The Nature of Virtue

[Aaron]

Lately there's been much debate about the nature of virtue, mostly in response to Te, or as some like to call it, High Virtue, as opposed to Low Virtue, which is generally considered an action that is based on high moral standards.

 

Some may assume that virtue is viewed differently by Western Philosophers than it is Eastern Philosophers, but this would be a mistake, especially when one examines the idea of High Virtue as it is presented in Christian Mysticism. Some examples of High Virtue can be seen in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross.

 

St. John of the Cross in particular stated that upon reaching the highest level of spiritual union, the union of one with God, that their actions were changed and that they ceased to behave virtuously because it was morally upright and rather behaved virtuously out of a love for God. The poem "The Dark Night of the Soul" and subsequent treatise, elaborate upon this and in particular explains the spiritual journey one undertakes when one seeks to become unified with God. St. John pointed out that most would never achieve the ultimate spiritual union of man and God, at least not in this lifetime, but that some did.

 

The amazing thing that can be found, not only in the poem, but also the description of the journey taken, is that it mirrors much of what is taught in other 'mystical' traditions, including Sufism, Buddhism, and Taoism. At the end of this journey one understands that God and man are one or that nothing is really separate from anything, since unification with God is also unification with everything in existence.

 

As I stated in the beginning, this is about High Virtue, and although this may seem to be going astray, the point is that in all of these traditions High Virtue is not achieved through physical or mental effort, but only after experiencing the true nature of reality, whether it is the unification of the soul with God or understanding impermanence and the nature of the self.

 

Another similarity that is found is that the path to this enlightenment is often fraught with moral dilemmas and questions of authenticity. The closer we come to the point of awareness, the more questions we have about whether enlightenment can be achieved, and whether or not there is a purpose to anything at all. This rarely results in a total abandonment of the spiritual journey, but rather results in a stronger conviction as one passes through this phase, which by the way has been called the "dark night" because of St. John's description of this stage in his poem and treatise.

 

The fact that enlightenment is achieved by various traditions and that the stages, regardless of the religious and philosophical ideology, are nearly identical, seems to point to the notion that enlightenment isn't dependent upon a religious or philosophical ideology at all, but rather an experience that ultimately leads to awareness.

 

If one examines those people who have achieved enlightenment one finds, that regardless of their religious background, each shares certain characteristics; they practiced deep contemplation or meditation, developed an emotional detachment from the world, had a familiarity with those around them on an intimate level, and also were able to live harmoniously with those around them, even if their ideas may not be accepted by the majority.

 

Since I've been prone to writing lengthy threads, I will stop here, and close simply by stating that High Virtue as it's understood by most spiritual traditions is not something that can be practiced but rather arises from a deeper experiential awareness. It is not something that requires motivation, but rather is a natural action that is a result of understanding ones connection to others.

 

Aaron

 

edit- The most interesting lesson that I've learned from this, is that our concepts of truth are always in question, that regardless of what religious or philosophical tradition we follow, if our ultimate goal is to understand our place within this universe, we will achieve it if we are diligent and have faith that an answer does exist.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Twinner

[Encephalon]

Lately there's been much debate about the nature of virtue, mostly in response to Te, or as some like to call it, High Virtue, as opposed to Low Virtue, which is generally considered an action that is based on high moral standards.

 

Some may assume that virtue is viewed differently by Western Philosophers than it is Eastern Philosophers, but this would be a mistake, especially when one examines the idea of High Virtue as it is presented in Christian Mysticism. Some examples of High Virtue can be seen in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross.

 

St. John of the Cross in particular stated that upon reaching the highest level of spiritual union, the union of one with God, that their actions were changed and that they ceased to behave virtuously because it was morally upright and rather behaved virtuously out of a love for God. The poem "The Dark Night of the Soul" and subsequent treatise, elaborate upon this and in particular explains the spiritual journey one undertakes when one seeks to become unified with God. St. John pointed out that most would never achieve the ultimate spiritual union of man and God, at least not in this lifetime, but that some did.

 

The amazing thing that can be found, not only in the poem, but also the description of the journey taken, is that it mirrors much of what is taught in other 'mystical' traditions, including Sufism, Buddhism, and Taoism. At the end of this journey one understands that God and man are one or that nothing is really separate from anything, since unification with God is also unification with everything in existence.

 

As I stated in the beginning, this is about High Virtue, and although this may seem to be going astray, the point is that in all of these traditions High Virtue is not achieved through physical or mental effort, but only after experiencing the true nature of reality, whether it is the unification of the soul with God or understanding impermanence and the nature of the self.

 

Another similarity that is found is that the path to this enlightenment is often fraught with moral dilemmas and questions of authenticity. The closer we come to the point of awareness, the more questions we have about whether enlightenment can be achieved, and whether or not there is a purpose to anything at all. This rarely results in a total abandonment of the spiritual journey, but rather results in a stronger conviction as one passes through this phase, which by the way has been called the "dark night" because of St. John's description of this stage in his poem and treatise.

 

The fact that enlightenment is achieved by various traditions and that the stages, regardless of the religious and philosophical ideology, are nearly identical, seems to point to the notion that enlightenment isn't dependent upon a religious or philosophical ideology at all, but rather an experience that ultimately leads to awareness.

