How does Taoist immortality work?

[Stigweard]

This is why Zen sometimes sucks major donkey balls. I'd slap this Zen "master" silly for such a bullshit answer.

 

Or maybe you have missed the message that all your questions and queries about immortality are the one thing that stand in the way of you achieving it. So, quite simply, "Shut the hell up and eat your goddamn breakfast!!!"

 

[thelerner]

This is why Zen sometimes sucks major donkey balls. I'd slap this Zen "master" silly for such a bullshit answer.

 

Hmmmnn. My take is- You'd think about slapping him. You'd look at the philosophical and deeper realities of hitting him. In the end it would night fall, he'd be far away and your thoughts would continue..

 

 

If you were a serious student of Zen, then maybe you'd slap him or more likely show respect and agree.

 

 

Michael

[goldisheavy]

Okay. So is it fair for me to ask you what your understanding and beliefs are concerning the subject of immortality?

 

Peace & Love!

 

It's fair. But answering it is not going to be easy for two reasons: one, I don't have a complete vision of immortal life (or I'd be an immortal already), and two, what little bits I think I can see are not easy to explain.

 

First, the subtle energies have nothing to do with immortality. Whether your dan tiens are empty or full is irrelevant. What matters is wisdom. In particular, if you see yourself as a container, no amount of filling it or fiddling with the energies will help. If you see yourself as a separate individual, again, no amount of work with the energy will help. At the same time, if you recognize yourself to be something beyond an individual, something that's not separate, and something that's not even a "something", then there is no way you can empty out, no matter how much you drain. Then, also no matter how much you try to fill up, you can't ever get full. Why not? Because you're not a thing and you don't put too much emphasis on imaginary delineations. Imagination is real though, so I don't mean to say "imaginary as opposed to real." Imaginary delineations are the only real delineations. An immortal is someone who understands the limitations of delineation, and for this reason, doesn't engage in practices that really depend on delineations. So for example, delineating first dan tien from the second, or delineating my dan tien from yours, and so on -- this is what immortals do not rely on.

 

Second, immortals are not beings who live forever, but they are beings who can choose the time of their death and the manner and circumstance of their rebirth. And they do this choosing effortlessly, without straining themselves. And it's possible to choose without the strain due to wisdom.

 

 

Third, immortals have an relatively unusual degree of influence over the phenomena. Things seem to happen exactly as they should be happening for an immortal. The people the immortal meets in life are the kinds of people that are good to meet. If some stranger talks to an immortal on the street, that's not really a stranger, it's a friend.

 

Fourth, immortals intent is melted into everyone else's intent and it seems that whatever immortal wants is what also people around him want, and vice versa, but there is some vibrancy to this, so that interesting frictions arise, the kinds of frictions that add to the color of life as opposed to detract. So this coincidence of intent or will is not something that enters into an extreme.

 

Fifth, immortals are less dependent on society. They really are more like cats. Immortals don't hate society, but they are not fixated on it either. Immortals derive pleasure from the beginningless shimmer of pure being and not from some specific fixed arrangement (be it social or anti-social or non-social). It is also true that when immortals live among equals, they are average Joes who are unremarkable to each other. At the same time, if immortals appear among mortals, they know that they are remarkable compared to a mortal. Immortals are not stupid or ignorant. When an immortal wants to cultivate an entire society, it's seen as an ornament instead of as a necessity (big difference there!).

 

And of course immortals do not fear things like punishments, getting caught, and other trivialities of mortal life.

 

Ok, but how can you become an immortal? I'll try to explain this.

 

First, you need to know how to become a mortal. Suppose that you're an immortal, and you want to become mortal. What do you need? You need to delineate life from death. So for example, if I move my arm around, that's change. But if I am laying on my death bed dying, that's also change. But why is one change considered a sign of life, and another change is considered a sign of death, when both changes are simply changes? It's because of a newly introduced delineation. And by the way -- becoming a mortal is one of the powers of an immortal. Immortals know how to introduce delineations. So first thing is to introduce a delineation. What is the second thing? The second thing is you have to take that delineation seriously. So it's not enough to distinguish life from death, you must become obsessed about that distinction. If you can't get serious about it, the delineation will lack sufficiently vested interest to have power over appearances. You have to vest into it completely. Once you thus cut off an individual being from a stream of beingness, you can start assigning other delineations to it, such as arms being distinct from legs, head from torso, organs from blood, chi gets delineated from shen from jing from jin and so on. Dan tiens gets delineated from each others. One locality gets delineated from another. One time gets delineated from another. And thus an entire world appears that is filled with mortals. These mortals can go around and pretend to work toward immortality then, but it's all a waste of time. Why is that? Because being a mortal is an act of immortal intent to begin with. So then can you stop being a mortal due to some practice? No. You cannot. The only way to stop is to stop intending to be a mortal. Simply put, stop wanting to be one and you won't be. But this stopping has to come from a deep "place", from the immortal roots of your being. So it's not like wanting an ice cream or any other wanting that arises within the mortal framework. It's a type of want that arises from beyond the mortal life, and either instantly or very quickly you'll be liberated. You can't trick yourself or pretend yourself into it.

