Is your Method really working?

[rene]

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

 

Might be comparing apples and oranges there.

 

Water is naturally sans intent and people are not; this thread is about the effectiveness of methods for the reasons they're approached, ie, intent.

 

Or maybe you are suggesting that it's better if people have no intent?

[strawdog65]

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?

 

 

Hello majc!

 

 

Awesome!

 

The clarity of what you have said...is enlightening!

 

 

Peace!

[strawdog65]

Might be comparing apples and oranges there.

 

Water is naturally sans intent and people are not; this thread is about the effectiveness of methods for the reasons they're approached, ie, intent.

 

Or maybe you are suggesting that it's better if people have no intent?

 

 

Hi rene!

 

The simpleness of the fool...is enlightenment denied to him?

Intent is relative... to who we are.

 

To me the path does not, and can not discriminate...

 

All are welcome through their own understanding.

 

Since the Tao encompasses all, distinctions are

only of use to those that separate themselves with

knowledge they have had the opportunity to gain.

 

If one is earnest in their practice of Taoist principles,

and Does walk the path, regardless of knowledge or learned

intelligence or outright ignorance of worldly matters,

is not the Way still open to them?

 

If when born, a child is truly one with Tao...are we not

all merely striving for this most simple of states to

return Home to Tao?

 

Knowledge and learning are they not a byproduct of

our own inquisitiveness? Sometimes, adding complexity to

what is meant to be simplified, does nothing but add to

the illusion.

 

 

Returning to the simple, seems to be the way of Tao.

 

Are we not being led away from our true nature by separating

ourselves from it, by separating ourselves from others,

with the amount of knowledge we profess, to be the wedge?

 

Knowledge , to me, is best used when distinctions of who

is what and why, are eliminated... Validation for what has

been learned by that individual, is its own purpose.

 

Academic learning, and practice of what's been learned are

positive, and transformative actualizations. But do they not

just further illustrate the need to return to the simpleness

of our origination? Who, and what, we are?

 

Many paths leading to the same Tao,

one is not better than the other.

 

Knowledge, learning, and insight...

Knowledge can be learned...

Insight is like a sudden fire,

all it takes is a spark.

 

Peace!

[Todd]

 

Many paths leading to the same Tao,

one is not better than the other.

 

Knowledge, learning, and insight...

Knowledge can be learned...

Insight is like a sudden fire,

all it takes is a spark.

 

 

In Chinese there are a bunch of words related to knowledge and other mental functions that incorporate the word for "body"- “体”

 

A list from my dictionary:

体察-lit. "body scrutinize" to experience, to observe

体会-lit. "body able" to realize, to learn through personal experience

体谅-lit. "body forgive" to make allowances for, to be considerate

体念-lit. "body think of/miss/read aloud" to put oneself in someone else's shoes

体认-lit. "body recognize/know" to realize, to perceive intuitively

体悟-lit. "body realize/awaken" to realize

体惜-lit. "body cherish/pity" to understand and sympathize with

体现-lit. "body present" to embody, to reflect, to exemplify

体验-lit. "body examine" to experience for oneself/learn from experience

 

I find it interesting that these are not the only words for these types of knowledge. There are other words for observation, consideration, knowing, realizing, etc, that do not include the word for body, which seem to be more commonly used.

 

I do not have the sort of experience with Chinese that I can speak of the differences in how these are used in varying contexts, or even how they are used in the most common ways. The only one that I have personally encountered is 体会-"body able" and that is what led me to discover all these other words.

 

I mention this because this extra set of vocabulary for knowledge seems to fit my experiences of knowledge.

 

It is a worthwhile and vital realization that the sort of knowledge that stays in our heads is very limited and ultimately unsatisfactory, if not downright misleading and generally trouble making. It is vital to realize that truth can be apprehended in an instant, just as soon as we stop referring to this accumulated "knowledge" and basically just open to what is actually happening before we tell a story about it. However, there is a world beyond that realization.

 

Many of the words that I listed above hint at different sorts of knowledge and realization. For example, there is knowing how to build a table in theory, and then there is actually being able to build a table that feels solid and looks nice without taking forever to build. The same goes for any number of pursuits. The number of "experts" willing to tell one how a given thing should be done often seems to be much greater than the number of people who can actually do a thing well. One of the key differences is that the person who can do a thing well hasn't merely abstracted limited experience into "knowledge" but has allowed their experiences to sink into their bodies, such that they can respond in a whole way, both body and mind, which is what is truly effective.

