Daoist Sitting in Oblivion vs Xstian Apophatic Prayer

[Stigweard]

A friend of mine, Michael Saso, recently made this comment:

Daoist "sitting in oblivion 坐忘", Zen's "Path with WU gate 無門關 " and Xstian apophatic prayer are "One."

I thought it would be a good topic of discussion. Here is what Christian Apophatic or Kataphatic Prayer is about:

 

THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING

 

The Cloud of Unknowing is a literary masterpiece whose influence is still widely felt in our own day. It provides a clear, concise and convincing statement on what is 'apophatic' prayer and how one can enter into it. From the very beginning the author is careful to insist that his work is not meant for all people (43). One ought first to meditate on one's sins and on Christ's life and Passion (57). But for those who sense the need for a deeper experience -- provided they are purified in conscience (85) and endowed with a relaxed, healthy, and vigorous disposition of body and soul (101) -- he urges a kind of prayer where one learns to be at home in a dark cloud beyond all thoughts and images (48-49).

 

The author also insists that no method or technique can bring about the kind of experience that he is about to describe. While confessing that they are all ultimately useless (92), he does suggest a way that may be helpful: centering prayer. One is to choose a single word (e.g. God) (94) and then reject whatever thought, image, or feeling that may well up so as to center one's attention solely upon the reality beyond the word (104). This state is called the cloud of forgetfulness. For it blocks out every creature and creaturely activity from one's awareness and turns to confront the cloud of unknowing hovering between God and self (112).

 

While totally lost, as it were, in this impenetrable cloud, one awaits the stirring of a gentle but powerful movement arising out of the depths of one's being (112). This stirring is a grace given not for innocence nor withheld for sins (91). Only the person who truly experiences this prompting within one's spirit has the aptitude for contemplation and no one else (91). Though this stirring is the lightest of touches (52), it fills one with unsurpassing joy and enthusiasm. It is also blind -- in the sense that every passion seeks to fulfill its desire no matter what a person may intend.

 

When sensed, this stirring impels one to rise upward towards God hidden in the cloud of unknowing. One needs to surrender wholeheartedly to the spontaneous desire present in this passion and go where it leads (91). One in fact does this eagerly because such submission is felt to be what the self most fundamentally desires. One leaps to God like a spark from a flame (52), discovering that while God cannot be grasped by concepts He can be grasped by love (50).

 

As a person rises ecstatically within this cloud of unknowing, one is simply to let one's mind rest in the consciousness of God in His naked existence, solely loving and praising Him for what He is in Himself (54). In this state where one is taken outside oneself to live in God, one is immediately and directly experiencing one's existential relationship and union with God, being conscious of not who He is or what He is but only that He is (150). In this state of union, one becomes totally self-forgetful, yet paradoxically finding one's true self in a fuller way. For in this union one is realizing in reality what the true self on its deepest level is thirsting for (169). For the heart knows on a level beyond our conscious awareness and control for what state and for whom it has been made and when this has been attained.

 

Such an experience has its own value. It is good just to be with the Lord (172). But beyond this, the author sees other practical results flowing from this state that will affect the quality of one's life. It will for instance heal one's inner self (160), rooting out traces of sin and inordinate feelings (64). One will also become increasingly more interior as one lives more and more in tune with the deep solitary core of one's being. This in turn will make one more fully human (59), enabling one to be sensitive to new dimensions of beauty and potentiality and impelling one to love as Christ has loved in a truly universal way (117-18).

 

In the Book of Privy Counseling, the author recognizes and faces the issue of how to judge whether an ecstatic experience is truly authentic. He realizes that deception can creep in. He lays down two criteria. First, attention must be paid to the desire impelling one to forget all else and center on God's existence. The desire to spring towards God must be "a blind longing of the spirit and yet there comes with it, and lingers after it, a kind of spiritual sight which both renews the desire and increases it' (181). Secondly, there ought to be accompanying this a joyful enthusiasm welling up and persisting within the person (182). The author also adds: "if you think you have really experienced one or two of them, test yourself against the rigorous criteria of Scripture, your spiritual father, and your own conscience" (186).

