Is your Method really working?

[rene]

There is a great little book written by John Blofeld, who visited China in the 1930's and 40's - researching Buddhism - and Taoism.

 

After commenting to a Taoist recluse in the White Cloud Monastery that "...of the many wise hermits encountered during my wanderings, the few who had betrayed signs of being, as I fancied, closest to illumination had almost all been Buddhist." - the recluse wondered if even one of them surpassed the Taoist recluse known as Tseng Lao-weng.

 

Arrangements were made for Blofeld to meet Lao-weng, what follows is part of their conversation.

 

***

 

"Venerable, it is just that, as most of my teachers are Buddhist, I am ignorant about what Taoists mean by such terms as wisdom and illumination, and about their methods of approaching the Tao."

 

Lao-weng laughed. "How strange. Can there be two kinds of wisdom, two kinds of illumination, Taoist and Buddhist? Surely the experience of truth must be the same for all? As to approaching the Tao, be sure that demons and executioners, let alone Buddhists, are as close to it as can be. The one impossible thing is to get a finger's breadth away from it. Do you suppose that some people are nearer to it than others? Is a bird closer to the air than a tortoise or a cat? The Tao is closer to you than the nose on your face; it is only because you can tweak your nose that you think otherwise. Asking about our approach to the Tao is like asking a deep-sea fish how it approaches the water. It is just a matter of recognizing what has been inside, outside and all around from the first. Do you understand?"

 

"Yes, I believe I do. Certainly my Buddhist teachers have taught me that there is no attaining liberation, but only attaining recognition of what one has always been from the first."

 

"Excellent! Your teachers, then, are true sages. You are a worthy disciple, so why brave the bitter cold to visit an ordinary old fellow? You would have learnt as much at your own fireside."

 

"Venerable, please dont laugh at me! I accept your teaching that true sages have but the one goal. Still, here in China, there are Buddhists and there are also Taoists. Manifestly they differ; since the goal is one, the distinction must lie in their methods of approach"

 

"So you are hungry not for wisdom but for knowledge! What a pity! Wisdom is almost as satisfying as good millet-gruel, whereas knowledge has less body to it than tepid water poured over old tea-leaves; but if that is the fare you have come for, I can give you as much as your mistreated belly will hold. What sort of old tea-leaves do Buddhists use, I wonder! We Taoists use all sorts. Some swallow medicine-balls as big as pigeon's eggs or drink tonics by the jug, live upon unappetizing diets, take baths at intervals governed by esoteric numbers, breathe in and out like asthmatic dragons, or jump about like Manchu bannermen hardening themselves for battle - all this discomfort just for the sake of a few extra decades of life! And why? To gain more time to find what has never been lost!

 

And what of those pious recluses who rattle mallets against wooden-fish drums from dusk to dawn, groaning out liturgies like cholera-patients excreting watery dung? They are penitents longing to rid themselves of a burden they never had. These people do everything imaginable, including swallowing pills made from the vital fluids secreted by the opposite sex and lighting fires in their bellies to make the alchemic cauldrons boil. I shall have to talk of such follies for hours, if you really want a full list of Taoist methods. These method-users resemble mountain streams a thousand leagues from the sea. Ah, how they chatter and gurgle, bubble and boil, rush and eddy, plunging over precipices in spectacular fashion! How angrily they pound against the boulders and suck down their prey in treacherous whirl-pools! But, as the streams broaden, they grow quieter and more purposeful. They become rivers - ah, how calm, how silent! How majestically they sweep towards their goal, giving no impression of swiftness and, as they near the ocean, seeming not to move at all!

 

While noisy mountain streams are reminiscent of people chattering about the Tao and showing-off spectacular methods, rivers remind one of experienced men, taciturn, doing little, but doing it decisively; outwardly still, yet sweeping forward faster than you know. Your teachers have offered you wisdom; they why waste time acquiring knowledge? Methods! Approaches! Need the junk-master steering towards the sea, with the sails of his vessel billowing in the wind, bother his head about alternative modes of propulsion - oars, paddles, punt-poles, tow-ropes, engines and all the rest? Any sort of vessel, unless it founders or pitches you overboard, is good enough to take you to the one and only sea."