 

What all immortals share is a sublime understanding of the field of meanings. They know how meanings originate and how they dissolve. And immortals know the limitations of meanings, but they never disparage them, because immortals know the limitations of disparaging and any other fixed attitudes.

 

Well, I think this is good enough.

Edited June 8, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Sunya]

This is why Zen sometimes sucks major donkey balls. I'd slap this Zen "master" silly for such a bullshit answer.

 

I don't agree. Such an answer is in the spirit of the way Buddha himself answered such questions. There's no right way to respond to speculations that beg the question (that assume a self exists which can be immortal)

 

Both the concepts of annihilation and immortality imply that there is an individual, a thing, which either disappears or continues infinitely. This would mean that this individual is of some substance that is immune to change, an indestructible permanent substance that is separate from everything around it.

 

The Taoist immortals usually have a catch to their eternal status. Their 'elixir' or whatever you want to call it, like wine. If they don't drink this wine then they become weak and can die. How is that immortal then? Maybe I'm wrong about these Immortals but those are the stories I've heard. When I think of 'immortal' I think of permanent and self-sustaining, in other words - not depending on conditions. That is not possible though because everything is interdependent and impermanent.

 

Real immortality perhaps occurs when there is a disidentification from the concept of ego/individual/body and instead there is simple embracing of what is, the flow of impermanency, the flow of life. This flow can be said to be eternal or immortal because there will always be causes and causes lead to effects.

Edited June 7, 2010 by mikaelz

[Apech]

Thank you Gold that was totally fascinating.

[goldisheavy]

I don't agree. Such an answer is in the spirit of the way Buddha himself answered such questions. There's no right way to respond to speculations that beg the question (that assume a self exists which can be immortal)

 

You're saying it like I agree with Buddha on every single issue.

 

When someone comes to you with a genuine concern, you can do something to resolve it. Or you can tell the person to ignore it. Ignoring concerns is the path of ignorance. Ignorance has some merit, but it's not my preferred approach. The field of meaning is not something one can escape, and trying to run away from pressing concerns is ultimately a losing battle, kind of like running away from your ankles. The harder you run, the faster your ankles are catching up to you and in the end you just get tired. Getting your student tired is one of the techniques of Zen, but it's definitely not a compassionate one. I wouldn't want this technique to be applied to me by an unscrupulous Zen "master" if I was in a weaker and susceptible state of mind. In my opinion many Zen masters are assholes with wisdom, and I would say some are assholes without any wisdom whatsoever too. And some Zen masters are genuinely compassionate and helpful. I don't embrace Zen approach wholesale.

 

Both the concepts of annihilation and immortality imply that there is an individual, a thing, which either disappears or continues infinitely. This would mean that this individual is of some substance that is immune to change, an indestructible permanent substance that is separate from everything around it.

 

The Taoist immortals usually have a catch to their eternal status. Their 'elixir' or whatever you want to call it, like wine. If they don't drink this wine then they become weak and can die. How is that immortal then?

 

Yes, I alluded to that in my first post in this thread.

 

Maybe I'm wrong about these Immortals but those are the stories I've heard. When I think of 'immortal' I think of permanent and self-sustaining, in other words - not depending on conditions. That is not possible though because everything is interdependent and impermanent.

 

I'm in the same boat. But I think in addition to what information has been given to us about immortals, immortals are also what we make of them. So the answer to "what or who is an immortal" is a combination of "What have I heard about immortals?" and "What do I want immortals to be?" It's neither completely receptive nor completely creative.

 

Real immortality perhaps occurs when there is a disidentification from the concept of ego/individual/body and instead there is simple embracing of what is, the flow of impermanency, the flow of life.