 

If one examines those people who have achieved enlightenment one finds, that regardless of their religious background, each shares certain characteristics; they practiced deep contemplation or meditation, developed an emotional detachment from the world, had a familiarity with those around them on an intimate level, and also were able to live harmoniously with those around them, even if their ideas may not be accepted by the majority.

 

Since I've been prone to writing lengthy threads, I will stop here, and close simply by stating that High Virtue as it's understood by most spiritual traditions is not something that can be practiced but rather arises from a deeper experiential awareness. It is not something that requires motivation, but rather is a natural action that is a result of understanding ones connection to others.

 

Aaron

 

edit- The most interesting lesson that I've learned from this, is that our concepts of truth are always in question, that regardless of what religious or philosophical tradition we follow, if our ultimate goal is to understand our place within this universe we will achieve it if we are diligent and have faith that an answer does exist.

 

 

Whoah!! Bravo!! I knew you were capable of this level of work when you joined up! So what was all that dramatic defensiveness about? Are you doing community theater?

 

I'm with you up to the edit, where my own path detours ever-so-slightly slightly and suggests that if "our ultimate goal is to understand our place within this universe," we will find it (understanding) by accepting ambiguity and embracing spontaneity.

[Marblehead]

Well, you both lost me, hehehe, but I will be reading the posts just to see where it might go.

[manitou]

Lately there's been much debate about the nature of virtue, mostly in response to Te, or as some like to call it, High Virtue, as opposed to Low Virtue, which is generally considered an action that is based on high moral standards.

 

Some may assume that virtue is viewed differently by Western Philosophers than it is Eastern Philosophers, but this would be a mistake, especially when one examines the idea of High Virtue as it is presented in Christian Mysticism. Some examples of High Virtue can be seen in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross.

 

St. John of the Cross in particular stated that upon reaching the highest level of spiritual union, the union of one with God, that their actions were changed and that they ceased to behave virtuously because it was morally upright and rather behaved virtuously out of a love for God. The poem "The Dark Night of the Soul" and subsequent treatise, elaborate upon this and in particular explains the spiritual journey one undertakes when one seeks to become unified with God. St. John pointed out that most would never achieve the ultimate spiritual union of man and God, at least not in this lifetime, but that some did.

 

The amazing thing that can be found, not only in the poem, but also the description of the journey taken, is that it mirrors much of what is taught in other 'mystical' traditions, including Sufism, Buddhism, and Taoism. At the end of this journey one understands that God and man are one or that nothing is really separate from anything, since unification with God is also unification with everything in existence.

 

As I stated in the beginning, this is about High Virtue, and although this may seem to be going astray, the point is that in all of these traditions High Virtue is not achieved through physical or mental effort, but only after experiencing the true nature of reality, whether it is the unification of the soul with God or understanding impermanence and the nature of the self.

 

Another similarity that is found is that the path to this enlightenment is often fraught with moral dilemmas and questions of authenticity. The closer we come to the point of awareness, the more questions we have about whether enlightenment can be achieved, and whether or not there is a purpose to anything at all. This rarely results in a total abandonment of the spiritual journey, but rather results in a stronger conviction as one passes through this phase, which by the way has been called the "dark night" because of St. John's description of this stage in his poem and treatise.

 

The fact that enlightenment is achieved by various traditions and that the stages, regardless of the religious and philosophical ideology, are nearly identical, seems to point to the notion that enlightenment isn't dependent upon a religious or philosophical ideology at all, but rather an experience that ultimately leads to awareness.

 

If one examines those people who have achieved enlightenment one finds, that regardless of their religious background, each shares certain characteristics; they practiced deep contemplation or meditation, developed an emotional detachment from the world, had a familiarity with those around them on an intimate level, and also were able to live harmoniously with those around them, even if their ideas may not be accepted by the majority.

 

Since I've been prone to writing lengthy threads, I will stop here, and close simply by stating that High Virtue as it's understood by most spiritual traditions is not something that can be practiced but rather arises from a deeper experiential awareness. It is not something that requires motivation, but rather is a natural action that is a result of understanding ones connection to others.

 

Aaron

 

edit- The most interesting lesson that I've learned from this, is that our concepts of truth are always in question, that regardless of what religious or philosophical tradition we follow, if our ultimate goal is to understand our place within this universe, we will achieve it if we are diligent and have faith that an answer does exist.

 

 

Huzzah, huzzah, Aaron!

 

You've done very well in describing the indescribable. I see enlightenment as a warm golden pool that sits at the bottom of the personality well that is 'us'. Once we have found the pool, all we have to do is open our minds and let the answers bubble up from the pool. I don't know how I communicate the ideas I get running through my brain - but I do know that it's not knowledge I was previously aware of. The answers just come up on their own, not through any structure of my doing.

 

Folks who have found their pool (it is all the same pool, I equate it to the molten mass in the middle of the earth) need just put on a non-judgmental hat to draw up the answers to whatever we're asking. But this pool, to my knowledge, can only be accessed by going in to one's own personality and developing self realization. Realizing who they really are.

Edited February 20, 2011 by manitou

[Ya Mu]

Lately there's been much debate about the nature of virtue, mostly in response to Te, or as some like to call it, High Virtue, as opposed to Low Virtue, which is generally considered an action that is based on high moral standards.

