Why the Taobums Can't Get Along

[goldisheavy]

Does this mean you have blocked my posts?

 

Why would I do that? I never use such features when they are available. I want to see the reality in its uncut form, including anything that might annoy me. I cannot afford blindness.

 

EDIT: Aha I see what happened. I read back to the beginning of the thread and I see that you made a similar comment before (about us getting along). My apologies. I have a tendency to sometimes jump into a thread with 3 pages and only read the last page.

Edited January 16, 2010 by goldisheavy

[effilang]

"Getting along" is a really low and unambitious standard to strive for. People who don't give a crap about each other can get along. Two self-absorbed and unkind people can get along. Etc.

 

If getting along means not killing each other in general terms.

Then people in our world today seriously need to lower their standards : )

[Smile]

 

speak for yourself, pooper.

You are probably right....

 

[~jK~]

You are probably right....

 

Guess what else this cat has been covering up . , . , . , . ,

[soaring crane]

The material you posted on leg meridians was very helpful. Thank you.

That being said, surely you must agree that in terms of nonduality, THE pillar of Asian philosophy, Taoism and Buddhism are in accord, yes? That's a pretty significant consensus, and not surprising at all given their mutual histories.

 

Hey Blasto - I'm not sure what it has to do with leg breathing but, as I indicated earlier, I wasn't commenting on philosophy. It was kind of a drive-by post, the only kind I really have time for at the moment, unless I stay up way past my bedtime. I'll be drifting away from TBB again soon. Gliding the thermals of life, lol.

 

I get all goggle-eyed when I concentrate too much on philosophy. I'm a do-not-doer, not so much a thinker. So, when I read of a philosophy, I automatically feel into it, see if it fits in with my meditation approaches, kind of smell it and taste it, and, if it works for me, I integrate it. And then I tend to forget the source (which is why I'm grateful for ppl like Taomeow and Stigweard who remind me where I came from, where I started). It's hard for me to write specifically about the "why" of what I do, or to quote sources. I can tell you all about the "how", though. And the results.

 

Anyway... two things from Hindu/Buddhism/East Asian et al religions to which I have absolutely no connection are karma and reincarnation. If I remove those two things from my practice, will you understand what I'm doing and why? I want to be healthy, content, and live very very long. That's all I want. And that's Taoism in a nutshell, isn't it?

 

The thing is, as already pointed out, the Chinese approach is all-encompassing. And that's the Taoist legacy in Chinese cultuer. Taoist is Chinese. It's unique. You can't really find an "-ist" in China, not that I know of. Confucius for the family, Buddha for the soul, Dao for the belly... The "Dao" part is the reason that a system like that can function. Something like that, anyway. They just keep the approaches that work best in any particular situation. And they get on with their day. It's not dualistic, it's multi-istic (give me a better term for it, lol).

 

I like that.

 

But I mostly like the Dao for the belly part. And it's not that easy to master. "When he's hungy, he eats, when he's tired, he sleeps". Try it for a while.

 

I like Wuwei, is there a Buddhist analogy to it? I sense Wuwei as the antithesis of Karma. I don't see how the two concepts can really co-exist. Am I on to something there? Am I contradicting myself? Well...

 

I'm Ninpo's wife! And my wife is Ninpo! Just ask her. Outside of the Internet, I'm as circular as hoola-hoop.

 

I like feeling at one with the natural world and everything I find in it. I'm in love with trees and wildflowers. I like seeing parallels to the natural world in my own body. My Qigong is Fengshui for my body and my Fengshui is Qigong for my apartment. Wow

 

Now if I could just learn to cook.

 

A celebrity Chinese Qigong master signed my book with "Da Dao is the great Nature" - if you ask the Chinese what Dao means, I don't think they'll say it's the "Way", they'll say it's "Nature". I get out there as much as I can, smelling the fresh grass, or the frozen snow, or whatever happens to be in season.

 

I want to stay here on Earth as long as I can because it's just wonderful to be here. Does that fit in with the Buddhist approach? I'm not suffering or looking for suffering. I'm not sowing good deeds in order to reap reward in the afterlife. And yet, somehow, without really trying, and for the most part not even understanding how it works, I help out.

