rene Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Part of SereneBlue's signature reads: 2. "Things first began to jell in my understanding, though, with a remark by Joseph Goldstein, a teacher of insight meditation, at Bodh Gaya. It's simple mathematics, he said: "All meditation systems either aim for One or Zero - union with God or emptiness. The path to the One is through concentration on Him, to the Zero is insight into the voidness of one's mind." - Daniel Goleman, The Meditative Mind *** A recent conversation inside this thread: http://thetaobums.co...mes-of-the-ddj/ flowinghands: The 'self' is the most important theme of the DDJ, it is what limits us in our understanding of the world around us and a huge obstacle to the awakening of realization. Li Erh talks about the self very often and it is referred to multiple times by default. It is the underlying understanding that runs all the way through and it has nothing to do with Buddhism, it has everything to do with realization based on a shamanistic culture of understanding of the world around us. Connecting. rene: Perhaps your read of The Laozi finds the 'self' to be a 'huge obstacle to the awakening of realization'; my take is one of suggested integration, a more natural connection without exclusion. dawei: I don't think you two are talking exactly the same thing so it does appear as a difference. But if one talks about an 'awakening of realization', it would mean (to me) that the natural connection without exclusion is simply not what they are aware of or have come to be aware of. Clearly, daoist had different thoughts than the confucians or legalists but they all would probably admit to a natural connection without exclusion since that was fundamental to the world view of all the philosophies. But if a person's awareness is purely a social context or a political context then I think it not really yet looking to the source in the way Lao Zi does. JMO. *** Is it really as Goldstein suggests? Either the Full (One) or the Empty (Zero)?? I've long enjoyed tangling with those who stand on one at the exclusion of the other... The Empty-Zero has a surface benefit of (perhaps) overcoming dualities... while the Full-One has a surface benefit of (perhaps) mitigating dualities... but isn't the pitting of one way around the barn against the other way the ultimate 'duality' itself? My idea is that any suggestions to beginning seekers, all seekers, regardless of tradition or path, should be those that encourage a blended perspective. Simultaneous arising of mystery and manifest; the space and the vessel; both Zero and One. Unboundaried. All ideas welcome. warm regards . edited to credit SB's sig quote Edited August 29, 2012 by rene 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 29, 2012 I would be flattered if you added setting and subject or player and stage. But you dont have to if you dont want to. Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 29, 2012 I would be flattered if you added setting and subject or player and stage. But you dont have to if you dont want to. Stosh Stosh (-: consider them added! That's one of the cool things about the unboundaried aspect; not only is it everywhere - it also facilitates the returning motion of Tao. warm regards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 29, 2012 Thanks Rene ,I have the idea that it is easier to consider oneself in such a familiar light. Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 29, 2012 Is it really as Goldstein suggests? Either the Full (One) or the Empty (Zero)?? I've long enjoyed tangling with those who stand on one at the exclusion of the other... I am so glad I am not seeking either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted August 30, 2012 To be fair to Goldstein, whoever he is, he may be simply keeping the comment to his ideas on meditation.... but his quote only talks of the path, not the outcome... which can be the difference to the seeker's result. Your persistence in the 'unboundaried' and 'both', now a compound, is a message I often state too... I would only state that this is a higher level at some point but we are stuck on dualism as non-duality... It is wordsmithing a philosophy; but if we are going to wordsmith something, this is it ! I would offer that the levels are physical; then meta-physical; then energetic; then spiritual; then divine... Most of our discussions here remain on the lowest, most base level... this at least offers a second level taste as it is more meta-physical reality... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 30, 2012 dawei, hi To be fair to Goldstein, whoever he is, he may be simply keeping the comment to his ideas on meditation.... but his quote only talks of the path, not the outcome... which can be the difference to the seeker's result. I think you're right that Goldstein's comments speak primarily to the path rather than any sought outcome; after all, as said so often, "It's the journey and not the destination." I wonder, though, what the appeal of any path would be that does not hold out the carrot of the end result as impetus - along with the too often taught 'our path is the only path to _____' - especially as the 'end result' includes reintegration... so yes, that can very much make a difference, imo. Your persistence in the 'unboundaried' and 'both', now a compound, is a message I often state too... I've seen it, yes. You frequently blend seemingly opposing ideas and it's nice to have company here sometimes, lol. I would only state that this is a higher level at some point but we are stuck on dualism as non-duality... It is wordsmithing a philosophy; but if we are going to wordsmith something, this is it ! ... I would offer that the levels are physical; then meta-physical; then energetic; then spiritual; then divine... Most of our discussions here remain on the lowest, most base level... this at least offers a second level taste as it is more meta-physical reality... I'll have to yield to you and others to