 

The secret and the sublime: Taoist Mysteries and Magic ~ John Blofeld

 

 

edit:typo

recent edit: another typo

Edited October 1, 2017 by rene

[goldisheavy]

Niiicccee!! :)

[adept]

"Any sort of vessel, unless it founders or pitches you overboard, is good enough to take you to the one and only sea."

 

This line says it all for me.

Thanks for posting the article.

The whole article should be required reading for those that argue about Taoism and Buddhism. He seems very clear on internal alchemy and life prolonging methods also.

Edited November 25, 2010 by adept

[Marblehead]

Niiicccee!! :)

 

Amen!

[themaninthesuit]

Ya man thanks for the post. It resonated really well with what I am currently going through. Definitely something everyone should read.

[RyanO]

This kind of reminds me of how enthralled I was by J. Krishnamurti. He argued against reliance on techniques and recommended no practice but choiceless awareness.

 

But then I have to wonder: What does this sage's day look like? What does he practice?

 

It's all well and good to talk about the method of no-method, and the realization of our intrinsic connection to the Tao. But surely there is also a place for methods and practices? And that Buddhist and Taoists practices might differ in a significant way and lead to different results?

 

For instance, Krishnamurti practiced hatha yoga for hours everyday. He never talked about it in his lectures, but it was an integral part of his practice.

 

I think it's a little patronizing to tell someone that methods are silly and then go and practice meditation or yoga without mentioning their importance.

 

Still, I do resonate with the philosophy that by practicing methods you are not becoming more perfect or divine in the eyes of the Tao, you're just achieving harmony with something that is already there. But methods are important and worthy of investigation.

[island]

Applause.

[RiverSnake]

This kind of reminds me of how enthralled I was by J. Krishnamurti. He argued against reliance on techniques and recommended no practice but choiceless awareness.

 

But then I have to wonder: What does this sage's day look like? What does he practice?

 

It's all well and good to talk about the method of no-method, and the realization of our intrinsic connection to the Tao. But surely there is also a place for methods and practices? And that Buddhist and Taoists practices might differ in a significant way and lead to different results?

 

For instance, Krishnamurti practiced hatha yoga for hours everyday. He never talked about it in his lectures, but it was an integral part of his practice.

 

I think it's a little patronizing to tell someone that methods are silly and then go and practice meditation or yoga without mentioning their importance.

 

Still, I do resonate with the philosophy that by practicing methods you are not becoming more perfect or divine in the eyes of the Tao, you're just achieving harmony with something that is already there. But methods are important and worthy of investigation.

 

-We live in a world of duality.

 

-I enjoyed the article

Edited November 25, 2010 by Tao Apprentice

[strawdog65]

 

 

While noisy mountain streams are reminiscent of people chattering about the Tao and showing-off spectacular methods, rivers remind one of experienced men, taciturn, doing little, but doing it decisively; outwardly still, yet sweeping forward faster than you know. Your teachers have offered you wisdom; they why waste time acquiring knowledge? Methods! Approaches! Need the junk-master steering towards the sea, with the sales of his vessel billowing in the wind, bother his head about alternative modes of propulsion - oars, paddles, punt-poles, tow-ropes, engines and all the rest? Any sort of vessel, unless it founders or pitches you overboard, is good enough to take you to the one and only sea."[/color]

 

The secret and the sublime: Taoist Mysteries and Magic ~ John Blofeld

 

 

edit:typo

 

 

WoW! That is such a great post!

 

Thank you for posting that!

 

Peace!

[rene]

Ryan, hi

 

It's all well and good to talk about the method of no-method, and the realization of our intrinsic connection to the Tao. But surely there is also a place for methods and practices?

 

Sure there is, are, but the gist of the difference is the approach, the 'for what?' If you meditate to "become one with Tao" or practice to "find Tao" then you might be actually reinforcing the idea that "Tao" is something separate.

 

For instance, Krishnamurti practiced hatha yoga for hours everyday. He never talked about it in his lectures, but it was an integral part of his practice.

 

I think it's a little patronizing to tell someone that methods are silly and then go and practice meditation or yoga without mentioning their importance.