 

I'm not concerned with what comes next, not at all. Is there room for me in Buddhist philosophy? Or, more concisely, Buddhist religion? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I guess I don't really know. And I have no problem recinding statements.

 

wu wei er pu wu wei

 

How are those legs doing, btw?

 

Xi Xi and Goodnight from GMT+1

 

 

 

ps. sorry for my rather long post all.

 

I enjoyed the heck out of it, and I'm happy when you expand on your thoughts a bit more here. Thank You, Nin

[forestofclarity]

Non-attachment.

 

I like Wuwei, is there a Buddhist analogy to it? I sense Wuwei as the antithesis of Karma. I don't see how the two concepts can really co-exist. Am I on to something there? Am I contradicting myself? Well...

[Marblehead]

I like Wuwei, is there a Buddhist analogy to it?

 

Non-attachment.

 

You done good!

 

Peace & Love!

[soaring crane]

I like Wuwei, is there a Buddhist analogy to it?

 

[non-attachment]

 

You done good!

 

Peace & Love!

 

Are you really sure about that, FoE and MB? No argument from me if you feel comfortable with the comparison but, can one of you explain the similarity? How are they analogous?

 

Doesn't Buddhist non-attachment have more to do with avoiding entrapment and the suffering it causes? Isn't it one of the techniques (or maybe "traits" is a better word?) one develops in order to to apply the brakes to the wheel of suffering, Samsara?

 

How does Wuwei fit into that? Wuwei has simply to to do with following the Dao, not mingling with the natural procession of events as they unfold, not being a busy-body, or a Bisy Backson, lol.

[Marblehead]

Are you really sure about that, FoE and MB? No argument from me if you feel comfortable with the comparison but, can one of you explain the similarity? How are they analogous?

 

Doesn't Buddhist non-attachment have more to do with avoiding entrapment and the suffering it causes? Isn't it one of the techniques (or maybe "traits" is a better word?) one develops in order to to apply the brakes to the wheel of suffering, Samsara?

 

How does Wuwei fit into that? Wuwei has simply to to do with following the Dao, not mingling with the natural procession of events as they unfold, not being a busy-body, or a Bisy Backson, lol.

 

Hi Soaring Crane,

 

I won't speak too much as I would like to hear Forest's take on this even though I have already agreed with him/her.

 

Wu wei does not exclude intervention in events. Wu wei allows for doing what needs to be done. If a child is about to be hit by a moving vehicle it is okay to grab the child and pull or push or pick it up and move it out of harm's way.

 

But once the child is safe we let go of the event. We do not attach ourself to what we have done nor do we worry about praise for our action. The Sage, living in wu wei, is unconcerned with praise and blame. He moves, or not, according to what needs be done. If nothing needs be done he does nothing.

 

And yes, he practices non-attachment. That is, when the work is done he retires. He does not linger on what he has done.

 

Peace & Love!

[soaring crane]

Hi Soaring Crane,

 

I won't speak too much as I would like to hear Forest's take on this even though I have already agreed with him/her.

 

Peace & Love!

 

well, if you agree that Daoist Wuwei and Budddhist non-attachment are the same thing, just tell me how that works. Or maybe you're just not quite sure what you were agreeing with but it sounded good anyway? lol, that's ok, bro, nothing wrong with that at all, in fact, it's kind of sweet

[Marblehead]

well, if you agree that Daoist Wuwei and Budddhist non-attachment are the same thing, just tell me how that works. Or maybe you're just not quite sure what you were agreeing with but it sounded good anyway? lol, that's ok, bro, nothing wrong with that at all, in fact, it's kind of sweet

 

I just presented the link above in what I said. The only thing I didn't do was to define the Buddhist concept of 'non-attachment' because the words used by a Buddhist would surely be different than the words I used. Non-attachment, in my understanding is not holding on to events as they fly by during our life. We don't hold to past experiences because doing so prevents us from living our life to the fullest.

