - he has attained the same fruits - even if this Qi Gong master has never learnt to read or write, let alone understand the German metaphysicians. And this brings us to an interesting point. Even though the Qi gong master enjoys all the benefits of philosophical enquiry, he does so unconsciously. He is not able to teach nor talk about the philosophical path because it was not his way. All paths to realisation are the same, and to tread one path is to tread them all. But by consciously following one path, we consign the other paths to unconscious darkness. We walk them but we do not know this until quite late, and all the Qi Gong int he world will not make you familar with the works of Kant. Best wishes

Edit

Edit

Edit

Thanks again for a great set of responses. A lot of you seem to think G being 20 is of significance. To me its an unfortunate obstacle. I don't want her to be 20, her being 20 is not part of the appeal at all. As I said I haven't in any way tried to make the relationship physical, and I have very little desire to do so. Yes, lying in bed with her would be great, but I'm telling you, sat next to her learning the tedious intricacies of Finnish grammar is also great. Why? Because I am with her. I have no hopes nor desires beyond the next time I get to be with her. I do think she's extremely beautiful, but I have no idea whether anyone else would. She told me that no-one has ever called her beautiful before, and being pretty definitely isn't part of her identity like it is with lots of young women. I can't be objective on this. I don't know whether she is objectively beautiful, all I know is that looking into her eyes is the strongest sensation of beauty I have ever felt. CT just wrote a wise and beautiful post, but I'm not sure whether it applies to me because I have absolutely no intention of abandoning my family. I'm not in a 'daunting dilemma'. I'm a man who is in love with a women who is not his partner, nor the mother of his kids. But I'm not going anywhere. Some of you have wondered whether this love is requited. Actually I don't know. My wife got annoyed that i was chatting so much to her on facebook and so I told G that I had a problem at home and we have to cool it. This is the first time I was honest to her and said that my wife was right to be jealous, that my feelings were crossing a line. G told me she spent a week crying. We met up after class and walked and talked about what we were going to do. Then a week later she completely changed her tune and said that she didn't feel the same way for me, but would if I didn't have a family. To be honest i didn't believe her, but then it wasn't actually what I wanted to hear so maybe that's why. This was about five weeks ago and we've been in more or less daily contact ever since but her tune is still the same. Whether its the truth or not I don't know, but if its a lie then its a benevolent lie because it keeps it all innocent and allows us to see each other without controversy. I don't care if she loves me back or not,. She is such a delight to me, although it is painful in the days when i can't see her or talk to her. Recently she went on holiday with her friends and asked not to phone to avoid scandal. At times it was excruciating not talking to her, but the week passed somehow. Of all your replies I think it is filofill who is coming closest to me in spirit. I really want to stay in touch with her forever, I don't want my delight in her to go, but I need to find a brand of love that I've never felt before. it needs to transcend the physical distance that in June will separate us. Is it Platonic love? is that the term? Well that's what I want. I want to find a solution that gives a win-win for us all, for my family, for G and for me. Is it possible? Or do I need to run away from G - sever all contact? This is why I started the thread I guess. I wanted to know if anyone has had a similar experience. Thanks again for all your replies - you've all really got me thinking! Nikolai

Edit

Been thinking about this a lot recently... You will never understand the principle of wu wei, nor the experience of living wu wei, unless you understand that you are not only a mortal individual living in time and space. It is only with this realisation that you are able to drop all the notions of good and bad outcomes that dominate the mortal’s existence. If you are concerned with finding good outcomes and avoiding bad outcomes then you cannot live wu wei. In order to live wu wei you must see, be open to, endorse and accept of all your urges, desires and actions – even if they might at some point lead to outcomes that a mortal might consider bad. To live wu wei is to accept the validity of all things. You are able to accept all things because you have spiritual security. You know that whatever happens you are going to be alright, and so is everyone else. You are like the wise man of the Bhagavad Gita who ‘laments for neither the living nor the dead’. You have no reason to fear what arises within you, nor what occurs outside of you. Because you are fearless, you are trusting of all that arises. Your trust confers upon your desires a kind of Divine validity – your trust makes you infallible. Inability to trust your desires is due to fear, the fear of your mortal ego. The moment you stand in judgement of anything either inside you or outside you is the moment you cease to live wu wei. To live wu wei is therefore an attitude, not a method and not a technique. You cannot describe the behaviours of the person who lives wu wei – they cannot be said to behave in any particular way. You also cannot observe wu wei from the outside – any conceivable action might issue from the person who has the inner attitude of wu wei. Wu wei is trust. It is accepting all that comes and refraining from any judgement whatsoever. Wu wei is to live life as if in the palm of God’s hand. It is often said the person living wu wei always acts skilfully and well. This is because he has the courage to trust his desires and the spiritual security to deal with any conceivable outcome. And because such a person has the spiritual security to trust and endorse everything he has no need to search for contentment as the mistrustful mortal searches. He is not ashamed of his desires, he does not call them bad names. He just follows them. The mortal man smothers his desires, and refuses to be averse to his aversions. They therefore give him no peace and he gets upset by their consequences. If he had spiritual confidence he would ride them all without disturbance. Nothing serious would develop, early of signs of bad outcomes are made immediately good by trust. It is often said that you know you have acted well if you have a feeling of lightness and correctness. This is the feeling of trust. It is possible to have this feeling in the aftermath of any conceivable behaviour. Conversely it can be absent in the mortal person even if their behaviour is flawless in the eyes of others. But the person whose trust is so strong would never be in a situation which requires heinous behaviours. Only a mortal, without spiritual security, would find themselves needing to commit great evil in order to correct inbalance. The person far from wu wei feels fear and danger in insignificant situations. Their minds are able to travel far into the future in order to visualise misfortune. They therefore feel fearful and mistrustful in many situations. They need to go to great lengths to find peace, and their lives are distorted by the pursuit. Wu wei is neither activity nor inactivity. When you trust your every desire and act without hesitation it is impossible to call it activity or uninactivity. The urge arrives passively and you implement it actively. And yet you take responsibility for your desires and feel that in your action the Tao acts through you. Thanks for reading, Nikolai