 

Some may assume that virtue is viewed differently by Western Philosophers than it is Eastern Philosophers, but this would be a mistake, especially when one examines the idea of High Virtue as it is presented in Christian Mysticism. Some examples of High Virtue can be seen in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross.

 

St. John of the Cross in particular stated that upon reaching the highest level of spiritual union, the union of one with God, that their actions were changed and that they ceased to behave virtuously because it was morally upright and rather behaved virtuously out of a love for God. The poem "The Dark Night of the Soul" and subsequent treatise, elaborate upon this and in particular explains the spiritual journey one undertakes when one seeks to become unified with God. St. John pointed out that most would never achieve the ultimate spiritual union of man and God, at least not in this lifetime, but that some did.

 

The amazing thing that can be found, not only in the poem, but also the description of the journey taken, is that it mirrors much of what is taught in other 'mystical' traditions, including Sufism, Buddhism, and Taoism. At the end of this journey one understands that God and man are one or that nothing is really separate from anything, since unification with God is also unification with everything in existence.

 

As I stated in the beginning, this is about High Virtue, and although this may seem to be going astray, the point is that in all of these traditions High Virtue is not achieved through physical or mental effort, but only after experiencing the true nature of reality, whether it is the unification of the soul with God or understanding impermanence and the nature of the self.

 

Another similarity that is found is that the path to this enlightenment is often fraught with moral dilemmas and questions of authenticity. The closer we come to the point of awareness, the more questions we have about whether enlightenment can be achieved, and whether or not there is a purpose to anything at all. This rarely results in a total abandonment of the spiritual journey, but rather results in a stronger conviction as one passes through this phase, which by the way has been called the "dark night" because of St. John's description of this stage in his poem and treatise.

 

The fact that enlightenment is achieved by various traditions and that the stages, regardless of the religious and philosophical ideology, are nearly identical, seems to point to the notion that enlightenment isn't dependent upon a religious or philosophical ideology at all, but rather an experience that ultimately leads to awareness.

 

If one examines those people who have achieved enlightenment one finds, that regardless of their religious background, each shares certain characteristics; they practiced deep contemplation or meditation, developed an emotional detachment from the world, had a familiarity with those around them on an intimate level, and also were able to live harmoniously with those around them, even if their ideas may not be accepted by the majority.

 

Since I've been prone to writing lengthy threads, I will stop here, and close simply by stating that High Virtue as it's understood by most spiritual traditions is not something that can be practiced but rather arises from a deeper experiential awareness. It is not something that requires motivation, but rather is a natural action that is a result of understanding ones connection to others.

 

Aaron

 

edit- The most interesting lesson that I've learned from this, is that our concepts of truth are always in question, that regardless of what religious or philosophical tradition we follow, if our ultimate goal is to understand our place within this universe, we will achieve it if we are diligent and have faith that an answer does exist.

Good!

 

I think that so many (in the other thread) became defensive as they equated "morality" with religion. As in practicing a determined by definition morality.

 

Someone posted there that they KNEW and of course this was attacked by others who didn't understand that, at our true core, we DO KNOW, at each moment of moments, exactly which action is harmonious with Tao/Universe/God and which action is the best for us to take at this moment of moments. This process, which I call "Listening", is the true expression of virtue. For we are then doing/acting or non-acting in a harmonious manner with everything, including our own personal higher level goals (sometimes acting by non-action). I write extensively about this Listening process in my new book which I hope to release this summer.

 

The problem of course is that we need to arrive at the point where we can express this or actually have this tie-in with our inner core. This is where cultivation comes in. To allow us to arrive at a point where we do KNOW.

[2netis]

 

 

I'm with you up to the edit, where my own path detours ever-so-slightly slightly and suggests that if "our ultimate goal is to understand our place within this universe," we will find it (understanding) by accepting ambiguity and embracing spontaneity.

 

Amen Brother...

 

John of the Cross found, as stated in his words: "Nada, Nada, Nada" which left his question unanswered but infinitely more alive than before. This is integrity, virtue, awakening, spontaneous being, Tao .

 

I am more interested in the best question. Answers are a dime a dozen. They grow like mushrooms on the insentient trunk of my brainstem. They are curious, sometimes beautiful, compellingly narcotic and more often highly poisionous - deadly.

 

Best wishes!

[Easy]

Blasto,

 

You wrote:

 

"...we will find it (understanding) by accepting ambiguity and embracing spontaneity."

 

Personally I am a great fan of ambiguity because certainty and KNOWING are so boring.

 

I have a few other thoughts on this thread's issues:

 

1. I don't believe it is the least bit difficult to understand the universal unity of it All. Just look at the possibility that 13.75 billion years ago everything was one, a whole. And even now it is...we are...made of the same stuff and propelled by the same energy. Unity--we all have the same birthday and we're all damn near 14 billion years old. A high school level understanding of The Second Law of Thermodynamics and a little Process Theory (one can't step into the same river twice) puts the idea of impermanence front and center. Of course all of that is just theory without a whole lot of certainty about it.