 

I saw the Krishnamurti series a long time ago; enjoyed them very much. I doubt he felt the general audience he was speaking to was able to understand the subtle difference at that level. But it could be patronizing, sure, depending on why he practiced mediation and yoga. Do you think Krishnamurti thought methods were a direct path to understanding these things? If they were, then by now we'd be hip-deep in buddhas, all things would have taken their course and gentle rain would fall. (-:

[Fu_dog]

Thanks for the post.....Blofeld is excellent.

 

I just started reading his other book on Toaism, titled "Toaism: The Road to Immortality". I am about 50 pages in and I find it extremely insightful.

 

When I finish, I will also read Toaist Mysteries and Magic.

[The Way Is Virtue]

A given person's real purpose for saying certain words and their intended meaning may be quite different than what others might think the meaning and purpose is. It is all well and fine to say that one just needs to realize what is already there, but where does such a concept truly get a person? This concept may well reflect truth in some sense, but is one really any further along at all for the hearing and thinking of such things? One wonders how is this any different than any other concept or method or approach that the mind might hold and cling to? Just an exchanging of one concept for another to be clung to within the mind but what has really changed? Is one any closer to enlightenment? Sometimes the best traps do not look anything like traps at all and the crafty never appear crafty in the slightest.

[rene]

A given person's real purpose for saying certain words and their intended meaning may be quite different than what others might think the meaning and purpose is. It is all well and fine to say that one just needs to realize what is already there, but where does such a concept truly get a person?

It might be that it gets a person to a place where there is nothing lacking within. Can you begin to imagine what that is like?

 

 

This concept may well reflect truth in some sense, but is one really any further along at all for the hearing and thinking of such things?

That depends on the person, yes? If he is already stuffed full with ideas that something more is 'required' then you are right and there is nothing that he could hear or think that there would be any room for.

 

 

One wonders how is this any different than any other concept or method or approach that the mind might hold and cling to?

Rather than being a concept or method or approach - for me this is only a small observation. I observe that I have ten fingers. I observe that I am not seperate from Tao. What more is it that you feel I could need?

 

 

Just an exchanging of one concept for another to be clung to within the mind but what has really changed? Is one any closer to enlightenment?

Is attaining enlightenment something that you cling to? It might be the last step in your own path is to let go of even the need for that.

 

 

Sometimes the best traps do not look anything like traps at all and the crafty never appear crafty in the slightest.

And sometimes a banana is just a banana. I like that we each have our own ways, and I wish you well on your path. (-: Thanks for your reply!

[The Way Is Virtue]

That depends on the person, yes? If he is already stuffed full with ideas that something more is 'required' then you are right and there is nothing that he could hear or think that there would be any room for.

 

Hi Rene. Regarding words and perceived meanings, I wasn't commenting either for or against any particular view, approach, or concept, or way. It seems to me that concepts are concepts and approaches are approaches. If one finds oneself in the middle of an 'ocean' that really seems to extend off to infinity in all directions no matter how one analyzes and inspects it and measures it, and no matter where one positions oneself or where one travels or how one thinks or doesn't about it, does it really matter whether one then thinks about going left or right or foreward or backward, or if one decides that it is better to stay right where they are? What is the real gain no matter which 'concept' one decides is wiser or which 'approach' one decides is best? One particular approach or concept or wahtever may appeal more to one's mind than another, but does one's situation really change even one iota? Will it really help matters if someone says, well, the truth is right there if you would only realize it? The mind might like the idea, but it is only one more idea for the mind stuffed full of ideas, is it not? One may drop one or more ideas in exchange for one or more new ideas but what has really changed? BTW, I also was not and am not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I was just expressing some thoughts that came to mind when I read that story. Only some thoughts...

Edited November 26, 2010 by The Way Is Virtue

[goldisheavy]

There are good methods of two kinds:

 

1. Ornamental.

 

2. Healing.

 

Ornamental methods are employed by the healthy people to achieve an effect for effect's sake, basically for fun and for the joy of life and not for any ulterior purpose, such as for health or for enlightenment.

 

Healing methods are employed by the sick people to illuminate the nature of their sickness. Once the sick person understands one's own sickness, one can get better. All sicknesses are caused by ignorance of some sort. Thus a good healing method produces an experience that directly challenges an ignorant presupposition.