Great point and I entirely agree. To be in fear or hope is to be emotionally concerned with future outcomes in a way that will destry present peace.. The trust of the person with wu wei not only banishes fear, but it also prevents them from expecting more from the future than they are getting right now. It makes you realise that fear and hope are pretty much the same thing. Best wishes, nikolai

Hi marblehead, Yes moral and mortal could mean the same thing because only a person worrying about their death would be worried about morals. To be mortal is to be moral. I understand your concern with all these words like spiritual, divine and God - they are invalid distinctions that I use to make a point. Actually even the term wu wei is a problem if it relates to a type of action. Strictly speaking all action is wu wei insofar as it is action. All of our actions are entirely pure and spontaneous. But there are persons whose purity and spontaneity is also accompanied by a peace and trust that is completely invisible to others. All beings follow the Way, they cannot help but do that. For most this is a kind of blind obedience - they follow their passions here and there while thinking that they choose for themselves. But some people are able to stand back even from their own deepest passions and watch them arise as observers. These people still follow the way, but an important part of them is not following but rather watching it all happen. For such people the way has nothing left to teach them - they are now the way itself. They are the way becoming the way. I'm personally really interested in that crossroads state when you can both observe passions arising, and yet the passions are so deep and overwhelming that you more or less lose your status as the observer. People at this stage are so astonished and the Christian would likely feel that they are being deliberately tested by God. I really like that story about Abraham getting the desire to slaughter his son Isaac, If Abraham wasn't at the crossroads he would never have received a desire that was so contrary to his desires as a moral mortal. Of course, it is because he trusted his desire to slaughter his son that he saw that there was no need to actually do it, and he noticed a ram in the bushes to slaughter instead. If anyone is reading this and would like to talk about strong and egoically speaking, dangerous desires I'd be really interested. Or perhaps I could start another thread...

Hi all, I’m going through a difficult time in my relationship and there is a strong feeling for us both that my interest in the spiritual life is a major part of the problem. When we got together 9 years ago the spiritual life was on neither of our agendas , although we were both open to the idea of higher realities and on the God question would have called ourselves agnostic. But from the beginning it is fair to say that I was always more intellectual and idealistic, and my wife was more down to earth and concerned with practical affairs. When we met we were both clinical psychologists. Over the years the issues that arose at work forced me to think very deeply about the nature of the world we live in and question many things that we normally take for granted: for example, the freedom of the will, the nature of good and evil, the relationship between body and mind. I became increasingly disillusioned with my work and in a state of what felt like intellectual paralysis, I decided to quit being a psychologist. Although my wife was supportive, she naturally found it threatening that I rejected a career that she still very much believed in. In the months that followed I had no hope that I could ever settle intellectually the doubts about the world that I had and so decided to pursue a completely different means of enquiry: meditation. The idea came from my reading of eastern philosophy, particularly Zen and Taoism. After my practice started to become established I started to gain insights that have completely changed the way I think about everything. It’s still hard to say what this is, but I often say that I realized that there is a part of me that is eternal and exists completely outside of time and space, and that that part of me is always there looking at the world. This insight has become my basic ground and all the contradictions that used to bother me are now nothing more than passing mental events. These insights started about four years ago. Since then it has become very obvious that I am a spiritual seeker on a spiritual path, and I am now able to read religious scriptures from all traditions with what seems like a lively understanding. My wife, on the other hand, has, if anything, become even more atheistic and less interested in spiritual possibilities. She not only cannot understand what I talk about, but gets irritated by it and even dismisses it as ‘daydreams’. Throughout this period it has been easy to just stay silent on our respective beliefs and respect the difference. But it is increasingly leading to conflict that neither of us can help. For example, consistent with my wife’s belief that we are biological beings destined to live and die, she is naturally very concerned with health and well-being. A great deal of her efforts are geared to making sure that her life is as healthy and as long as possible. We had a night without the kids and I decided to get some snacks for a movie night. She took one look at the ingredients on some tortillas and started shouting and actually crying, saying that I deliberately try to sabotage her diet. I, on the other hand, simply cannot comprehend the importance that she attaches to bodily health. In fact, for me, if anything is going to be detrimental to health it is getting uptight and stressed over what seem to me trifling matters. Basically, it seems that my consciousness has found grounding in the eternal whereas hers is grounded in time, space and eventual extinction. As time goes on I forget how it feels to fear death and disease - and this makes me inattentive to who she is and what she sees as important. If this situation continues our relationship will become unworkable. I cannot go back to where she is, but I have little faith that she will come round to my worldview. If I try to talk about it she will literally walk out the room in anger. I fear for our relationship and I was wondering if anyone here has been through a similar situation and can offer advice. If you need more information I could have gone on and on with examples… Many thanks and my very best wishes to you all

I have the embarrassing feeling that my wife is in fact a spiritual genius and her name is cat. cat you have her voice down to a t