 

We don't become excessively sorrowful because we have lost something we once had, be it another person or an object, say a guitar or an automobile. This is because we understand that nothing is permanent - nothing lasts forever. We experience each and every interaction with all externals but we don't try to hold to them. They will all pass just as we each will.

 

Now, I cannot fairly define the Buddhist concept of 'non-attachment'. First, I probably wouldn't get it right and secondly, it is only fair that a Buddhist do that. As long as their definition does not grossly disagree with what I have said then I would have no problem at all and would still be in agreement with the idea that the wu wei of Taoism is a concept that is similar to the Buddhist concept of non-attachment.

 

Peace & Love!

[soaring crane]

Non-attachment, in my understanding is not holding on to events as they fly by during our life. We don't hold to past experiences because doing so prevents us from living our life to the fullest.

Peace & Love!

 

Well, that's great, I'm glad you wrote back

 

I think practicing Buddhists attach more meaning to it than "living life to its fullest", but then I'm not one, either, so maybe i'm competely off-base.

 

 

Non-attachment, in my understanding is not holding on to events as they fly bAs long as their definition does not grossly disagree with what I have said then I would have no problem at all and would still be in agreement with the idea that the wu wei of Taoism is a concept that is similar to the Buddhist concept of non-attachment.

 

That's very gentle and appropriate, and polite and diplomatic. But, similarity isn't an analogy and I'm still not seeing any real definitive connection between the two. Ah well, doesn't really matter in the end what I see or not, does it?

 

Goodnight again

[Marblehead]

 

That's very gentle and appropriate, and polite and diplomatic. But, similarity isn't an analogy and I'm still not seeing any real definitive connection between the two. Ah well, doesn't really matter in the end what I see or not, does it?

 

Goodnight again

 

Actually, it does matter to me. But like I said, I cannot speak for the Buddhists.

 

If at least you understand (no, I don't need agreement) my understanding of wu wei and how it relates to non-attachment then I have done everything I can regarding your question.

 

Anything further depends on the willingness of a Buddhist to enter the discussion and present their understanding of the concept 'non-attachment'.

 

Other than that all I can do is repeat what I have already presented.

 

Goodnight and I'll see you the next time.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

The Buddha said, "Not nakedness, not platted hair, not dirt, not fasting, or lying on the earth, not rubbing with dust, not sitting motionless, can purify a mortal who has not overcome desires." (The Dhammapada)

 

A friend of mine once told me that cultivating the quality of Non-Attachment for him is the same as being given a giant inflatable cushion, but it comes deflated at the start. As the practice becomes more stable, the cushion slowly gets inflated, and begins to do what its meant to do, to cushion one from becoming overly attached to transient things.

 

Desires are quite natural, and for most people, it is not a problem. It only becomes problematic when we impose our will on them, in other words we tend to go chasing after the good desires and try hard to fulfill them, and run away from bad desires, thinking they will harm us if we do not avoid them. From the Buddhist view, both are born from the same root.

 

Hence the practice of Non-Attachment, from a Buddhist perspective, allows one to view this with clarity, and as a result, learn to abstain from both after having understood that life is basically impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self, so to chase after one while trying to avoid the other goes against the grain of this fundamental principle of life.

 

To gain some insight into Non-Attachment, it will be helpful to read the account of Steven Callaghan, lost at sea for 76 days! In his book 'Adrift -- Seventy-six Days Lost At Sea', he recounts poignantly: "Deprivation seems a strange sort of gift. I find food in a couple of hours fishing each day, and i seek shelter in a rubber tent. How unnecessarily complicated my past life seems. For the first time i clearly see the difference between human needs and human wants. Before this voyage i always had what i needed - food, shelter, clothing, and companionship - yet i was often dissatisfied when i didn't get everything i wanted, when people did not meet my expectations, when a goal was thwarted, or when i couldn't acquire some material goody. My plight has given me a strange kind of wealth, the most important kind. I value each moment that is not spent in pain, desperation, hunger, thirst or loneliness."