 

For example, let's say for the sake of discussion that a person has an ignorant presupposition that says, "Reality is something different from dreams." What's a good method to heal such ignorance? Well, a good method is to teach the person to lucid dream. Then inside the lucid dream the person can see first-hand how the dreams are identical to reality in every conceivable way. Once the ignorant presupposition has been cured, the method is no longer necessary. At least, the method is no longer necessary in its healing capacity. It may still be useful in an ornamental capacity.

 

There is also a third kind of a method, which is a bad kind:

 

3. Stagnating method.

 

The purpose of the stagnating method is to maintain the status quo without challenging any presupposition while carrying on a pretense of working for a higher purpose. So the pretense of a higher purpose disqualifies the method from category 1. And the fact that the method doesn't challenge any presupposition eliminates it from category 2 as well. Such a method is a waste of time.

 

What say you?

Edited November 26, 2010 by goldisheavy

[hagar]

There are good methods of two kinds:

 

1. Ornamental.

 

2. Healing.

 

Ornamental methods are employed by the healthy people to achieve an effect for effect's sake, basically for fun and for the joy of life and not for any ulterior purpose, such as for health or for enlightenment.

 

Healing methods are employed by the sick people to illuminate the nature of their sickness. Once the sick person understands one's own sickness, one can get better. All sicknesses are caused by ignorance of some sort. Thus a good healing method produces an experience that directly challenges an ignorant presupposition.

 

For example, let's say for the sake of discussion that a person has an ignorant presupposition that says, "Reality is something different from dreams." What's a good method to heal such ignorance? Well, a good method is to teach the person to lucid dream. Then inside the lucid dream the person can see first-hand how the dreams are identical to reality in every conceivable way. Once the ignorant presupposition has been cured, the method is no longer necessary. At least, the method is no longer necessary in its healing capacity. It may still be useful in an ornamental capacity.

 

There is also a third kind of a method, which is a bad kind:

 

3. Stagnating method.

 

The purpose of the stagnating method is to maintain the status quo without challenging any presupposition while carrying on a pretense of working for a higher purpose. So the pretense of a higher purpose disqualifies the method from category 1. And the fact that the method doesn't challenge any presupposition eliminates it from category 2 as well. Such a method is a waste of time.

 

What say you?

 

First of all, I love your Blofeld qoute. Its one of my all time favourites. I think somewhere in the same book the same old sage told Blofeld that "your mind is the universe". And that's about it.

 

Relating to your categories of methods and practices, I think you have some good points. There are thousands of methods that fall into category 3, maintaining the status quo while rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. All the time posing as spiritual or transcendent.

 

I might argue that the notion of method and "content" in this context needs abit of nuance.

In my experience, the idea of utilizing a method is really secondary to how method is an expression of an underlying or essential connection to the root, the True nature of our being and our "home". If this connection is firm, all what we do is but an expression of the living and changing outflow from that source. This may manifest as methods, forms, practices. Yet the underlying silent source is what constitutes it. So many practices has lost this connnection or "objective", this root orientation. When that happens, things start to become decandent.

 

To exemplify, a form might contain the true transmission, the "code" of the source, and thus manifesting it through form. In this way you might say that method, or form when transmitting the connection to the root energy, or information is not only for enjoyment or healing, yet both are consequences/expressions of maintaining this connection.

 

Further, when there are instrumental aims to a method or form, the form ceases to be relevant when the objective has been attained; right understanding, healing, reflection, etc. Yet many forms, forms that I myself practice, are not dynamic in this way. They are "symbolic" only revealing or embodying the code or true nature through form or symbol. In this sense, your form is a prayer, a tribute, a sign of gratitude, and even grace. This in my own opinion, is also the most potent way to utilize form. It is static and not dynamic. Its information does not cease to function as there really is no objective beyond the expression of grace or silence.

 

Did this make any sense?

 

Good points anyway. The above is only a commentary.

 

h

[majc]

TWIV, your Method could be Way easier if you incorporated paragraphing into your Practice.

 

 

It is all well and fine to say that one just needs to realize what is already there, but where does such a concept truly get a person?

To no particular place, not in search of any particular place. And it's not a concept. The speaking of those words is an action, like Word Jitsu or something. This mountain monkey's speech drags the questioner's mental momentum out and away from the concepts he has put in his own way.

 

 

This concept may well reflect truth in some sense, but is one really any further along at all for the hearing and thinking of such things?