 

The above clearly highlights what is the apophatic method and prayer experience. One seeks to reach beyond conscious awareness -- beyond thoughts and images -- and arrive at the depth of one's being, there to await the coming of the Lord. It is the Lord who stirs an irresistible passionate longing for Himself and gives this as a gift. When this occurs, one must willingly and unconditionally commit oneself wholeheartedly to this passion. This then opens up to a sense of union with God where the bond of relationship is experienced as real, passionate and fulfilling. One does not know or even care who God is or what He is. One is simply satisfied with the Lord as He exists at this moment in a relational union with oneself.

 

And here is a summation of Daoist Zuowang Meditation (Sitting in Oblivion 坐忘) by Michael Rinaldini.

In the 2005, Issue 3 of the Dragon’s Mouth, Liu Xingdi when asked in an interview about the importance of zuowang meditation in Daoist cultivation, replied: “Zuowang is an ancient Daoist practice handed down within the Daoist traditions. Zuowang, or sitting and forgetting, is allowing everything to slip from the mind, not dwelling on thoughts, allowing them to come and go, simply being at rest.” Liu stresses a good body posture which helps to quiet the mind. Otherwise, he says “qi disperses, attention wanders, and the natural process is disturbed. Just remain empty and there is no separation from the Dao. Then wisdom will arise and bring forth light, which is the clear qi of a person.” Lastly, he adds “Don’t think too much about the theory … you are sure to disturb the heart-mind. Just trust in the inherent natural process.”

 

In the 2007 Issue 1 of the Dragon’s Mouth Eva Wong answered a question about zuowang in an interview: “So yes, in some sense the practice is about dissolving self. Dissolving self is dissolving the conceptual mind. When we drop conceptions, what we have is the natural emergence of the natural self, the natural celestial mind, which has been with us all the time. It is only because of our conceptions that we can’t experience it. So when we practice zuowang, we’re simply saying that here’s a method where we can begin to drop conceptions.”

 

And lastly, we have the comments of Shi Jing. He is one of the founders of the British Taoist Association and was ordained a Daoist priest in China in 1995. Shi Jing writes extensively about zuowang and leads retreats on it in England. Speaking at length about zuowang, he says “Zuowang is a formless meditation-it has no techniques or methods in it, but if I was to ask you to sit here and say there is nothing you need to do, then your mind would slip into the habitual pattern of thought and wander all over the place. There are ways of introducing this practice to you. There are techniques, but we must realize they are not zuowang; they are ways to help you discover zuowang. Really zuowang is resting in a choiceless awareness which is not dependent on self reference. This is a natural state, not some transcendental experience. Thoughts arise from emptiness and dissolve back into emptiness. Thoughts become self-liberating if we can recognize that their nature is emptiness. Thoughts are arising, but we are not doing it, they are appearing of themselves. They are not our enemy. It’s a natural process that is happening.When thoughts dissolve into emptiness, it means they have returned to the source, which is non-being. By becoming familiar with this experience, gradually our activities become an expression of non-being.” (Dragon’s Mouth, 2006, Issue 1)

 

In an earlier issue of Dragon’s Mouth, Shi Jing states very strongly about the place of zuowang in the Daoist tradition and then goes on to share important insights on the zuowang view: Shi Jing is asked what he feels is the main practice of Daoism that people can follow. His answer follows: “The original practice which is really the core of Daoism, regardless of what tradition, is zuowang, which means to sit and forget. When you sit you are actually freeing yourself up from the “baggage” that you carry. You forget about your persona, who you think you are. Things are gradually dissolved. Zuowang is the formless meditation, if you like. True zuowang has no form. It’s resting in the non-dual awareness, your original nature. There is actually no method or teaching or technique in this at all.” And then he talks about the view: “So how do we approach zuowang? The first step is the view. The view is that our dualistic state of being is a distorted reflection of the non-dual mind. We hold this view lightly in practice because in the beginning we apply it from a dualistic perspective. The view and the method [ eventually become one ] until they dissolve into emptiness and are forgotten. So zuowang is no more than resting in the non-dual awareness.” (Dragon’s Mouth, 2005, Issue 1)

 

