Moral character of Qi

[Birch]

I guess the only way I mean it is my own experience. If I allow my less than desirable characteristics have full sway, the karma created is magnificent. But then as a recovering alkie, my guess is that I had more negative bundles of neurotic responses than most.

 

By being aware of my less than desirable qualities, I try to work on them daily, in each and every situation. I know they're there, I don't let them run freely. As time goes on and on and a certain degree of internal order is achieved, Mr. Castaneda would have us understand the concept of impeccability of spirit and continuing to maintain vigilance over our character. I guess it's a warrior thing. I think it's also a sage thing. The sage could not have achieved what is described in the TTC without reverting to his original nature, i.e. working through all the illusions of character.

 

This is not to say that anybody can actually achieve impeccability of spirit, where our jealousies, our selfishnesses, do not arise. But to put our feet on the path and be willing for those neuroses to be lessened by willful attempts is a thing of desirability, to my way of thinking.

 

I've just got too much wrong with me to run around totally unchecked, lol.

 

 

Oh. I don't think there's anything wrong with you!

 

"I don't let them run freely"

 

I do, every day. During practice set aside for just that.

 

"But to put our feet on the path and be willing for those neuroses to be lessened by willful attempts is a thing of desirability, to my way of thinking."

 

There's a thread running on supression and control right now. My personal tactic (for now) is to disassociate the moments at which certain things come into play. So there's less "supression" involved. So my "will" is not being used against myself, if you get my drift?

[ralis]

What I see in this thread is a human attempt to classify the life force. No matter how one attempts to anthropomorphize the cosmos, all attempts fail at any notion of quantification. The universe is not human and possesses no human traits! Why bother?

 

For anyone with any amount of curiosity, a reading of Korzybski's seminal work, "Science and Sanity" is very enlightening as to the limitations of language. In that work he explains the Aristotelian trap of a simplistic yes and no pattern embedded in all language that is nothing more than, absolute yes and absolute no. Leaving no room for infinite possibilities and only further debate over, yes and no, black and white, ad infinitum.

 

Is this thread any different in scope as compared to the dependent origination rant (Vajraji) that claimed absolute truth?

[Marblehead]

What I see in this thread is a human attempt to classify the life force. No matter how one attempts to anthropomorphize the cosmos, all attempts fail at any notion of quantification. The universe is not human and possesses no human traits! Why bother?

 

I have to agree with you. What most of us think when the word 'virtue' is mentioned is the Western concept, whick, in my mind, is very similar to the Confucians description of the word. The Taoist "Virtue" is, as you say, the traits of the universe, not just humankind. But I do suggest that there are those who have very true Taoist "Virtue" traits.

[Otis]

I have to agree with you. What most of us think when the word 'virtue' is mentioned is the Western concept, whick, in my mind, is very similar to the Confucians description of the word. The Taoist "Virtue" is, as you say, the traits of the universe, not just humankind. But I do suggest that there are those who have very true Taoist "Virtue" traits.

Great, Marblehead and Ralis! And I think this reflects on Kate and Manitou's conversation.

 

If I use my human ideas of "virtue" and how to arrive at virtue (i.e. willpower), will they get me to the "Taoistic virtue"?

 

Not only does the Universe not run on human rules, I don't think that humans do either. The ego method is sculpt, carve, plan, manufacture, fix, but the human body and brain do not grow in these ways. They grow from having experience. So IMO, the way to "Taoistic virtue" is to be calm and aware, and offer your brain and body opportunities to experience living.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Otis

[ralis]

Virtue translated as willpower feels right to me. I believe the human dilemma that Aristotelian limitations has imposed is one of giving deference to the small verbal area of the brain, at the expense of the very large visual capacity of the brain.

[manitou]

Virtue translated as willpower feels right to me. I believe the human dilemma that Aristotelian limitations has imposed is one of giving deference to the small verbal area of the brain, at the expense of the very large visual capacity of the brain.

 

 

(Ralis, I wish I could understand what you're saying here - my 12th grade education just doesn't cut it for this one)

 

Honestly, I think we're all talking about the same thing.

