The Philosopher's Tao

[Nikolai1]

Hi guys,

 

I’ve started this thread as both an explanation and discussion on how the intellect can be used on the spiritual path. For the 15 years of my adult life philosophical thought, alongside meditation, has been my main practice and I now feel that I’m in a position to share what I have learned.

 

It took years for me to realise that my love of the philosophers and my near constant asking of the question ‘why?’ was at heart a religious yearning for truth; Christianity is the main religious narrative in the west and tends to prioritise love, devotion and the emotional life as being the authentic traits of spirituality. It was only when I started to read the Indian and Chinese philosophers that I realized that philosophical questioning can and does lead to spiritual realization (and that many of the lesser Christian theologians had discovered this).

 

Perhaps I should make this a bit clearer. Although, properly understood, the spiritual life is not different to the earthly life, it does help to imagine that the two constitute different phases in a person’s life. Spiritual growth is therefore the move from an earthly existence to a spiritual existence. We can understand this as either a moving towards heaven, or we can understand this as a moving away from earth and this distinction helps to make sense of the various religious practices. To move towards heaven, or the spiritual life, we must first believe it to exist, and then secondarily set about confirming our belief. Methods used to confirm might be prayer, meditation, devotion to a deity or guru, ritual, church attendance, physical exercises and many others. These are all extremely important methods, and everyone must eventually seek recourse to methods of this nature if they are to discover spiritual truth.

 

But all the ritual and ceremony in the world will achieve nothing unless we are able to understand how to move away from our illusory and unsatisfactory earthly existence. We must learn to doubt the reality of all our earthly beliefs in order to become open to spiritual beliefs, and the cultivation of doubt is probably the best definition of philosophy I know. Philosophy teaches us how to challenge and thus move away from all the illusions and the superstitions that keep us bound down to earth.

 

I am not trying to present philosophy as some kind of ‘true way’. People vary widely in temperament and the vast majority will have neither taste nor inclination for intellectual activity. But philosophy is suitable for more people than we realise, and gets overlooked due to the widespread belief that intellectual activity is somehow inimical to the religious life, which should be a matter for the heart.

 

Any person who is both philosophically and spiritually minded soon learns a rather depressing truth. Wisdom, when it comes, does not come in the form of ‘correct answers’. The philosopher is never in a position where he can provide correct infallible solutions in the manner of say, the arithmetician. Truth is instead a matter of realizing that the question, in the first place, was asked in error. We solve nothing at the level of the questioning, but we are at least at the advantage of no longer fretting over illusory anxieties. The philosopher learns that all of human suffering is due to anxiety over nothing. We are like children terrified of monsters that do not exist.

 

Truth, then, does not exist in the form of facts and errors…but perhaps our first illustration might give some indication as to how this might happen.

 

The Coffee Mug

 

Imagine there are two men sat opposite to each other at a table, and between them is a coffee cup. As you approach you realise they are arguing. One is politely and firmly insisting that coffee cup is for right-handed people like him. The other man is respectively disagreeing; he insists that the cup is for left-handers, and to illustrate his point concretely his is now lifting the cup with his left-hand, and now attempting the same thing with his right-hand. The difficulty he encounters is the most practical and sensible evidence he can muster to support his left handed position.

 

In this simple example we can discern all the principles of earthly ignorance, as well as all the principles of spiritual wisdom. I’ll list these in turn.

 

1) The nature of the word

 

An ignorant person, that is, a person who is low in spiritual wisdom is unable to separate reality from their conceptions of reality. ‘Right-handed mug’ is a concept and they believe that this concept is intrinsic to the object. They do not understand that the arising of the concept ‘right-handed’ is dependent on their perception of it. The mug is right-handed, and this is an objective fact independent of them. To say that the right handed mug is also left-handed is as impossible to the ignorant person as saying that a cat is also an airplane propeller.

 

No-one believes in the truth more than the ignorant person.

 

The wise person, on the other hand, is able to see that the mug can be both left-handed and right-handed and is therefore intrinsically neither. They are strangely agnostic on the truth of the matter. And yet this person is still able to use the concepts right and left intelligently and appropriately. Were a blind man to ask which had to use to lift the cup he would answer with reference to one concept, and one concept only.

 

2) The role of truth in the emotions

 

The argument at the table is getting more and more heated. Anger is what happens when a person’s understanding of the truth is threatened. To have a truth is to have a passion for it. Both men have their truth and must protect it, both for their sake…and for the benefit of their misguided opponent.

 

The wise person, on the other hand, could not side with one of the men even if he tried. Once he has seen into the truth of the concepts right and left handed he will never be able to go back to be like the men. He now walks the earth immune to a certain type of ignorance and a certain type of anger. He is therefore a less angry person. As he grows a wisdom he will come to realise that all human anger and strife is rooted somewhere in a false one-sided appraisal of reality identical to that made by both of the men sat at the table. Spiritual peace is the product of wisdom. If the wise person is to feel anything towards the two men it will be compassion for their unfortunate situation.

 

3) To see truth is transcendence of earth

 

The ignorant man at the table is chained to his situation in time and space. He knows only what he sees before him. The right-handedness of the mug is as clear as day to him, and he lifts it with his right hand to prove it. He lacks an important intellectual skill, which is also a special spiritual gift. He is unable to float from his chair and seat himself where his neighbour sits, and see his neighbour’s reality through his mind’s eye. He is unable to see that his right is another man’s left.