Further along towards... what? What conceptual thing are you moving further along towards?

 

 

One wonders how is this any different than any other concept or method or approach that the mind might hold and cling to?

There is no distinct concept, method, or approach here. How would you cling to it?

 

 

Just an exchanging of one concept for another to be clung to within the mind but what has really changed?

The struggle to find a concept, method, or approach to which you can cling.

 

 

Is one any closer to enlightenment?

Fuck knows. But that is one amusingly concept-filled question you just asked right there. What happens if you let go of those ideas?

 

 

Sometimes the best traps do not look anything like traps at all and the crafty never appear crafty in the slightest.

DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNN! Look out!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

An exercise i practice every day is have this brief conversation with myself, the earlier in the day, the better: Why do i imagine a conversation in my mind, with my self? I am speaking, in my imagined conversation, to 'me', so i already know what i'm going to say, and.. if i should ask a question, i already know the answer..

 

So, daily as is my practice, i devote an interval of the day intentionally supressing internal dialogue (mind-talk).. this practice is like any practice, the more you do it, the easier it is and the better you are at it.. The result, is that much of my waking experience is without the mind-talk, that mostly the mind-talk is consciously invoked to deal with specific issues.. those intervals without mind-talk are so much more clear and vivid, crisp and alive.. if you are inclined, i recommend this exercise just for the experience, and.. if it works for you, too.. enjoy it!!

 

Be well..

 

PS: Yes, my method is working for me, and.. the above is not the totality of my method, just the foundation..

[rene]

There are good methods of two kinds:

 

1. Ornamental.

 

2. Healing.

 

Ornamental methods are employed by the healthy people to achieve an effect for effect's sake, basically for fun and for the joy of life and not for any ulterior purpose, such as for health or for enlightenment.

 

Healing methods are employed by the sick people to illuminate the nature of their sickness. Once the sick person understands one's own sickness, one can get better. .... (Once)cured, the method is no longer necessary. At least, the method is no longer necessary in its healing capacity. It may still be useful in an ornamental capacity.

 

I like your categories; they line up with my take on things.

 

 

There is also a third kind of a method, which is a bad kind:

 

3. Stagnating method.

 

The purpose of the stagnating method is to maintain the status quo without challenging any presupposition while carrying on a pretense of working for a higher purpose. So the pretense of a higher purpose disqualifies the method from category 1. And the fact that the method doesn't challenge any presupposition eliminates it from category 2 as well. Such a method is a waste of time.

 

Agree wholeheartedly. AND if part of this method is to suck others into believing that they are lacking (thereby reinforcing their own sense of higher purpose), well, that preying is about as ugly as it gets.

 

thanks for replying (-:

[rene]

Hagar, hi (-:

 

In my experience, the idea of utilizing a method is really secondary to how method is an expression of an underlying or essential connection to the root, the True nature of our being and our "home". If this connection is firm, all what we do is but an expression of the living and changing outflow from that source. This may manifest as methods, forms, practices. Yet the underlying silent source is what constitutes it. So many practices has lost this connnection or "objective", this root orientation. When that happens, things start to become decandent.

 

To exemplify, a form might contain the true transmission, the "code" of the source, and thus manifesting it through form. In this way you might say that method, or form when transmitting the connection to the root energy, or information is not only for enjoyment or healing, yet both are consequences/expressions of maintaining this connection.

 

I understand your words. Using your lingo and combining your ideas, my take is that the underlying source is always within - and manifests through forms; or rather forms and methods can be a creative expression of the source. Rather than something that brings the source to the party, methods and forms are tools that can reveal what is already within. Rather than forms bringing a healing aspect, forms can release the healing aspect we all already have.

 

Further, when there are instrumental aims to a method or form, the form ceases to be relevant when the objective has been attained; right understanding, healing, reflection, etc. Yet many forms, forms that I myself practice, are not dynamic in this way. They are "symbolic" only revealing or embodying the code or true nature through form or symbol. In this sense, your form is a prayer, a tribute, a sign of gratitude, and even grace. This in my own opinion, is also the most potent way to utilize form. It is static and not dynamic. Its information does not cease to function as there really is no objective beyond the expression of grace or silence.

 

Did this make any sense?