 

That can't be right. Immortals do not leave behind a remainder. In other words, they don't have something they leave behind, such as ego. Suppose you live in the New York City and you want to move to Hong Kong. To do that, you have to leave behind New York City. This would be called a remainder or some kind of "left over" that you left behind. Kind of like a half-eaten meal is a left-over or a remainder. It's something you discarded. On the contrary, immortals enter into immortality together with every aspect of being, without a remainder. Nothing is left behind. Nothing is left over. Nothing is wasted. The whole thing becomes immortal. In Zen language, all meat is the best.

 

And besides, disidentification is just another variant of identification. It's still a reliance on an imaginary boundary. (And like I said before, imaginary boundaries are the only real boundaries).

 

This flow can be said to be eternal or immortal because there will always be causes and causes lead to effects.

 

Delineations between causes and effects are imaginary in the sense that imagination is real, but it's still creative and shifty, like you'd expect imagination to be.

[Marblehead]

It's fair. But answering it is not going to be easy for two reasons: one, I don't have a complete vision of immortal life (or I'd be an immortal already), and two, what little bits I think I can see are not easy to explain.

 

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

Yes, you had a few surprises in there for me. Hehehe.

 

Especially this phrase that I have bolded:

 

Second, immortals are not beings who live forever, but they are beings who can choose the time of their death and the manner and circumstance of their rebirth. And they do this choosing effortlessly, without straining themselves. And it's possible to choose without the strain due to wisdom.

 

Peace & Love!

[Aetherous]

So then can you stop being a mortal due to some practice? No. You cannot. The only way to stop is to stop intending to be a mortal.

 

Good write up, Gold. I disagree with that part, though.

 

1) Yes, you can "become an immortal" by doing practices.

 

2) It's not possible for a mortal to stop intending to be a mortal and become immortal (but you already said that, by saying it must come from immortal intent).

[goldisheavy]

Good write up, Gold. I disagree with that part, though.

 

1) Yes, you can "become an immortal" by doing practices.

 

It's like putting a lipstick on a pig.

 

I think the practices are helpful, but I think they help in an indirect way. There is no practice that directly, as a sole and exclusive result of it, grants immortality. The best that I believe a practice can do, is to clear away some impediment to wisdom and to keep one healthy and keep one having more fun in life (assuming the exercises are enjoyable, which I think is true for most, if not all of them).

 

You can't polish a stone to a mirror no matter how hard you polish it though. You have to start higher up the phenomenal hierarchy. Preferably you start right at the root of being and non-being and not an inch lower.

 

Immortality cannot be a construct or an attainment, or it would be impermanent like all constructs and attainments are. It's not something you can build, like a house. It's something that reveals itself to be already there through stripping away of pretense, layer by layer.

[Aetherous]

The best that I believe a practice can do, is to clear away some impediment to wisdom...

 

...It's something that reveals itself to be already there through stripping away of pretense, layer by layer.

 

Agreed.

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

 

 

Immortality cannot be a construct or an attainment, or it would be impermanent like all constructs and attainments are. It's not something you can build, like a house. It's something that reveals itself to be already there through stripping away of pretense, layer by layer.

 

 

Nicely done.

[Tao99]

Edited June 10, 2010 by Tao99

[3bob]

Enlightenment is the truest desire and goal of meaning, immortality by itself (so to speak) is not although it may or may not become a fringe benefit of and tool used by enlightenment.

[suninmyeyes]

 

You can't polish a stone to a mirror no matter how hard you polish it though. You have to start higher up the phenomenal hierarchy. Preferably you start right at the root of being and non-being and not an inch lower.

 

Immortality cannot be a construct or an attainment, or it would be impermanent like all constructs and attainments are. It's not something you can build, like a house. It's something that reveals itself to be already there through stripping away of pretense, layer by layer.

 

 

Practise may be about removing a dust from the mirror and not polishing a stone into the mirror.Which leaves me agreeing with the rest.

[宁]

Nicely done.

 

You would agree, wouldn't you?

It has one major flaw though: it's too darn reasonable.

Immortality is anything but reasonable.

IME, all the stuff that really worked, sounded pretty unreasonable in theory.

But in practice, wow...

 

 

 

edit spellings

Edited June 8, 2010 by Little1

[C T]

I am just wondering here, after reading Little1's post, whether immortality only becomes unreasonable when viewed from the position of an individual self that becomes immortal? What if it was viewed from the position of a perennial 'selfhood' - is that also unreasonable? After all, selfhood denotes the potential to be ever-evolving. In developing one's selfhood, the tendency is to grow and expand a 'personality' and not a static self, and in my mind, its a boundless state, with limitless possibilities.