 

My experience is that once you go deep enough, go in far enough, there is a well of knowledge that is tapped. This well of knowledge is shared by others who have gotten in deeply enough.

 

My personal path in Forrest Gumping into this well, was through ugly behavior - alcoholism and everything that goes along with being a female bar drinker. It had nothing to do with any religious fervor on my part. I did not seek any spiritual attainment, I merely needed to stay sober.

 

In working the steps (which apparently have quite a spiritual component, which we've all discussed before) this inward-looking process produced a series of what I call "Aha's!" I've been following this inward looking path for nearly 30 years. The Aha's finally get you down to a place, a place of self realization.

 

The Aha's are found on any path - in fact, as I recall, my first Aha's were in a psychiatrist's office in 1981; I didn't stop drinking or start working the steps until a short time later. What I'm talking about is just the internal process wherein we get to know ourselves and discover who we are. Some would call this enlightenment, once you finally meet yourself.

 

Along the way, I did discover the incredible world of spirituality, and I've been reading everything that caught my eye since then.

 

But no particular spiritual path. Just going in.

 

As to being here with you? Just call me Forrest.

[exorcist_1699]

Qi does have innate spiritual and moral character otherwise no matter how fancy our imagination is , how skilfully we use our brain's visualizing power,hardly can we uplift qi to a totally new, high level because qi, to most people who can initialize it, is still something just moving , something hot, something giving them strange sex pleasure...yet where is its spiritual /moral character?

 

In fact, " Whatever level you have not reached, whatever place you are inevitably entangled and perplexed " ( 一層未到一層迷 )

 

But why so difficult ? To me, here, Taoism gives us a better answer than others by pointing out that it is our status of existence( " post-heavenly " ) which bars us from advancing : how we breathe, what we eat,how we think...all are dominated by the yin force . Yet this yin force is still not the final , crucial life force we refer to ( if it is , if this so-called biological force , this Will as Schopenhauer claims , is the life force, then hardly can we claim real freedom and immortality possible ) ; it is the not-yet-degenerated Yang,hidden in it , that is the crucial life force.And, not relying on it , but its opposite , the spiritual arena in which most religions stuck to , cultivating , seems unlikely ..

 

 

" I do rely on God to help me getting rid of heavy drinking and drug.." some people may shout at me... I have to reply that : What I am talking about is something fundamental , not some kinds of deviation from the common path..

Edited February 20, 2011 by exorcist_1699

[zerostao]

dammit, i stayed out of the D.O. thread only to get sucked into this one.

i will hang out to see which paradox gets tossed into the play.

[Marblehead]

dammit, i stayed out of the D.O. thread only to get sucked into this one.

i will hang out to see which paradox gets tossed into the play.

 

Hehehe. But it is always helpful to view the understandings of others so that we can test our own understandings.

 

Confucius used the term "te" as "virtue" the same way the Taoists used it but the application of the word "virtue" is very different between the two philosophies. Confucius' 'virtue' was more to man-made virtues whereas Lao Tzu's 'virtue' points more to the virtue of Tao (the universe).

[manitou]

Hehehe. But it is always helpful to view the understandings of others so that we can test our own understandings.

 

Confucius used the term "te" as "virtue" the same way the Taoists used it but the application of the word "virtue" is very different between the two philosophies. Confucius' 'virtue' was more to man-made virtues whereas Lao Tzu's 'virtue' points more to the virtue of Tao (the universe).

 

 

I think Virtue as it's used in Tao philosophy goes to solid character, the ability to stand grounded, to not be knocked off course because the Sage's eye is always on the prize. Virtue is the place that we triangulate from when the third eye is developed. One leg of the tripod stands in the clarity of our character, one leg of the tripod stands in the current manifestation of the situation we're looking at, and the third leg of the tripod will triangulate the answer or solution. The shaman and the sage have bumped into each other at the top of the hill, but by different paths.

[Marblehead]

That's a lot of triangulation you got going on there lady. Hehehe.