 

To me, what Callaghan went through is almost similar to the practice of N-A. Can you imagine how valuable it is to have cultivated Non-Attachment in a situation like this? Each time i reflect on it, there arises a clear picture about how life ought to be regarded. It provides strong motivation to treat life with respect, to value the time i have, and put it to good use.

 

(As i was writing this my puppy quietly stole my cellphone, hid herself, and began chewing on it happily. Now all i have is a phone that partly functions due to the screen being crushed. Life can be strangely funny at times!

Taught me 2 lessons here... one, 'whole' things can become unwholesome in a matter of minutes, and two, dont write stuff that is not thread-related or i will 'enjoy' instant karmic consequences!! )

[Marblehead]

 

(As i was writing this my puppy quietly stole my cellphone, hid herself, and began chewing on it happily. Now all i have is a phone that partly functions due to the screen being crushed. Life can be strangely funny at times!

Taught me 2 lessons here... one, 'whole' things can become unwholesome in a matter of minutes, and two, dont write stuff that is not thread-related or i will 'enjoy' instant karmic consequences!! )

 

That was the most enjoyable part of your post. Hehehe.

 

(Sorry. I just had to laugh.)

 

Okay. So all you said has not caused me to think otherwise than I have as illustrated in the above posts.

 

Thanks for sharing in this concept.

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

Wu wei and non-attachment:

 

Like all spiritual terms, they appear to be simple and easy, and they are. They are also infinitely deep and profound. This depth can only be experienced through ongoing practice.

 

Attachment is what prevents we wei from arising. In a Chan/Zen context, there are seemingly paradoxical expressions such as the "mind of no mind," "speaking without speaking," "thinking no-thought." These are the same as wu wei.

 

According to the Buddha, the problem is in the clinging, grasping, attaching, identifying, resisting, craving--- whatever word you choose. In Taoist language, you might call this "interference." Becoming free of this, one can allow all things to arise naturally and spontaneously. Our Buddha nature is our natural state. Ignorance and delusion are added to this. Accordingly, practice is about losing this excess, rather than gaining something new.

 

As Lao Tzu said:

 

Pursue knowledge, daily gain

Pursue Tao, daily loss

 

Loss and more loss

Until one reaches unattached action

With unattached action, there is nothing one cannot do

 

Take the world by constantly applying non-interference

The one who interferes is not qualified to take the world

[Marblehead]

 

Attachment is what prevents we wei from arising. In a Chan/Zen context, there are seemingly paradoxical expressions such as the "mind of no mind," "speaking without speaking," "thinking no-thought." These are the same as wu wei.

 

According to the Buddha, the problem is in the clinging, grasping, attaching, identifying, resisting, craving--- whatever word you choose. In Taoist language, you might call this "interference." Becoming free of this, one can allow all things to arise naturally and spontaneously. Our Buddha nature is our natural state. Ignorance and delusion are added to this. Accordingly, practice is about losing this excess, rather than gaining something new.

 

Thanks Forest. Here too I have no problem.

 

Peace & Love!

[Nanashi]

Sorry to be off topic to the recent discussion on this thread, but speaking of "bums not getting along," what ever happened to Vaj?

[Marblehead]

Sorry to be off topic to the recent discussion on this thread, but speaking of "bums not getting along," what ever happened to Vaj?

 

He got married and is getting alone quite well with his wife. I'm sure he will be back when all the excitement of the new lifestyle has mellowed.

 

Peace & Love!

[Wayfarer64]

Been in hybernation...

 

I've been in a few brew-ha-has here mostly to confront what I saw as shilling or over-bearing entries...(With Mr. Denty & Vaj most notably)...I never felt any real anger in these confrontations, & I think they were pretty healthy in the long-run.

 

The Tuna/cow analogy works for me when we look from the inside out ... the structures of both are remarkably similar. But they each serve very different places in the natural system/order of this planet... as do the various philosophies we discuss here...

 

When systems of life develop in our many and various environments we GAIN variety! All life is sacred and all life is expendable. We cherish that which we are a part of. As our consciousnesses grow we become part of greater realms of being... Each finding our own path thru the changes...