“There’s nothing really to achieve, but until I really realize that, I must go on trying to achieve, though really realizing that there is nothing to achieve.”[5]

 

So, there we are again, back to our original discussion on wuwei. Yes, to fully grasp the meaning of zuowang, we have to live by the principles of wuwei. To be true Daoist cultivators, our actions must remain with our Original Nature. Liu Xingdi, in the Dragon’s Mouth interview I quoted much earlier, said it all so clearly:

 

“Our cultivation is to remain with our original nature, then whatever arises is a natural activity of Dao. Every action is wuwei. In meditation you stay quiet and allow the mind to empty. So wuwei means to remain empty and be totally present with whatever you are doing.”[6]

 

This is my practice now: cultivating the present awareness of whatever arises in the moment, and maintaining the view of Original Nature. I make use of different disciplines in my sitting practice, like sitting in formless, open awareness, making no preferences, asking “who’s sitting forgetting,” and occasionally sitting throughout the night in meditation. I am aware of the way [Dao = Way] that lies before me, yet firmly keep my feet planted deeply in the wuwei of the earth. I am aware of the gradual process of the dissolving ego-identity; the ego that tries with all its strength to encourage me to give up these spiritual endeavors. And I am aware of the possibility that at any moment, a flash, a nuclear-explosion of sudden awakening can transform my being and I can say the same words as Maura O’Halloran.

 

“Ten ni mo chi ni mo tada ware hitori.

 

In heaven and earth, there is but I, myself.

 

Everything is perfect. Everything is enlightening,

 

just as it is by virtue of being.”[7]

Edited November 29, 2013 by sean
attributed michael rinaldini by request

[Sloppy Zhang]

I'm not currently Christian, but I was raised Christian and I do have a lot of Christian friends, that being said....

 

A common criticism made by Christians towards meditation in general, is they have the thought that if you clear your mind, and open yourself up during meditation, you are at risk for negative spirits to enter.

 

So, drawing from my experiences from a Catholic background, at least, making comparisons to meditation really only go so far as contemplative meditations/mantra repetition meditations. So contemplating on God, Jesus, or some Holy thing would be one thing. Repetitions of prayer like the Hail Mary prayer are also common. But in my time, at least, I didn't experience much practice, teaching, or even mention of prayers that had anything to do with clearing the mind or things like that- because again, a prevalent concern was that as soon as you "empty your mind" a demon was going to jump you!

 

As well there was the teaching that humans had the inclination to sin, and if it weren't for the mind stepping in to control base urges, a body left to its own devices would reduce itself to sinful pleasures of all kinds. So most any "stirring" from within, especially after having a clear mind, was usually labeled as something not very pure.

 

Maybe I just got stuck in a fear mongering section of Catholicism, maybe other teachings are elsewhere, but I have had many of these concerns brought to my attention from my Christian friends from many denominations. There's even some Bible passage that they quote to me (don't remember what it is) about not trusting your own instincts/emotions/intuition/thoughts (forget the exact wording) because as a human, you have a powerful instinct to sin, so following those instincts will only lead to sin.

 

 

Not to say I'm not glad that stuff like this is popping up in Christianity, but in my experience, it's not a practice that's held in too high of regard (which I personally find rather unfortunate)

[Taiji Bum]

Michael Saso the ex-Jesuit? I had his books and just posted a thread about the Cloud of Unknowing being virtually Taoist. If you take out all the references to Jesus (not many) and change God to Tao its pretty surprising. Plus the author calls this prayer, "water prayer".

 

Sloppy Zhang, I had a much different experience being Catholic. I am not a strict Catholic anymore (joined the masons) but it was a priest who handed me my first copy of the Cloud of Unknowing (hundreds of years old). Also up until 2005 I was doing mantra (Rosary) for about 4 hours a day. I think its a great method to develop insight and wisdom. Nothing beats contemplative prayer or sitting in oblivion though in my opinion.

[Stigweard]

Michael Saso the ex-Jesuit? I had his books and just posted a thread about the Cloud of Unknowing being virtually Taoist. If you take out all the references to Jesus (not many) and change God to Tao its pretty surprising. Plus the author calls this prayer, "water prayer".