 

Before satellites that is the method that was used to pinpoint a specific location on earth.

[2netis]

 

 

For anyone with any amount of curiosity, a reading of Korzybski's seminal work, "Science and Sanity" is very enlightening as to the limitations of language. In that work he explains the Aristotelian trap of a simplistic yes and no pattern embedded in all language that is nothing more than, absolute yes and absolute no. Leaving no room for infinite possibilities and only further debate over, yes and no, black and white, ad infinitum.

 

 

 

Korzybski is The Man! Thanks for this! It is also quite an error to anthropomorphize 'humans'.

[ralis]

(Ralis, I wish I could understand what you're saying here - my 12th grade education just doesn't cut it for this one)

 

Honestly, I think we're all talking about the same thing.

 

My experience is that once you go deep enough, go in far enough, there is a well of knowledge that is tapped. This well of knowledge is shared by others who have gotten in deeply enough.

 

My personal path in Forrest Gumping into this well, was through ugly behavior - alcoholism and everything that goes along with being a female bar drinker. It had nothing to do with any religious fervor on my part. I did not seek any spiritual attainment, I merely needed to stay sober.

 

In working the steps (which apparently have quite a spiritual component, which we've all discussed before) this inward-looking process produced a series of what I call "Aha's!" I've been following this inward looking path for nearly 30 years. The Aha's finally get you down to a place, a place of self realization.

 

The Aha's are found on any path - in fact, as I recall, my first Aha's were in a psychiatrist's office in 1981; I didn't stop drinking or start working the steps until a short time later. What I'm talking about is just the internal process wherein we get to know ourselves and discover who we are. Some would call this enlightenment, once you finally meet yourself.

 

Along the way, I did discover the incredible world of spirituality, and I've been reading everything that caught my eye since then.

 

But no particular spiritual path. Just going in.

 

As to being here with you? Just call me Forrest.

 

His book is floating around online, Amazon or your local library. What I mean is that by describing verbally any object, that verbal description is not the object. The verbal is an agreed upon construct that is not the object.

 

Try just experiencing the object with your vision and feelings and let the verbal constructions go. That is more of a direct experience.

Edited February 20, 2011 by ralis

[manitou]

His book is floating around online, Amazon or your local library. What I mean is that by describing verbally any object, that verbal description is not the object. The verbal is an agreed upon construct that is not the object.

 

Try just experiencing the object with your vision and feelings and let the verbal constructions go. That is more of a direct experience.

 

thanks, Ralis - now I see what you're saying.

[Cobie]

On 18/02/2011 at 8:01 AM, exorcist_1699 said:

… 

Taoism … it finds the solution from the opposite side of our mind , ie, lower dantian 

Brainhalves?

Edited May 15, 2022 by Cobie

[Desmonddf]

Qi is not the physical body and many spiritualist religions would even consider it to be a part of one's soul, not physical matter.

 

Daoism does say one must work to purify their body.... AND soul AND spirit, not only the body.

 

There are many types of Qi, and some are even more subtle than the more dense souls.

 

There is pollution to one's Soul as much as there is to one's Qi.

 

Qi is considered to be Yin, not Yang.

 

One's Yang include the Souls and Qi.

 

One's Yin include Blood and Marrow.

 

Purifying one's Yin is something done much latter at cultivation, after purifying one's Yang. Not because it is impossible to purify the Yin first, just because it is WAY harder and WAY more dangerous to purify one's Yin without a pure Yang to help in the process.

 

And so on.

 

Careful not to project your own desires and ideas upon Daoism and its practices. If you're searching for a doctrine that says "work with your body to achieve spiritual purity", go for it. There's plenty of Yoga and esoteric Martial Arts around which can help you with that.

 

Just not neigong or qigong. On those, body, breath and mind must work togheter. Not only the body.

[exorcist_1699]

On 2022/5/10 at 5:50 AM, Cobie said:

Brainhalves?

 

Unsure what you want to express , anyway,   thank you for popping up this  clumsily written post that I wrote so many years ago.