 

2. Having the ecstatic experience of the "divine" is always a Maslowian Peak kind of deal but it tends to interject God and a lot of unnecessary complications into what is, on its own, most profoundly simple. It has been my experience that Spirituality puts an opaque film around that which is numinously clear. However I would never deny anyone their right to put God to a peaceful use any more than I would deny them the peaceful use of any other of mankind's inventions.

 

3. I like Ya Mu's definition of virtue. He calls the practice Listening, which is nice and compact and gets the point across very well. For a long time I have called what I think he is talking about "sensing the experientially informed instincts," which as a teaching gimmick is a little too long and clumsy.

 

4. If one of the key ingredients of enlightenment is an "emotional detachment from the world" I don't want any part of it. This transcendence business is as reductionistic in its own way as science is in its own realm.

[Encephalon]

 

4. If one of the key ingredients of enlightenment is an "emotional detachment from the world" I don't want any part of it. This transcendence business is as reductionistic in its own way as science is in its own realm.

 

I believe the original context of this sentiment concerns the quality of equanimity, the capacity to respond to the vicissitudes of life with reflectivity rather than reflexivity. "Don't Bite the Hook," as Pema Chodron writes.

 

I also concur with Ya Mu; the capacity for "Listening" marks the difference between someone who demonstrates virtue as obedience to an imposed script and virtue as the natural and inevitable expression of consciousness beyond the bounds of egotism and duality.

[manitou]

I also concur with Ya Mu; the capacity for "Listening" marks the difference between someone who demonstrates virtue as obedience to an imposed script and virtue as the natural and inevitable expression of consciousness beyond the bounds of egotism and duality.

 

 

Perfectly said, to my way of thinking.

[Iskote]

I think virtue can be viewed as an indication or manifestation of a person's state of being or state of awareness or level of cultivation, but it can also be intentionally put into action as a way to further progress in one's spiritual cultivation, for those who are working on their cultivation. For example, in Buddhism we have the idea of gaining merit by actively practicing virtue, and there seem to be similar concepts in other spriritual traditions, although it may be expressed differently. The general idea seems to be that by actively practicing virtue one gains merit and this assists one in their spiritual cultivation progress. This then is an actual form of cultivation practice. The more one progresses in this practice, the more it becomes a natural expression of one's state of being. So I think there is more than one way of looking at it.

Best wishes from Iskote...

Edited February 21, 2011 by Iskote

[Easy]

I believe the original context of this sentiment concerns the quality of equanimity, the capacity to respond to the vicissitudes of life with reflectivity rather than reflexivity. "Don't Bite the Hook," as Pema Chodron writes.

 

If this is the original then it appears to be in line with our consensus agreement on Ya Mu's version of 'virtue.' However, subsequent renditions of an "emotional detachment from the world" have perverted it into "in the world but not of it" type of an anti-embodiment transcendence. I am thinking here of Ramana Maharshi and others like him.

 

The presence here of Manitou reminds me that on another recent thread we agreed that virtue in the Taoist sense had a close parallel to "authenticity" in the vocabulary of the 20th Century Western Existentialists. She equated it with the "uncarved block." I am not sure if the Eastern cultures at the time of the T'ang Dynasty would even be able to comprehend mid-1940s French individualism, but it is something to consider when one is considering virtue...especially High Virtue.

 

All Hail Jean Genet!

 

P.S. M, my unbelievably astute wife and 30-year Kashmir Shaivism yogini, says that virtue/authenticity means the highest following of the Dharma. I mention the tenets of Existentialism and she says, "Oh yeah, that's the Highest Dharma."

Edited February 20, 2011 by Easy

[Aaron]

Hello folks,

 

The problem stems with needing to be right. When people care less about what others think and more about what they themselves believe to be true, then they will cease having to prove that their way is the right way. Egotism is the crux here, the feeling that others need to be inferior and that our own beliefs are superior. I think much of this stems from self-loathing, at least self-loathing that is directed at one's own culture. It blinds us and makes it so we can't be objective, even if under close scrutiny something can be proved, the innate intolerance for anything that is even remotely related to what we despise is dismissed and belittled.

 

I would say that High Virtue is not necessarily solely listening, but rather an intuitive understanding of how the world works, an understanding that allows us to make the right decision because we intuitively know what that decision is, because we understand on a deeper level the differences between needs and wants. The idea that this is a spontaneous action is true, but only in the sense that the action is not derived from a moral conviction, but rather an understanding of the actions necessity, which causes us to react in an natural way. I do believe we are born with this capacity, but in learning to behave in accord with society, we learn that rules are applied to our actions, that right and wrong dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable. It is this knowledge that overrides the natural reaction that would normally occur.

 

In a sense returning to this state is like learning to paint. We knew at one time to paint, but somewhere along the line we were taught that the way we paint naturally isn't aesthetically pleasing or acceptable and thus we are taught to paint the way that is accepted. In learning to paint once again, we understand the act of painting for what it is, an expression of ourselves, and that expression does not need to stay within the lines or be dictated by color schemes, but rather is guided by what is deep within ourselves, something that is also connected to the world around us.

 

To get back to needs and wants, I need to eat, drink, and sleep, but I want many other things. Detachment, emotional detachment that is, is not the absence of emotion, but rather understanding emotions for what they are, knowing when an emotional response is tied to a want, rather than a necessity. I believe St. John understood this, as did many other Western philosophers and mystics. The inherent problem with examining this premise, is that when you work along the Western academic philosophical ideology, what you end up coming up with is a want to logically determine this, when in fact this highest form of Virtue is not something learned, but rather experienced.