 

Sloppy Zhang, I had a much different experience being Catholic. I am not a strict Catholic anymore (joined the masons) but it was a priest who handed me my first copy of the Cloud of Unknowing (hundreds of years old). Also up until 2005 I was doing mantra (Rosary) for about 4 hours a day. I think its a great method to develop insight and wisdom. Nothing beats contemplative prayer or sitting in oblivion though in my opinion.

Sweet: Taoist Text in Catholic Church! - The Tao Bums

 

I missed it originally

[Apech]

Apophatic is such a great word ... I'm going to start dropping it in everyday conversations just for the hell of it.

 

Defining things by what they aren't ... or rather God by what he isn't ... well to me that's all you can do with the Absolute anyway. Even a Buddhist Lama once said to me that since the ultimate is ineffable then if one person says its God and the other says its the Dharmakaya they may both be right.

 

I think in terms of practice we start from the point of view of existential subjectivity - which means the processes are similar no matter what path we are on or what beliefs we might have. Contemplation and meditation are not denominational as procedures and even something like prayer if it is an appeal to whatever is greater than us may be the same or similar also.

 

Obviously there is a stark difference between theist systems and belief in impersonal power (Way or whatever) because the theists see God= the ultimate as a person. On the other hand what does a 'person' mean at that level anyway ... only naive views would suggest God as a person has a long white beard and looks like Santa Claus. Indeed if the Absolute subsumes all possible functions and modes of being then certainly this must include the idea/function of being a person. All positive statements begin to fall away and hence you are left with saying what it is not. e.g it is not a person but it is not not a person and so on.

 

We all have our preferences in this respect borne out of our experience and what we have come to hold true. Most of us have some baggage about god as a person because of authoritarian religion which tries to speak for that person in telling us what to do, what to think and what to feel. Obviously this is crap because if god or the absolute is real then it is real and we don't need holy fathers to interpret for us. Best I think to be as open as possible until we really know.

 

My thoughts anyway.

[thelerner]

I read in a book that when Buddhists monks and Christian ones meet they recognize each other as brothers. The way they move, talk, treat things, are very similar in nature and very different from those who live an uncloistered life, in 'the noise'.

 

Different paths, same summit. Or maybe not so different paths. Masters recognize, beginners squabble.

 

 

Michael

[forestofclarity]

I wonder if you could put something up about sitting in oblivion. I've heard many different methods.

 

But to partially play devil's advocate (mostly to help clarify my own understanding), I might say:

 

The difference between Christian meditation and Zen meditation is the goal oriented nature of Christian meditation. The goal of Zen (if you can call it a goal) is non-abiding, whereas the goal in Christian meditation is abiding in God (even if God is beyond thoughts and images).

 

There is more to say on this, but let's see what this brings.

[Vajrasattva]

Different paths, same summit. Or maybe not so different paths. Masters recognize, beginners squabble.

 

 

Michael

 

 

YES

[Stigweard]

[C T]

One road, different vehicles, different speeds, different views... no destination.

 

Neck veins protrude only when arguments about the presumptions that there is a destination, often taking the mistaken premise that the view is the destination - how unfortunate. If this can be seen, harmony would set in.

 

Enjoy the ride...

 

 

 

Nice posts guys!

[Sloppy Zhang]

While I personally agree with the whole "same goal, different paths" thing, I've never had a Christian tell me they think the goal is the same. From the Christian point of view, if your goal aint God, Jesus, or something like that, your goal aint the true goal, and you're opening yourself up to sin and damnation. Even if you're a great guy and doing it the right way and have compassion and things like that.....

 

Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people. As regrettable as I find it, I don't even really discuss meditation with Christians anymore. It's not because arguments start, it's because the conversation can barely get off the ground. There's just nothing to compare.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Sloppy Zhang

[goldisheavy]

It's not all the same thing. First, we should distinguish mystical traditions from non-mystical. Most religious people, from followers/parishioners to the high priests, are utterly non-mystical. Not only that, but they fear the mystical and have at times reacted most violently to it. Thus, it's not uncommon among Christians to hear words of hate directed toward Gnostic Christians or to any mystical Christian. It's not uncommon among Muslims to hear words of hate directed toward Sufis. In fact, many Sufis have been murdered by none other than pious Muslims.