 

love to all- Pat

[ralis]

The whole concept of non-attachment is an illusion. If one is here, then one is attached to whatever phenomena one experiences. Even if a memory of a past event arises in the future, that implies an attachment to that event, since that memory is stored in the brain. Buddhists are very attached to their ideology of non-attachment. Seems as though escapism is what Buddhists are really after.

 

The problems with the writings about the Buddha, are that the writings are from an ancient culture and may be irrelevant 2500 yrs. later. Remember, the Buddha wrote nothing and his sayings were passed down orally. Perhaps a bit of revisionism to fit certain belief systems (trance) occurred? Can anyone state beyond doubt that the Pali Canon is completely authentic?

 

Perhaps, removing the memory centers of the brain might alleviate the constant pain of attachment. Ah, relief at last! :lol:

 

ralis

Edited January 22, 2010 by ralis

[forestofclarity]

These strike me as the wrong questions. The question is whether so and so wrote a certain book. The question is whether the teachings, as applied, work as promised. And they do. How do I know? Because I use them and see the results. Suttas and sutras are only living in so much as they are experienced and lived, not as they sit on blank pieces of paper. When you say the ancient teachings may be irrelevant, I have to smile, for to me, it is like saying there is no such thing as sunshine.

 

If the Buddhist teachings make you crabby, then by all means, set them aside. Luckily, there are many paths available.

 

The whole concept of non-attachment is an illusion. If one is here, then one is attached to whatever phenomena one experiences. Even if a memory of a past event arises in the future, that implies an attachment to that event, since that memory is stored in the brain. Buddhists are very attached to their ideology of non-attachment. Seems as though escapism is what Buddhists are really after.

 

The problems with the writings about the Buddha, are that the writings are from an ancient culture and may be irrelevant 2500 yrs. later. Remember, the Buddha wrote nothing and his sayings were passed down orally. Perhaps a bit of revisionism to fit certain belief systems (trance) occurred? Can anyone state beyond doubt that the Pali Canon is completely authentic?

 

Perhaps, removing the memory centers of the brain might alleviate the constant pain of attachment. Ah, relief at last! :lol:

 

ralis

[Encephalon]

I cannot recommend enough Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism without Beliefs," a treatise on agnostic Buddhism, which basically boils down to humanistic psychology from a Buddhist perspective. Batchelor's latest work, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist" isn't due out until this Spring, and its trajectory is in a similar vein.

 

I realize Buddhism takes a lot of hits in this place, and I am often in agreement with them, but the hits are usually directed at the various Buddhist orthodoxies that accreted around the Buddha's original ideas hundreds of years after he passed away (sound familiar to Christianity?)

Anyone who holds religious orthodoxies suspect but still practices a secular yet spiritual life will find BWB an extraordinary work, stripped of all metaphysics and moralizing. After that, Jack Kornfield's "The Wise Heart: A Guide to the Universal Teachings of Buddhist Psychology" will also yield tremendous insights into the original intent of the teachings. I challenge anyone who is well-read in psychology and Asian thought to find a more lucid presentation of the human psyche.

 

I typed BWB in its entirety years ago when I was teaching myself how to type, but when I met Stephen Batchelor, I could not bring myself to share it with anyone and take money out of this brilliant man's pocket.

[Wayfarer64]

WAKE UP!

A previously rarely seen- & newly published work by J. Kerouac on the life of the Buddha has many interesting aspects to it. First the intro is by R. Thurman. Then the transcription... discription- of Buddhas' transcendance seems very well done to me... That his greatest insight was realizing everything sprang from mind as the source and sire of matter ( being mostly empty space anyway)... was astoundingly and simply stated.

 

His heavy Christianized view of spirituality remains apace & "The Middle Way" -is NOT alluded to as Taoist _ which seems obvious to me- biased as I am of course...

 

But in all it is a good read.

 

That the naming of our Tao Bums site, sprang from his Dharma Bums strikes me as apt just now.... as usual

 

love to all-Pat

[Mal]