 

In the end, though, this is all subjective, and though it might be right or true for me, it might not be so for someone else. I have no need to prove this right, rather a want. If I talk about this, it's not because you need to know what I know, but I want to share what I know. If I understand this then I can carry on a conversation with you without resorting to derogatory comments, belittling your own ideas, or attacking your character, and instead I can address the points in question and talk about it in a civil manner.

 

Again, virtue, High Virtue, is not an exclusive concept, it does not stem solely from one philosophy, but rather is something that we are all capable of experiencing, regardless of what religious or philosophical school of thought we choose to follow. That was the point I tried to make.

 

Aaron

Edited February 20, 2011 by Twinner

[Ya Mu]

Any type of thinking actually gets in the way of this process. As it is only valid in the moment and of the moment. And it has nothing to do with emotions as well. Emotions can be either glad or sad or neutral, as long as a person can step out of the particular emotion to sample the moment from their inner core. Yes this is the intuitive process, but the process of cultivation will enhance and develop this process. And I agree that it is something inherent in everyone. The process of cultivation helps remove the filters that get in the way of this process. The reason I call it "Listening" as opposed to listening is that I mean to really KNOW one has to stop the world at that moment for each and every moment and "Listen" to the inherent intuitive factor. Then we absolutely KNOW, not from any type of preconceived idea, or belief, but from the energetics of the moment. But the knowing is only valid in that moment. This is true high virtue because we cannot be virtuous by thinking, which is clouded by belief, or indulgence in emotions, but only by surfing the wave of the moment in the moment by the moment.

 

I took somewhere around 100 pages to talk about this in the new book (with a running example) and thought about posting an excerpt from the book but people on this forum have a way of wanting to argue and this is really nothing to argue or debate about; only do (or be). It just is and is not dependent on what any person wishes to call it or believe about it.

[manitou]

I am familiar with this phenomenon as well. To me, I 'see' it as an openness hovering over a body of knowledge that can be assimilated up at will when the need arises. The need often arises on this board, and I find myself using this channel often. It's pretty visible when others are posting from this source as well.

In my mind's eye I see it as a spaceship hovering over a body of water.

 

When this channel first opened in me several years ago it was very difficult to handle. I would blurt things out at inappropriate times, things I would see, even things to strangers. It's a bit odd. I have wondered if it relates to anything to do with the Akashic records, as I've had 3 lucid dreams involving scrolls and books where I'm reading them line for line.

 

I'd love to hear of similar phenomena. A person always feels so very strange when these things happen to them -

[Easy]

Hello folks,

 

The problem stems with needing to be right. When people care less about what others think and more about what they themselves believe to be true, then they will cease having to prove that their way is the right way. Egotism is the crux here, the feeling that others need to be inferior and that our own beliefs are superior. I think much of this stems from self-loathing, at least self-loathing that is directed at one's own culture. It blinds us and makes it so we can't be objective, even if under close scrutiny something can be proved, the innate intolerance for anything that is even remotely related to what we despise is dismissed and belittled.

 

 

This is good work Aaron. If the rest of us could match the lead in your courageous style of self-examination, your manifest self-critical-analysis as stated above, then TTB would be a much more peaceful site. I especially resonate with the observation about denigrating one's own culture. I agree that you have to be reconciled to your own culture, good or bad. One must find one's fundamental strength in one's own heritage and then consciously and with precise discernment add to that from all the others. Anything other than that which comes up as purely native then one ends up a half-assed wannabe. I grew up in the middle of a culture into which I was not born. Now I am living in the middle of a different one, but I am still coming out from the one that is native to me, fucked up as it is. For example my "be reconciled" from above comes from one of St. Paul's (that miserable s.o.b.) letter to the Corinthians in which he advised that we should all be reconciled to the grace of god. The best line I heard from the latest rendition of the movie True Grit said something like, "...there is nothing free in this world except the grace of god." Now you don't have to be a Christian and your momma doesn't even have to be a Christian, but if you do not know, nor have an analogy for knowing about "the grace of god" then you don't know jack squat. On the other end of that 2,000-year cultural evolution is my "All hail Jean Genet."

 

I have to agree with you Aaron that experience is the key. And this is what ties me back into Ya Mu's post.

 

Ya Mu writes:

 

The reason I call it "Listening" as opposed to listening is that I mean to really KNOW one has to stop the world at that moment for each and every moment and "Listen" to the inherent intuitive factor.