 

Mystics share some common ground. For one thing, they all share an acknowledgment of the indescribable. However, they are not all identical. For example, if you ever look at the energy channels in the body, as they are described in Kabbalah, and then compare that to the same from Hindu traditions, and again to what we hear of the nagual traditions, very different pictures emerge. It is greatly dishonest to insist it's all the same. It's not. And if you don't believe me, follow it up and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

 

Non-mystics are concerned with one thing -- preservation of status quo. Period. They hate anything that's transformative: critical thinking, deep reason, mysticism, imagination, creativity. This is why all such elements are frowned upon, or outright banned. For example, many Muslims ban things like celebrations and music. Many ban women from attending schools or exercising independence. And Christians these days are not as bad as Muslims, but they do the same thing not by outright bans, but by collectively frowning upon certain activities, and by threatening excommunication, which for some people seems like a big deal, and thus presents a workable threat.

 

Non-mystics tend to live for the next life. Anything that will improve this life they fear and disdain. Mystics want to experience the glories and mysteries now and not later.

 

So I would say, some similarities exist among mystics of many traditions. Also similarities exist among non-mystics of many traditions. Everything is neither the same, nor completely different, and there is a lot of useless dogma and bullshit in most (or in every) tradition that's blocking true understanding. As some Hindu Guru I don't recall said, "You've got to separate the wheat from the chaff." Traditions have a lot of shit intermingled with gold. Use your own head.

[Taiji Bum]

While I personally agree with the whole "same goal, different paths" thing, I've never had a Christian tell me they think the goal is the same. From the Christian point of view, if your goal aint God, Jesus, or something like that, your goal aint the true goal, and you're opening yourself up to sin and damnation. Even if you're a great guy and doing it the right way and have compassion and things like that.....

 

Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people. As regrettable as I find it, I don't even really discuss meditation with Christians anymore. It's not because arguments start, it's because the conversation can barely get off the ground. There's just nothing to compare.

We have the same goal and I am a Christian. It doesnt matter if I want to abide in God and a Zen dude wants non-abiding. The same methods produce the same results and the ultimate reality is the same for everyone. One problem is that most Christians have never heard of contemplative prayer and when they do it takes a hour to explain that your not opening your mind to satan. Seriousy, I just had that exact conversation with my gf last night since she is a singing in the choir Baptist girl.

[Sloppy Zhang]

One problem is that most Christians have never heard of contemplative prayer and when they do it takes a hour to explain that your not opening your mind to satan.

 

How do you explain that part? I've never been good at explaining it, so I just don't even bother anymore

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, though!

[Vajrahridaya]

I wonder if you could put something up about sitting in oblivion. I've heard many different methods.

 

But to partially play devil's advocate (mostly to help clarify my own understanding), I might say:

 

The difference between Christian meditation and Zen meditation is the goal oriented nature of Christian meditation. The goal of Zen (if you can call it a goal) is non-abiding, whereas the goal in Christian meditation is abiding in God (even if God is beyond thoughts and images).

 

There is more to say on this, but let's see what this brings.

 

Liberation in Buddhism is not a formless, concept-less experience, though this experience helps one to get beyond the stuff of the mind. The conclusion is wisdom, not bliss, even though it is a side effect. Insight, not a formless abiding, or absorption. The subtle differences are very deep and note worthy... if you care to be a master that is. It is about correct cognition of phenomena as well as a pervasive state of blissful compassion.

 

At the same time... I do believe that one can internally define the outer usage of the term God to be experimentally the same as Dharmakaya, if one truly is a Buddha. But then, depending on the person, this might lead to confusion. Who knows... maybe it could lead to clarity depending on what the person needed to hear?

 

Still... the treatment of the path is given much more subtle analysis in Buddhism, and Buddhist liberation is also concerned with a subtler comprehension of the cosmos than the intellectual, emotional and experiential excuse of "one-ness" makes. Which is considered by the Buddha as a high abiding which leads to higher rebirth but not liberation in the Buddha sense of the term. Buddha-hood is about enlightening every single faculty... not just the faculty of compassion, but intellectual insight which peers deeply into the endless relative particulars of the cosmos as well, for the sake of compassion of course.