 

What if we look at a similar dynamic in terms of realization? Lets say a door opens up into "where distinction never gazed". I don't know how to explain this, but in my experience this opening, though it feels complete, is not complete. It is actually an invitation to encounter everything and to know it as what one has realized.

 

The strong tendency might be to pull away from anything that seems to be mired in unnecessary complexity, but a great gift is that we still have these bodies, which are anything but simple. If you really look into them, there is no end to what you might see. And if we are pulling away from the manifestations of the world, or trying to simplify them down to some concept, such as "merely manifestations of the the One", then our bodies will have something to say about that eventually. They will basically be like, "Hey! What about me!?"

 

Within them can be found a richness of realization, which, though not fundamentally different, can never be encountered until we let go of the safety of the "One", or the "No-thing" or whatever concept we have got it all wrapped up into.

 

The world is found there too.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Todd

[rene]

What if we look at a similar dynamic in terms of realization? Lets say a door opens up into "where distinction never gazed". I don't know how to explain this, but in my experience this opening, though it feels complete, is not complete. It is actually an invitation to encounter everything and to know it as what one has realized.

 

The strong tendency might be to pull away from anything that seems to be mired in unnecessary complexity, but a great gift is that we still have these bodies, which are anything but simple. If you really look into them, there is no end to what you might see. And if we are pulling away from the manifestations of the world, or trying to simplify them down to some concept, such as "merely manifestations of the the One", then our bodies will have something to say about that eventually. They will basically be like, "Hey! What about me!?"

 

Within them can be found a richness of realization, which, though not fundamentally different, can never be encountered until we let go of the safety of the "One", or the "No-thing" or whatever concept we have got it all wrapped up into.

 

The world is found there too.

 

Todd, fabulous post. I've spent years trying to explain about "Both" but my words have never risen to the level of these. Thank you for this gift.

 

warm regards,

rene

[YAN]

Hey guys,

 

I remember reading a biography of The Zen master Hakuin Ekaku. It was said that after his satori he suffered from what is referred to as "Zen sickness". He couldn't find a cure and out of desperation sought the advice of a taoist hermit in the mountain.

 

My memories of their conversation is very patchy however

I feel that it had a profound meaning and would love to read it again.

 

I've been looking for years so if you can help.....

Edited November 29, 2010 by YAN

[Todd]

Todd, fabulous post. I've spent years trying to explain about "Both" but my words have never risen to the level of these. Thank you for this gift.

 

warm regards,

rene

 

Hi Rene,

 

I'm happy you liked it.

 

It's amazing how hard it can be to put into words. I remember thinking that I had something pretty concrete to put down, but when it came to actually putting some words down, nothing really seemed to touch what I was trying convey. Didn't stop me from stumbling along anyway.

 

You must have recognized and appreciated the stumbling.

 

Thank you for your response.

 

Todd

[rene]

[Discussion brought back to this thread to not further interrupt the TTC Chp 1 in the subforum.]

 

hehe, it was this one (where you agreed with certain good and bad categories of practice) but there's no need to go back to that thread - it's a very simple point. How is there a difference? Better automatically implies 'than' and 'for'. I'd love to know how you can see a distinction between the two!

 

Better than [x] for something.

Better for [x] than something.

 

majc - thanks for the link reminder! Semantically, 'than' and 'for' are sometimes interchanged in conversations, but it's the context that determines what is being conveyed; I disagree that it's an automatic implication hooked to the word 'better'.

 

With that picture you'd posted - along with the question - Which part of the water is 'better'? My first thought was: Better for what? Languid floating? The still part. Washing my hair? The waterfall. See? Some parts of the water were better... for something specific.

 

What is the difference between 'than' and 'for'? One of them is situationally dependant, the other is not. I think you can sort which is which. (-:

 

warm regards

[rene]

Hey guys,

 

I remember reading a biography of The Zen master Hakuin Ekaku. It was said that after his satori he suffered from what is referred to as "Zen sickness". He couldn't find a cure and out of desperation sought the advice of a taoist hermit in the mountain.

 

My memories of their conversation is very patchy however

I feel that it had a profound meaning and would love to read it again.

 

I've been looking for years so if you can help.....