 

I do not want to argue because I agree almost 99% but...I am into Process Theory in which one cannot "stop the world." In an old blog post of mine I wrote:

 

There is a stretch through the Grand Canyon where the river has sliced deepest into earth and running flat pushes swiftly through sheared strata that are a bazillion years old and have names like Vishnu Schist, solid, straight up, uncracked rock. There are no sand bars, no falls or rapids, or beaches, no gravel, no boulders and nothing sharp to slice the water so it sucks up air and turns white. The surface is flat and dark; from a distance it looks placid. These vertical walls narrow the channel so the passage of the river is like forcing a fifteen-amp charge through a ten-amp wire; things get ftritzy inside. The river has scoured and sanded the rock into polished deep undulations, tunnels, pockets, caves, ramps and corners that shape and push the water into too many conflicting directions; it tangles the flow for miles into a turbulent, multi-skeined knot of insane subsurface hydraulics: roils, eddies, backwashes, under tows, whirlpools and cross currents heaving against cross-current, against the walls and boats, boiling to the surface and sucking downward, forcing past each other with enough velocity to shear a wooden oar in two if it is caught between. Shallow fissures suddenly snap open between the currents, hiss across the surface like snakes and then as instantly disappear. It is a welter of over wrought, omni-dimensional ripples, reverberating at the power of 10. This simple landscape of dark flat water and black vertical rock is called The Inner Canyon.

 

Of the various meditation techniques that rely on energetic movement, I lean toward the more subtle fringes of Taoist Spiritual Alchemy and these have a historically documented root in shamanic practices. Looking at the phenomena from either position, alchemy or shamanism, it does not take long to realize, apprehend visually, the finely wrought, omni-directional, eternally reverberating, multi-skeined knot of turbulent energy and information that is the Whole of It engulfing Ourselves, the universal Inner Canyon, where ambiguity resonates to the 10th power. Nowhere can one take a core sample or cut a cross-section that will dependably tell one anything except how that specific location used to look, nowhere is there solid predictability, nowhere is there anything that can be made discreetly identifiable as one’s own, nowhere is there knowledge or experience or their feeble, schizoid cousin, memory, that isn’t constantly mutated beyond the recognition of the day before. Anything other than the liberating reconciliation to the omnipresent hegemony of ambiguity is a fantasy.

 

Now I have a story that precedes that observation by about 25 years, a story that made that observation coherent and shows that it is not entirely advisable to stop the world anywhere along its path.

 

I was 11-years-old and it was the middle of January and I had just walked in the last half-mile from the school bus stop to our home. The sun was going down. I knew the pickup that sat in front of the house. It was the rig of a grown-up friend of mine, the district head game warden for Central Wyoming. My mother said he was headed upstream, setting mink traps along the river that flowed through our ranch. I grabbed the sandwich she gave me and headed up after him. I needed to see how he did his work. I had no time to Stop the World...the time was 15 minutes from dark and I needed the light to find my way back home.

 

It was a year of a big drought, there was no snow anywhere, the ground was frozen solid...nothing could make a track on that kind of weathered muddy pavement. But I could see where he had stepped, there he went along the trail and there he went off to the side. The moss on the rocks glowed where he had stepped, but when I went back and looked them over there was no difference between his invisible boot-print and the moss 15 feet away. But there was a difference. I could see where he had brushed past juniper branches...they glowed. I could sense the air. Where my friend had passed the air was just barely noticeably more dense, maybe a degree or two more warmer. There was a density to that air I can feel even now from 56 years away.

 

It was close to dark when I came upon him washing his scent off a mink trap. I just stepped out of the willows and said "Hi." He wondered how I had found him since he left no tracks and the light was so bad. But I said I had tracked him up-river and I could show him every place he had set a trap between my home and where we had met. Then he said, "You must have better eyes than mine," and he put me in as a partner in that trap-line for the next two years.

 

So Ya Mu, maybe you have enough medicine to stop the world to take a reading but I don't. I've always had to grab facts on the run and so I'll have to read your book. All I can do is handle flying what's coming at me in the moment and keep a song in my heart and a smile on my lips as I go forth to smash The State and anything else that feels it needs to loom larger than my little world.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Easy

[Ya Mu]

The main points I have concerning what I have referred to in this thread are:

1) It is a process that requires time&effort and has nothing to do with emotions or thinking.

2) Unless someone has a life-changing natural event happen, such as being struck by lightening, it won't happen simply thinking about it.

3) The practice of virtue is only valid for the moment as we live in a dynamic universe versus a static universe.

4) In each and every moment, with practice, the process achieves continuity, there is no waiting or "I don't have time" or "I can't do this".

5) It really makes no difference in what a person believes to be true. If said person practices a valid internal cultivation technique, and practice at what I call "Listening", then it will happen. So this is not about "what I said" but about what becomes self-evident to the practitioner. Anyone can do this that practices as it is a part of who we really are.

[Aaron]

The main points I have concerning what I have referred to in this thread are:

1) It is a process that requires time&effort and has nothing to do with emotions or thinking.

2) Unless someone has a life-changing natural event happen, such as being struck by lightening, it won't happen simply thinking about it.

3) The practice of virtue is only valid for the moment as we live in a dynamic universe versus a static universe.

4) In each and every moment, with practice, the process achieves continuity, there is no waiting or "I don't have time" or "I can't do this".

5) It really makes no difference in what a person believes to be true. If said person practices a valid internal cultivation technique, and practice at what I call "Listening", then it will happen. So this is not about "what I said" but about what becomes self-evident to the practitioner. Anyone can do this that practices as it is a part of who we really are.