 

When you get into studying the detail of the texts, you really find that there are different conclusions, even though the people are happy, joyous, loving and compassionate in seemingly equal amounts. There is a certain type of wisdom that does not seem to come about in Brahma paths such as Theistic mysticism due to how they interpret the depth of their experience in relation to primal origin or source which Buddhism does not and pierces right through.

 

As Dharmakaya does not mean God in the Theistic sense of the term as Dharmakaya is not given the power of primal origin of all things in a linear sense, nor is it given inherent existence as it merely means the realization of the emptiness of inherent existence so is not given primal origin in the abstract sense either.

 

It's realization is considered the source or origin of Buddha insight though. This is a subtle, but deep difference that should be experienced first hand.

 

Buddhist insight has to do with not one- and not two- as well. So, we don't stay in oneness, or abide in oneness integrating everything with this as a source of all being. This is not the Buddhas goal according to his teachings, but merely a parking space in the heavens of the mind, you could say.

 

EDIT: I remember reading the cloud of unknowing sometime in the 90's and being excited about it being a proof of the sameness of all religions, but I was quite young, idealistic, though I'd had many ecstatic experiences through meditation thus far.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[adept]

Still... the treatment of the path is given much more subtle analysis in Buddhism, and Buddhist liberation is also concerned with a subtler comprehension of the cosmos than the intellectual, emotional and experiential excuse of "one-ness" makes.

 

Here we go again !

This thread is about zuowang vs christian prayer.

Why ruin it with your supposed 'superior' views.

Get off your soapbox man.

[goldisheavy]

Here we go again !

This thread is about zuowang vs christian prayer.

Why ruin it with your supposed 'superior' views.

Get off your soapbox man.

 

I don't think he ruined anything. Don't overestimate Vajrahridaya's importance and you'll be OK. If you think what Vajrahridaya types here is terribly important, then of course it makes sense to imagine that he has the power to ruin something here.

 

To get back to the topic, I think that the experience of mystery is important, but it has a different context in Daoism and in Christianity. And while some people are quick to throw that out the window, I think context is everything. A Christian in an apophatic prayer has a different context. While this Christian is trying to shut that context out and to challenge it by negating it or by ignoring it, nonetheless, that context has force and adds a certain flavor to everything. The same is true of the Daoist, who has his or her own baggage/context to deal with.

 

When you bring up the idea of God in mind, like in a centering prayer, you bring up your understanding of that idea, which includes every last bit of context. So yes, context is important at every stage of the process.

 

For one thing, I think Christians and Daoists will not agree on whether the supreme being is personal or impersonal. I think Daoists will probably lean toward impersonal and Christians will lean toward personal.

[Apech]

...

 

When you bring up the idea of God in mind, like in a centering prayer, you bring up your understanding of that idea, which includes every last bit of context. So yes, context is important at every stage of the process.

 

For one thing, I think Christians and Daoists will not agree on whether the supreme being is personal or impersonal. I think Daoists will probably lean toward impersonal and Christians will lean toward personal.

 

I wonder what person actually means when used in this context.

[Pero]

Masters recognize, beginners squabble.

 

Ah yes, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and all that came after them, those were beginners right? But the grand people of today are the masters. Incredible indeed.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Mystics share some common ground. For one thing, they all share an acknowledgment of the indescribable. However, they are not all identical. For example, if you ever look at the energy channels in the body, as they are described in Kabbalah, and then compare that to the same from Hindu traditions, and again to what we hear of the nagual traditions, very different pictures emerge. It is greatly dishonest to insist it's all the same. It's not. And if you don't believe me, follow it up and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

 

So I would say, some similarities exist among mystics of many traditions. Also similarities exist among non-mystics of many traditions. Everything is neither the same, nor completely different, and there is a lot of useless dogma and bullshit in most (or in every) tradition that's blocking true understanding. As some Hindu Guru I don't recall said, "You've got to separate the wheat from the chaff." Traditions have a lot of shit intermingled with gold. Use your own head.