 

For most of us, what we do not finish in this lifetime, it is almost certain that we relegate the unfinished business to our offsprings, our spouses, our business partners, and whatever or whomever else we cant leave behind. This can be problematic most times, because it makes it hard to leave without burdening others with matters that we think are so important that they have to carry on regardless. We cling to the need to remain even after the body is gone. In this way some individuals do attain a form of immortality, but the price of it then is the inability to die unencumbered. Accordingly, this is the root cause of rebirth, if we want to take Buddhist doctrine into consideration. Selfhood returning indefinitely due to unfinished business. They say this sets the ever-spinning samsaric wheel in motion? Maybe the quest for immortality is not so wonderful after all. In this sense, i would say that Gold is correct - its very much an unfavorable attainment.

 

In cultivation, do we develop the self, or do we cultivate a 'selfhood'? If its the latter, then immortality is a viable possibility. After all, we do leave indelible marks by virtue of our existence, and these can never be erased - forgotten, maybe, but never erased. Every thought we think has the potential for causing a big chain of endless repercussions. Therefore, be very cautious with thoughts... choose them wisely. Even the tiniest grain of sand, thrown in a still pool, would cause a ripple to take effect.

Edited June 8, 2010 by CowTao

[Marblehead]

Hi CowTao,

 

I can almost agree with you here except you kept the essence of a past life in the human realm. Why must our essence take on another human form? Why not a rooster? Or a Taoist cow?

 

There were essences before man evolved. These essences recycled (okay, reincarnated, if you will) upon death. Immortality on an individual level is so egocentric. But to leave everything to Tao potential is unlimited. Who knows what that stone block will become? Perhaps a cornerstone for a great pyramid - perhaps ground up to be used in concrete to build a sidewalk.

 

Peace & Love!

[Birch]

"we relegate the unfinished business to our offsprings, our spouses, our business partners, and whatever or whomever else we cant leave behind."

 

This being wholly dependent on such people's capacity (or desire) to shoulder the burdens that such others have seen fit to transmit.

 

What if one doesn't want to take on other people's burdens? I see Taoist(and some Buddhist practices) as addressing this quite well.

 

Another idea I had about this is as follows: Imagine you are born with someone hitting you over the head with a stick. At some point you take the stick from the other person and continue to hit yourself, without realising it. At some point you realise you can just put the stick down.

 

Ending Samsara happens the moment you understand what it is and what your role in it is. This then makes it possible to transform it by transforming yourself (which is whatever it is).

[Marblehead]

Ending Samsara happens the moment you understand what it is and what your role in it is. This then makes it possible to transform it by transforming yourself (which is whatever it is).

 

All I want to say is that that is an interesting post. It will cause thoughts in my little pea-brain. Thanks.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Hi CowTao,

 

I can almost agree with you here except you kept the essence of a past life in the human realm. Why must our essence take on another human form? Why not a rooster? Or a Taoist cow?

 

There were essences before man evolved. These essences recycled (okay, reincarnated, if you will) upon death. Immortality on an individual level is so egocentric. But to leave everything to Tao potential is unlimited. Who knows what that stone block will become? Perhaps a cornerstone for a great pyramid - perhaps ground up to be used in concrete to build a sidewalk.

 

Peace & Love!

You are absolutely correct MH to notice this point that you highlighted. We can of course speculate that our essence may indeed weave into other lifeforms, (and i suspect it happens) and Buddhists/Hindus/Jains often dispense vast amounts of time to contemplate on this issue. But then, who could really say for sure? I can only determine what i have seen personally, and one very obvious area i have observed is how the personality of humans can get reincarnated in their pets, especially dogs, but i'm sure we have all seen how animals in zoos, for example, take on the temperament and energy of their favorite or least favorite keeper. Which is why in my post, i mentioned that unfinished business often get relegated to whatever or whomever, meaning attachments to things, animals and people that makes it hard for people to leave peacefully, unburdened, and dignified.

 

The 'selfhood' mentioned is really very vast, and can be glazed over by so many things from so many different realms.

 

All the best!

[宁]

Hi CowTao,

 

I can almost agree with you here except you kept the essence of a past life in the human realm. Why must our essence take on another human form? Why not a rooster? Or a Taoist cow?