 

Oh, it makes a lot of sense to me. Very well put and this warrants repeating:

 

They are "symbolic" only revealing or embodying the code or true nature through form or symbol. In this sense, your form is a prayer, a tribute, a sign of gratitude, and even grace. This in my own opinion, is also the most potent way to utilize form. It is static and not dynamic. Its information does not cease to function as there really is no objective beyond the expression of grace or silence.

 

I find that this particular static resides within the dynamic of all things, unboundaried and unencumbered, always available. Methods and forms bring this deligtfully to the fore! Obviously I'm an Ornamental-method kinda girl. LOL

 

Thoughts?

[rene]

TzuJanLi, hi

 

Thanks for the reply (-: My mind doesn't chatter except when too much wine so I'm not sure which way is my natural state LOL

 

... The result, is that much of my waking experience is without the mind-talk, that mostly the mind-talk is consciously invoked to deal with specific issues.. those intervals without mind-talk are so much more clear and vivid, crisp and alive..

 

Have you tried yet to deal with specific issues from within the interval of no mind-talk? It might be that the quality of results grows exponentially when the chatter is not there to muddle things.

 

warm regards

[hagar]

Hagar, hi (-:

 

 

 

I understand your words. Using your lingo and combining your ideas, my take is that the underlying source is always within - and manifests through forms; or rather forms and methods can be a creative expression of the source. Rather than something that brings the source to the party, methods and forms are tools that can reveal what is already within. Rather than forms bringing a healing aspect, forms can release the healing aspect we all already have.

 

 

 

Oh, it makes a lot of sense to me. Very well put and this warrants repeating:

 

They are "symbolic" only revealing or embodying the code or true nature through form or symbol. In this sense, your form is a prayer, a tribute, a sign of gratitude, and even grace. This in my own opinion, is also the most potent way to utilize form. It is static and not dynamic. Its information does not cease to function as there really is no objective beyond the expression of grace or silence.

 

I find that this particular static resides within the dynamic of all things, unboundaried and unencumbered, always available. Methods and forms bring this deligtfully to the fore! Obviously I'm an Ornamental-method kinda girl. LOL

 

Thoughts?

 

I agree.

In reply to your comment, I'd say that the body light is definately revealed, yet its also a matter of recognizing the cosmic energy that is infusing us with life. Its not a matter of "our" energy, but more of attuning, being a conductor and revealing what is there. When this becomes apparent is when you are able to see shooting light rays out of your fingertips in the dark. =)

[rene]

I agree.

In reply to your comment, I'd say that the body light is definately revealed, yet its also a matter of recognizing the cosmic energy that is infusing us with life. Its not a matter of "our" energy, but more of attuning, being a conductor and revealing what is there. When this becomes apparent is when you are able to see shooting light rays out of your fingertips in the dark. =)

 

Hagar, hi

 

To me, the body light is the cosmic energy. I dont find the (seeming) solids of flesh & bones to be a barrier or bucket to temporarily hold a portion of the flow. There's a constant dynamic exchange and even the word 'exchange' doesn't describe it unless it would be like in the ocean one wave 'exchanges' for another.

 

You can shoot light rays out of your fingertips in the dark?? Way cool. You guys have all the neat tricks.

 

I just kind of flop around and seem to find my way. (-:

 

warm regards

[majc]

There are good methods of two kinds:

 

1. Ornamental.

 

2. Healing.

 

Ornamental methods are employed by the bla bla distinction etc.

 

Healing methods are used by people who are healing etc.

 

There is also a third kind of a method, which is a bad kind:

 

3. Stagnating method.

 

The purpose of the stagnating method is to maintain the status quo without challenging any presupposition while carrying on a pretense of working for a higher purpose. So the pretense of a higher purpose disqualifies the method from category 1. And the fact that the method doesn't challenge any presupposition eliminates it from category 2 as well. Such a method is a waste of time.

 

What say you?

Wait, can we recap: the first two methods are good... so in other words, they constitute the 'right' way to exist - they serve a better purpose than what you've identified as a third, bad, method which is merely a waste of time and serves... a lower purpose...? huh.

 

Great categories - compelling, and rich. And also nonsense.

 

High and low arrange each other. Ha, which part of the water is better?

[Marblehead]

High and low arrange each other. Ha, which part of the water is better?

 

A true statement and a wonderful question.