 

YAN, hi, I enjoy the stories attributed to Hakium; I'll keep an eye out for what you seek.

 

warm regards

[YAN]

Thanks Rene,

 

I remember enough to know that their conversation in the cave was particularly relevant to what you posted.

 

Basically Hakuin refused using any non Buddhist method of healing and eventually the Taoist hermit demonstrate to him that his doctrinal narrow-mindedness is unfounded.

 

To do this he compares the Taoist path with Buddhist teachings and help Hakuin see beyond the words and experience their commonality.

 

Hakuin accept the wisdom of the demonstration proceed with the Taoist healing technique he's healed and finally become one of the most inspiring Zen master ever.

 

Happy ending everyone's happy except little me who's dying to reread the original text again.

[unmike]

Happy ending everyone's happy except little me who's dying to reread the original text again.

 

Google to the rescue!

 

Second result for "zen sickness"

 

(Please, don't die!)

[YAN]

Google to the rescue!

 

Second result for "zen sickness"

 

(Please, don't die!)

 

Thanks unmike,

 

I finally found a near identical version of the text I read many years ago :

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=hfMkpD_Xr3sC&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=HAKUIN+HERMIT+ZEN+SICKNESS&source=bl&ots=Z6wmBQEjC5&sig=rE1tbv8I06FniPPtcCh-wffZDYI&hl=en&ei=jOv4TOPvOYfxrQel6qi9Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=HAKUIN%20HERMIT%20ZEN%20SICKNESS&f=false

[Todd]

 

Hakuin accept the wisdom of the demonstration proceed with the Taoist healing technique he's healed and finally become one of the most inspiring Zen master ever.

 

 

There was another Zen guy, Bankei, who was said to have had his realization as he watched a piece of his lung that he had just coughed out slide down the wall of his meditation cell, and after this realization found a Taoist who taught him how to regain his health.

 

Interestingly, Bankei didn't recommend that others follow a path similar to his, and stated that the way he went about seeking had damaged his health permanently, despite his recovery to relatively good functioning.

 

I don't think there is a record of his conversation with the Taoist, but I could easily be wrong.

 

Bankei is also the guy who said something like "Looking to old books for the truth is like dropping something from a ship at sea and marking the railing so that one can find it again."

[Aaron]

This question is why I don't think people should have a method.

 

Aaron

[strawdog65]

This question is why I don't think people should have a method.

 

Aaron

 

 

Hi Twinner!

 

What method is truly more necessary than having a life that

you have fully lived, Loved, and been "present" in?

 

Life is a method all it's self.

 

The Way is open to all.

 

 

Peace!

[rene]

Agreed.

 

The more I do qigong, the more I realize I can apply these same principles to any activity or sphere of my life. When I allow the principles to permeate cross-discipline, things just seem to flow better.

 

So yeah, my method is really working.

 

I call it the method of Wu Dao : no 'fixed' path. The pathless path.

 

Or if you prefer, the Way of Wu (Wu-Wisdom, ala Dr.Wang)

 

warm regards

[TzuJanLi]

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

 

 

 

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

Hi Rene: Yes, it's flippin' brilliant!.. by the way, is "blush" the same as Rose?

 

I don't know if it's a result of disciplines from earlier in my journey, but lately it seems that there is less chatter than stillness.. i tried setting-up an Excel Spreadsheet without engaging the mental activity, the client was amused.. briefly.. There's a time and a place for everything..

 

Be well..

[manitou]

When form is transcended, truth can appear.

This forum is turning into the Room Where All Paths Meet.

[TzuJanLi]

When form is transcended, truth can appear.

This forum is turning into the Room Where All Paths Meet.

Greetings..

 

I don't understand.. (seriously, i don't understand).. why would Truth be dependent on 'transcending form'.. isn't form the vehicle through which Life experiences Truth?

 

Be well..

[Brian]

[Discussion brought back to this thread to not further interrupt the TTC Chp 1 in the subforum.]

 

 

 

majc - thanks for the link reminder! Semantically, 'than' and 'for' are sometimes interchanged in conversations, but it's the context that determines what is being conveyed; I disagree that it's an automatic implication hooked to the word 'better'.

 

With that picture you'd posted - along with the question - Which part of the water is 'better'? My first thought was: Better for what? Languid floating? The still part. Washing my hair? The waterfall. See? Some parts of the water were better... for something specific.