 

There were essences before man evolved. These essences recycled (okay, reincarnated, if you will) upon death. Immortality on an individual level is so egocentric. But to leave everything to Tao potential is unlimited. Who knows what that stone block will become? Perhaps a cornerstone for a great pyramid - perhaps ground up to be used in concrete to build a sidewalk.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

FYI, many traditions have immortal animals.

Castaneda's Don Juan said that beings don't need reasoning to become immortal.

 

I think GIH is really close to the position of reason, a position of the assemblage point that allows one to follow an idea to it's most final consequences, without being influenced by personal bias, - I think he can thank his simpathy for buddhism and advaita vedanta school for that.

The position is the twin pair of the silent knowledge position.

The trick is, both positions depend on the state of health of the body, to become stable. Otherwise the information comes through influenced by misconceptions, supposedly a lack of fine tuning to the purpose of the position itself.

Am I making any sense?

[Marblehead]

Hi CowTao,

 

Nice response. Thanks.

 

 

 

Hi Little1,

 

Yes, what you said makes sense. And yes, I would think that health of the body and of the mind would be very important.

 

Yeah, misconceptions, illusions and delusions are always hanging around waiting for someone to pick them up.

 

I think that most of the Native American spirituality includes the concept of humans in other animal forms. That is why they always respected the other animals, even when the had to kill them for food and whatever.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

 

This being wholly dependent on such people's capacity (or desire) to shoulder the burdens that such others have seen fit to transmit.

 

 

Hello Kate,

 

I think its more dependent on the mindstate of the dying person, and not so much on those that are being left behind. Sometimes when death is near, there is much incoherency happening. Things get replayed and amplified many times over in the minds of those nearing death. Often the imagination takes over, and phantom-like images appear; usually these are but empty projections from their past that gradually appears more and more vivid. Much confusion can result because to the dying person, these illusory images can feel extremely real and unreal simultaneously. Sometimes those that are real, like the doctors, nurses, their family members, are seen as phantoms, and phantoms are seen as very real people. Its really good to be prepared for this. This is why in certain practice texts given to Buddhist students, there are always stark reminders that death is indeed real, and can happen at any moment, hence there ought not to be any hesitation to always be mindful, and remain steadfast in the Dharma and the related practices therein.

 

Also, on a sidenote, if we think about it, not everyone possess the luxury of having loved ones to let go of. Those who do not, often form bonds with whatever little they have... their sparse belongings mostly. A pair of shoes, a cardboard box, the alley cat that they have befriended, a faithful dog perhaps, a kind soul that offered them a blanket, or simply clinging to memories of happier times in their lives - all these can make death and letting go quite challenging. The stronger the attachment, the greater the residual mind leaves behind traces, and these traces do linger for a long long time, and those who are more 'sensitive' often can pick up these traces (psychic chanellers/mediums for example) even long after the departure of a person.

 

You also mentioned about the choice of accepting or rejecting the burdens of the dying -- I could well be off the mark here, but i think in those traditions that regard Bodhisattva Vows as integral (in Vajrayana for example), taking on the burdens of others is symbolic of fully understanding what it means to be 'selfless', and its this selfless path that is deemed the fastlane towards the realization of enlightenment.

 

What has all this got to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing i'm afraid. Another distracting deviation. Apologies to all concerned. Its me and my ramblings that often get me into trouble...

 

ps - Glad to see you posting again after a brief absence Kate - trust you are very well?

 

 

... ... ...

[Birch]

Hello Mr Cow!

 

Thanks for the kind words. I was travelling for a short while (it's almost as good as meditation - sometimes even better ) One reason was that I got to see some major Taoist artifacts. OT, they had pictures of naga (I think they are called?) there too...

 

Interesting post. I haven't spent time with people who are dying in the final phases (although I could also argue that everyone is dying all the time as they follow their path through life) so I can't speak to what I feel in their presence.

 

I was told that a relative had wild hallucinations before her death. I heard there is a special university/college class taught by a woman somewhere in the US which deals with all kinds of dying-related things. I can try to dig it up (no pun intended;-))

 

The bit I'm struggling with is the "remainder" part that people leave behind. Certainly I've had the experience of "bad vibes" from specific places where I later learned uncool things went down. But the person it happened to wasn't dead so maybe that's a different case.

 

I've had the experience of a dying animal communicating "something" to me, but that's hard to distinguish from how I felt about the animal so maybe not a good example either.

 

I think a key when it comes to getting a handle on this is to eliminate the passage of "time" from the equation. I reckon a neat comparison could be weather systems, but I digress...