divide things up into different levels (physical, meta-physical, etc..) as it's all just kind of blended together for me. I enjoy reading all the different threads here in TTB, so many different ways and ideas! and I thank you for your words. (-: warm regards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samwardell Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) "All meditation systems either aim for One or Zero - union with God or emptiness. The path to the One is through concentration on Him, to the Zero is insight into the voidness of one's mind." - Daniel Goleman, The Meditative Mind [...] Is it really as Goldstein suggests? Either the Full (One) or the Empty (Zero)?? I've long enjoyed tangling with those who stand on one at the exclusion of the other... Couldn't agree more. Certainly there are those who meditate to reach the one (think Western mystical traditions). There are also those who meditate to reach zero (South Asian tradition - Buddhism, Hinduism etc...) However there are also many intra-worldly forms of mysticism and meditation which do neither; and in fact would treat the idea of meditative practice as "aiming for" as missing the point. The Western Philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre in After Virtue makes a nice distinction between performing an activity for a goal, and performance for performance's sake - which he refers to as outer and inner goods. It seems, from the quote at least, that Goleman misses the mystical/meditative performance as an 'inner good'. This type of meditative practice, being without any goal, would be, as you astutely point out, Unbounded. Interesting OP! Edited August 30, 2012 by samwardell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 30, 2012 samwardell, hi, thanks for joining in (-: You may be right that Goleman missed that aspect, or it might be it was included elsewhere in his thoughts... it's just such a short quote, hard to tell. I like MacIntyre's ideas and distinction. It might be, ironically, that performance for performance sake (the inner) is what most facilitates reaching the goal! This somewhat parallels my take that expressing the thought that 'tao' is something separate that needs to be outer-chased only reinforces a wrong idea, imo, not unlike like those chinese-finger-puzzle toys where you stick your finger in each end of a tube and the harder you try to pull your fingers out the tighter the grasp becomes! The more you chase the more you fail, lol! All of this might relate to the 'function' you were referring to in your 'empty/full' thread. You stated: It is not so much the full/empty paradox that I find hard. My own preference is to interpret it as Wang Bi does as the Dao being "full of emptiness" (comment ddj ch 45.1). Rather it is the link with 'function' that I find puzzling. Did you sort all that yet? Do you see a connection between the 'function' and these ideas? warm regards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samwardell Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) This somewhat parallels my take that expressing the thought that 'tao' is something separate that needs to be outer-chased only reinforces a wrong idea, imo, not unlike like those chinese-finger-puzzle toys where you stick your finger in each end of a tube and the harder you try to pull your fingers out the tighter the grasp becomes! The more you chase the more you fail, lol! Couldn't agree more. As for empty/full and function - I am still rolling it around my head. Actually reading the 'valley spirit' thread made me think about it again. I suppose it could be argued that a cup is at its most functional when it is empty - so there is that. Similarly the empty/full passages might be taken as an exposition on the functioning of ch'i. Ch'i at is most "tenuous" (ie on the point of emptiness) is at its most potent; the air we ned to live, the forming of dew on grass in the morning mists etc... I think the mistake I was making was looking for some single explanation; I forgot I was reading poetry! Edited August 31, 2012 by samwardell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I think the mistake I was making was looking for some single explanation ... I read that and thought, "Single explanations don't work in Taoism." Edit to add: As Rene has to remind me now and again, it is not either/or, it is both (but then it could be neither). Edited August 31, 2012 by Marblehead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 31, 2012 As Rene has to remind me now and again, it is not either/or, it is both (but then it could be neither). LOL MH what if it's even worse! Maybe it's - This That Both this and that Neither this nor that - all at the same time! warm regards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 31, 2012 LOL MH what if it's even worse! Maybe it's - This That Both this and that Neither this nor that - all at the same time! warm regards Hehehe. You better stick with your either/or. If I get too unbound I might start thinking I can fly (physically, under my own power) and I think that wouldn't be a good idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I suppose it could be argued that a cup is at its most functional when it is empty - so there is that. ... Could be, sure. (-: To me, 'functional' is a function of change; the usability of (whatever) from one moment to the next. I think the mistake I was making was looking for some single explanation; I forgot I was reading poetry! Ohhh I dont see that as a 'mistake', rather the natural tendancy to resist making things more complicated than they are, which, as Marblehead pointed out, 'dont work in Taoism' (or any other -ism) that creates and celebrates colorful complex explanations for what might be simplicity itself. warm regards Edited August 31, 2012 by rene Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 31, 2012 Personally, I buy full jugs of water and throw them away when they are empty. Silly me! Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