 

What is the difference between 'than' and 'for'? One of them is situationally dependant, the other is not. I think you can sort which is which. (-:

 

warm regards

 

Unfortunately, I am pedantic...

 

The difference between "than" and "for" is that the former is part of a comparison while the latter indicates a utility or action.

 

In the case you are employing above, "Which part of the water is better"?, both "than" AND "for" are necessarily implied or understood, or the question is ambiguous. "Better than what?" and "Better for what?" are both essential; the "than what?" might be considered to be an implied Boolean NOT ("better than the other parts") but that is inherently ambiguous unless contextually supported as it is unclear whether the "what" is geometric, geographic, compositional, molecular, etc. (note: the context may be provided by the "for what?" portion of the question), while the "for what?" is obviously ambiguous unless supplied by context and said context is unlikely to be provided by the "than what?"

 

EDIT: For clarification (because my intent was not to begin a discussion about language but to provide a friendly clarifying statement), the "Which?" question is one of differentiation, for which the more complete structure would be something like (in my own words): "Which <subset{attribute> is <differentiator> [than <set|alternative>] [for|at <function|characteristic>]?"

 

In your example above, the subset in the subject "part of the water" implies the set to be "the rest of the water" while the relative & non-specific differentiator "better" demands a specific function or characteristic on which to make the determination. The subject doesn't always (or necessarily) provide a sufficiently unambiguous set or list of alternatives from which to select, however.

 

The differentiator "better" is both relative and non-specific. A differentiator like "more dense" is relative and specific, thereby carrying an implied characteristic (so the "for what?" is no longer needed) but still needing a selection set (either implicit or explicit). A differentiator like "most dense" is absolute and specific, so a question like "Which part of the water is most dense?" can be answered without requiring clarification or inferrence by a response like, "That part closest to 38*F."

Edited December 4, 2010 by A Seeker

[manitou]

I don't understand.. (seriously, i don't understand).. why would Truth be dependent on 'transcending form'.. isn't form the vehicle through which Life experiences Truth?

 

 

The form I was speaking of is the form of our spiritual paths, or more specifically, the form of the religion we adhere to. It's my observation (and maybe it's wrong) that enlightened people share formless-ness when it comes to their 'religioius beliefs'. They are gone. There is no religion, no structure. They've been transcended; the form has been used and re-used for years, and then one day it is outgrown. All structure (i.e. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, shamanism, wicca) is outgrown because we come to the realization that we are all the same entity. Form then becomes a choice, something to be used as a tool, something we can reach back into and grab something we need. In a shamanic ceremony it's very useful to utilize something from the person's form of choice. If someone is a Christian, say - I will often include a picture of Jesus in the ceremony because the thought of Jesus plucks their heart strings and makes the ceremony more powerful.

[Birch]

Manitou, I'm not sure what this says about religions. I don't believe it puts them in a particularly positive light. I could get a picture of Santa Claus and do a ceremony then?

 

This is not to diss the great work you seem to be doing for people but to question why a picture of Jesus should have any ability to tug at heart strings at all. My consideration of religions is that they are created to tie people together in an easily manipulated belief system. Which is also why IMO the spread of them is something to watch with interest.

[Marblehead]

I call it the method of Wu Dao : no 'fixed' path. The pathless path.

 

Or if you prefer, the Way of Wu (Wu-Wisdom, ala Dr.Wang)

 

warm regards

 

Yeah, I saw that. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

It looks like the discussion is headed toward the difference between spirituality and religion. There are similarities, of course, but the differences are more important, I think, because spirituality can exist without religion whereas religion is, as Kate mentioned, only a means of controlling people without the primary emphasis being based in spirituality.

 

I do follow what Manitou is driving at but it is up to her to clarify her thoughts.

[manitou]

I could get a picture of Santa Claus and do a ceremony then?

 

 

This is not to diss the great work you seem to be doing for people but to question why a picture of Jesus should have any ability to tug at heart strings at all. . Which is also why IMO the spread of them is something to watch with interest.

 

Kate, I think if the person believed in Santa that would be perfectly workable.

I don't know about any great work I'm doing, but I would use a picture of Jesus in the healing circle if the person I was working with loved Jesus. Same with Buddha. Or the Devil. It doesn't matter. It's just what's important to them, not to me.