 

Yes, I do agree with the above. As our energy bodies do reflect our views and understandings as well as meditation experiences and interpretations of meditative experiences and levels of integrations or ways of integration of meditation experiences with the subtle body... etc. They are like subconscious conditioning's that people become aware of but are not static truths themselves. Our energy bodies or result bodies are indeed variable and also not self.

 

But! I didn't know if you meant that last part as a joke... but, wasn't that a Christian saying? But yes, a wise saying indeed. There is indeed wisdom in every tradition.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ah yes, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and all that came after them, those were beginners right? But the grand people of today are the masters. Incredible indeed.

 

Yes, it's funny... all those guys argued against erroneous views for the sake of clarifying their particular view of Truth and they were definitely considered masters.

 

There is some new age idea that goes around these days that arguing against arguing is a good thing. Of course, depending upon the circumstance, it could be a good thing to argue against arguing, as sometimes arguing is merely letting off steam and no one is talking about anything in particular of importance. I don't think we do much of that here in a philosophy room, though it happens sometimes. Like where people attack the person directly instead of arguing the point presented.

[goldisheavy]

I wonder what person actually means when used in this context.

 

It's someone who can make decisions, like "OK, it's time to get a cup of coffee, but I've also wanted to go for a jog... OK, let's jog first and get coffee later." A person makes decisions like that. I gave a trivial decision there as an example, but decisions don't have to be trivial.

 

So I think Christians are inclined to believe that God makes decisions, while Daoists are more inclined to believe that Dao is a reality that can't possibly be captured/described by one decision-making personality.

Edited July 19, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Yes, I do agree with the above. As our energy bodies do reflect our views and understandings as well as meditation experiences and interpretations of meditative experiences and levels of integrations or ways of integration of meditation experiences with the subtle body... etc. They are like subconscious conditioning's that people become aware of but are not static truths themselves. Our energy bodies or result bodies are indeed variable and also not self.

 

Exactly.

 

But! I didn't know if you meant that last part as a joke... but, wasn't that a Christian saying? But yes, a wise saying indeed. There is indeed wisdom in every tradition.

 

I can be wrong -- it wouldn't be the first time, if I am. However, as I understand it, most serious Christians are of the opinion that there is nothing that's "chaff" in the Bible. I am pretty sure the "separate wheat from the chaff" is a Hindu sentiment. Maybe those exact words are English-ized. Maybe in India the same sentiment is expressed by a slightly different idiomatic saying. That's possible too.

 

In my experience, the Hindus are vastly less dogmatic than Christians (or Muslims, or Jews). Hindus tend to question more. I've even heard of atheist Hindus. It seems strange, but such a beast supposedly exists in India too. So Hinduism seems very flexible in what it allows. Compare this with, say, Christianity, where an atheist Christian is an impossibility.

[Brian]

...

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly.

 

 

 

I can be wrong -- it wouldn't be the first time, if I am. However, as I understand it, most serious Christians are of the opinion that there is nothing that's "chaff" in the Bible. I am pretty sure the "separate wheat from the chaff" is a Hindu sentiment. Maybe those exact words are English-ized. Maybe in India the same sentiment is expressed by a slightly different idiomatic saying. That's possible too.

 

In my experience, the Hindus are vastly less dogmatic than Christians (or Muslims, or Jews). Hindus tend to question more. I've even heard of atheist Hindus. It seems strange, but such a beast supposedly exists in India too. So Hinduism seems very flexible in what it allows. Compare this with, say, Christianity, where an atheist Christian is an impossibility.

 

Oh yes... Samkhya is Athiest actually. Yes, I do agree that all of the Eastern traditions away from the Abrahamic traditions are deeper in initial context from the outset. The only ones that can come close are the mystical traditions of the Abrahamic origin which seem to me to be influenced by the Eastern traditions to begin with as the Eastern traditions are generally quite a bit older in their meditative and mantric roots.

 

Anyway... from online... Speaking of separating the Wheat from the Chaff. I remember hearing it in a Baptist Church long ago.

 

"The thought appears metaphorically in the Bible, where John the Baptist, speaking of the one 'that cometh after me,' continues (Matthew 3:12) 'Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.'." From "The Dictionary of Cliches" by James Rogers (Ballantine Books, New York, 1985). "