 

 

Hello Ya Mu,

 

I'm not certain if I agree. I think it has nothing to do with morality or low virtue, but I think in certain instances it does have to do with emotion. In the case of showing compassion for someone suffering for instance, or when one risks their life to save someone else, not because it is virtuous, but because something inside them told them too. Often times if you ask these people why, their answer is, "anyone would've done it." The reason they say this, in my opinion, is because that action seemed to be the natural reaction. {edit- In case it doesn't appear obvious, I think there are emotional components to these actions, whether it is compassion or a concern for someone's life (i.e. love).)

 

The problem with many people and Taoism is they get this idea that Taoism isn't about morality and to be completely honest, it's not, but in the same way, it's not about being shallow or self-centered either. It's not about proving how witty you are or about gathering personal power in the hopes of eternal living, it's about being a part of the world today, right now, and understanding that being a part of the world today, right now, is completely ordinary, but in being ordinary is extraordinary.

 

Our capacity to be kind and compassionate is great, yet because we attach a moral value to this act, many scoff at it, because they see it as something that is constraining and smothering, something that denies them their ability to be their true selves, even though in most cases these people don't understand who they truly are.

 

We talk about High Virtue, like it's something that can be taught or practiced, learned even, and that's not the entire truth. It's something that is experienced once someone has learned to let go of controlling their lives and allowing themselves to be swept up in the current. Does that mean you wont paddles out of the way of a rock now and again, absolutely not, but it doesn't mean that you need to swim against the current anymore either.

 

Anyways, I'm trying to refrain from long posts and my five minutes are up, so I'm out of here. I hope everyone is having a great night. Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

Edited February 22, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I am familiar with this phenomenon as well. To me, I 'see' it as an openness hovering over a body of knowledge that can be assimilated up at will when the need arises. The need often arises on this board, and I find myself using this channel often. It's pretty visible when others are posting from this source as well.

In my mind's eye I see it as a spaceship hovering over a body of water.

 

When this channel first opened in me several years ago it was very difficult to handle. I would blurt things out at inappropriate times, things I would see, even things to strangers. It's a bit odd. I have wondered if it relates to anything to do with the Akashic records, as I've had 3 lucid dreams involving scrolls and books where I'm reading them line for line.

 

I'd love to hear of similar phenomena. A person always feels so very strange when these things happen to them -

 

 

Hello Manitou,

 

I wouldn't worry about whether or not other people have felt the same way you do. This is your experience and it's every bit a part of you. I say embrace it, especially if it's something that brings you peace. In the end it's not about becoming enlightened or expressing Te within one's life so much, as it is learning to live life day to day, by understanding life on life's terms.

 

Aaron

[Stigweard]

Autumn shines through leaves,

Glacier cracks a mountain wide,

There virtue is found.

 

[Marblehead]

Our capacity to be kind and compassionate is great ...

 

Aaron

 

Without a doubt!

[Marblehead]

Autumn shines through leaves,

Glacier cracks a mountain wide,

There virtue is found.

 

 

And everywhere else too. As someone once said, "Even in this turd."

[manitou]

Hello Manitou,

 

I wouldn't worry about whether or not other people have felt the same way you do. This is your experience and it's every bit a part of you. I say embrace it, especially if it's something that brings you peace. In the end it's not about becoming enlightened or expressing Te within one's life so much, as it is learning to live life day to day, by understanding life on life's terms.

 

Aaron

 

 

thank you, Aaron - this is very balanced.

[Ya Mu]

Hello Ya Mu,

 

I'm not certain if I agree. I think it has nothing to do with morality or low virtue, but I think in certain instances it does have to do with emotion. In the case of showing compassion for someone suffering for instance, or when one risks their life to save someone else, not because it is virtuous, but because something inside them told them too. Often times if you ask these people why, their answer is, "anyone would've done it." The reason they say this, in my opinion, is because that action seemed to be the natural reaction. {edit- In case it doesn't appear obvious, I think there are emotional components to these actions, whether it is compassion or a concern for someone's life (i.e. love).)

 

The problem with many people and Taoism is they get this idea that Taoism isn't about morality and to be completely honest, it's not, but in the same way, it's not about being shallow or self-centered either. It's not about proving how witty you are or about gathering personal power in the hopes of eternal living, it's about being a part of the world today, right now, and understanding that being a part of the world today, right now, is completely ordinary, but in being ordinary is extraordinary.

 

Our capacity to be kind and compassionate is great, yet because we attach a moral value to this act, many scoff at it, because they see it as something that is constraining and smothering, something that denies them their ability to be their true selves, even though in most cases these people don't understand who they truly are.

 

We talk about High Virtue, like it's something that can be taught or practiced, learned even, and that's not the entire truth. It's something that is experienced once someone has learned to let go of controlling their lives and allowing themselves to be swept up in the current. Does that mean you wont paddles out of the way of a rock now and again, absolutely not, but it doesn't mean that you need to swim against the current anymore either.

 

Anyways, I'm trying to refrain from long posts and my five minutes are up, so I'm out of here. I hope everyone is having a great night. Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

AS a healer and one who teaches others how to heal one of the most certain things I have run across is that compassion is forefront. So I didn't mean in the points I listed that we shouldn't have compassion. But I maintain that true compassion can be separated from emotional empathy and are two different things. When we do a healing, we act from the most high aspect of ourselves. But we must separate from the emotion for many reasons. An example is that we practice high level (according to Chinese definition of low, mid and high level healing). So our goal is to help the patient achieve his/her destiny. NOT concerned with any type of emotional involvement as that would put us back on the level of the problem (remember the windhorse; must rise above the level of a problem in order to solve it). Did we remove our compassion when we separate compassion from emotion? Absolutely not - or we wouldn't be doing the healing to start with. Furthermore this separaration is mandatory as we must disassociate from the healing itself once it is completed as we must move on to the next patient.

 

Also, I do maintain that it is associated with the practice. I know it is from observation of many many students and from my own experience and is an inherent part of our teachings. At least it is with Stillness-Movement Neigong. And I would think any true neigong practice that raises the energy body vibration would allow the same thing, although I can't be certain of this and will allow that if a practice isn't high level then it probably will not lead to this.

 

I don't usually use the term "virtue" or "high virtue" as it is most confusing to those (99 percent of population) who are not familiar with Taoist terms. And it also appears confusing to those who do know Taoist terms. And I think what I call "Listening" explains the process much better although do agree that this is not about semantics but the process itself, which it appears few understand.

 

About emotions.

What many fail to realize when they discuss or practice is the simple fact that we ARE emotion beings. How boring it would be if we all walked around suppressing our emotions. So we should allow this natural expression of ourselves. But to accomplish "Listening" we learn to simply shift to sample the true ebb and dynamic flow of energetics in the moment of the moment. So we can do this while in a moment of laughter. A part of this is learning how to have a first and second awareness and shifting in between.

 

I did say that I had somewhere around a 100 pages to attempt to describe this process so I do realize what I write here as well as the 100 pages will never describe the process itself; this process is very confusing to attempt a linear description of as it most certainly is non-linear.

 

I still maintain it (ability to maintain "high virtue") is a natural inherent aspect of ourselves; we DO have the ability to make the "right" decision at each and every moment. This ability just needs awakening. We (those of us involved in high level energy healing) utilize it each and every day and carry it over into our daily lives.

[The Way Is Virtue]

The problem with many people and Taoism is they get this idea that Taoism isn't about morality and to be completely honest, it's not, but in the same way, it's not about being shallow or self-centered either. It's not about proving how witty you are or about gathering personal power in the hopes of eternal living, it's about being a part of the world today, right now, and understanding that being a part of the world today, right now, is completely ordinary, but in being ordinary is extraordinary.

 

Hi Twinner. I think I have mentioned this before, but anyway, I am not aware of any actual practicing Taoists that have said that Taoism is not at all concerned with morality or virtue. However, one should also keep in mind that what is referred to as 'Taoism' has never been one single unified coherent institution. Many widely diverging groups with different roots and goals and approaches and focuses, and with a rather loosely based somewhat nebulous underlying theme have been grouped together and are collectively referred to as Taoism, so it is quite possible that there is some divergence in views in regards to this matter.

 

Of the two main surviving Taoist branches in China today, I believe both put emphasis on being of service to others and the community and society as a whole, and both have various rules and guidelines of conduct for followers as well. I don't believe these rules and guidelnes are in place just to make follower's lives more difficult, but are seen as practical and necessary requirements. Practices and guidelines that help one cultivate virtue are very much a part of these traditions, just as they are in many other religious/spiritual cultivation traditions around the world. I personally believe this is for very practical and specific reasons. I think those who downplay or ignore this part of the traditions are missing an important aspect. Perhaps it is because in the Modern world, and especially in the West, Religion and its associated views and practices are considered by many to be superstitious and such, and many people thus naturally tend to want to discard any such 'superstitious' aspects.

 

Where I see the problem being is some people may read a few texts such as the Tao Te Ching and perhaps a few other Taoist texts and then attempt to draw very definite conclusions about what they believe is being expressed in those texts, and also about specific concepts within the texts, and some may also try to then make wide sweeping conclusions about Taoism in general as well. Many Taoist (and Buddhist, etc.) writings are expressions of practitioner's very deep inner experiences, and I have seem more than one Taoist point out that one shouldn't reasonably expect to begin to truly understand the full depth of what is being said in such texts without having reached such states oneself. That is not to say there isn't value for one to read and try to absorb what they can from such writings, but one's understanding will likely be fairly superficial and one's true understanding can only grow through applying oneself to their own personal cultivation over a long period of time, such that one can then relate these things to actual experience. I understand that some people in the West view texts such as the Tao Te Ching just as 'philosophy', and from that point of view one might expect to be able to analyze and think their way through to a decent understanding of what is being said, but I personally think that this view is more than a little off the mark when it comes to texts like the Tao Te Ching anyway. In many if not most Taoist traditions, one cultivates and studies under the direct guidance of an experienced teacher or teachers, as it is believed that such guidance is essential for making real progress, for all but the most rare and exceptional anyway. That's my two cent's worth on the subject and I do realize that others may and likely do see it differently. Keep smiling.

 

[Edit: added a few more thoughts...}

Edited February 22, 2011 by The Way Is Virtue

[Easy]

And everywhere else too. As someone once said, "Even in this turd."

 

Is this to mean that virtue is synonymous with authenticity? Turds are nothing if not authentic.

 

There is some wisdom here in what Ya Mu writes:

 

The practice of virtue is only valid for the moment...

 

Nothing is ever going to come back.