 

 

So we can see already some very important principles. First, that a concept of reality is not the same as reality. Second, that this insight affords us emotional tranquility and third, that the gaining of this insight spiritualises our consciousness and makes us less earth bound than we had been.

 

It is certainly true that the above example is a form of ignorance that would exist only in children, but in principle it is identical to all human illusion. Spiritual wisdom, and the transcendence that comes from that is something that all people have achieved to a greater lesser extent. This is why much talk of earth and heaven, ego and higher self, as being distinct phases are unhelpful. But all people have their limits as to how much transcendence we have achieved. At some level, and on some questions we are still just dumb men arguing over coffee cups.

 

We are all deeply chained to our earthly existence because of our attachment to a whole range of intellectual delusions. We believe that some things are good rather than bad, we believe that we are free to choose some things and not others, we believe that some things are true and others false, we believe that some things have happened in the past and that others are yet to happen in the future, we believe that some things are here and others elsewhere…

 

But most of all we believe that we exist and we do not see that we also do not exist. And it is this one that is the biggie. We do not see that declaring our individual existence is as foolish as declaring that a coffee cup is for right-handers and not for left handers. Understand the truth about existence and you have understood the highest truth that the mind is capable of.

 

I plan to discuss some of these big questions and hopefully help, if not to show the truth, but to show that what we once thought is not the truth. I guess I’ll start with some of the the easy stuff, but if you guys have anything that you want to talk about we can do that too. There is no right and wrong order.

 

Philosophy clears the mind, first by occupying it. After the effort, a flash of insight leaves you in a state of mind that is cleaner and fresher, less bogged down. Once you have seen the truth on any given issue you are able to march on unhindered. The true philosopher’s mind is left remarkably vacant – they are no longer able to ruminate over things that less philosophical people love to mull over. This is a kind of paradox: but the true philosopher is no absent-minded professor. The true philosopher has left thought behind. But their path continues beyond thought - this is the true meaning of meditation. Unless you understand that something so rich and sublime as the meditative life lies at the end of philosophy you are going to feel alarmed at losing all your once cherished beliefs – perhaps you’ll worry about what shall be left. But by the same token this awareness will help those who worry that all this intellectual activity takes them further away from their formal meditation.

 

If you can be honest and say that despite all your sitting, all you Qi Gong you still hold a lot of intellectual beliefs then it might be that a bit of good old philosophizing might be just the thing.

 

I look forward to hearing from you guys!

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2013 by Nikolai1

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_1sPDntOTs

 

Here do this for 20 minutes.

 

Then we can talk philosophy.

[Marblehead]

Nice article. I don't agree with all that you said but won't speak to it yet as I wish to allow others to read the article and have the opportunity to respond.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I think the intellect really does have a part to play. Intellectual wisdom is extremely effective for cutting through the coarse layers of craving, delusion and ill-will.

 

However, I think true realisation is a shift in perception that thought alone can't deliver. Conceptions have a place, but plain perception is vital because no amount of thinking can capture the nature of qualia.

 

And going further, prajna wisdom is beyond even perception, letting go of all boundaries, markers, and points of reference so that the true nature of reality, beyond any way of describing and mapping reality and its aspects, can incinerate the last traces of our delusion, craving and ill-will and push us through the Gateless Gate.

 

I love philosophy, it's been so helpful for me to get an accurate understanding that supports my practice, but I don't see it as complete. Meditation is necessary to perceive the nature of a thing or of reality itself directly, rather than (even accurate) concepts of it.

[Stosh]

"unsatisfactory earthly existence"

Im satisfied with mine, Isnt that acceptance, Rather than grasping?

We do not see that declaring our individual existence is as foolish as declaring that a coffee cup is for right-handers and not for left handers.

No its not , yin and yang are polemic aspects of a whole, yet they do not equate otherwise all would be uniformity, since I disagree with you, all is not uniformity. ( besides, you can buy coffee cups that conform to one hand better than the other. Check out a circular saw while you are at it.)

[Stosh]

The true philosopher has left thought behind.

1. a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.

2. a person who is deeply versed in philosophy.

3. a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc.

4. a person who regulates his or her life by the light of philosophy or reason.

5. a person who is sensibly calm or rational, esp. under trying circumstances.

The essence of a philosopher is the quest to understand the human condition, If one 'considers it all to be moot', doesnt consider it at all , or thinks they have it all figured out, then the label doesnt apply becasue they are not open to consider the issue. Definition 5 is not exclusive to those who are considered philosophers, so its a poor word choice.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...

1) Are you really absolutely satisfied, meaning you want nothing? What is your motivation for cultivating if you are completely satisfied, why are you on this site?

 

2) You misunderstand, he's not saying that all is uniformity. He's saying that we aren't inherently existent on our own, we only exist as effects of other things and causes of other things and also there is no part of us that is complete by itself. The packet of processes that each of us is, is individual and unique.

[三江源]

.

Edited July 21, 2014 by cat

[Stosh]

1) Are you really absolutely satisfied, meaning you want nothing? What is your motivation for cultivating if you are completely satisfied, why are you on this site?

 

2) You misunderstand, he's not saying that all is uniformity. He's saying that we aren't inherently existent on our own, we only exist as effects of other things and causes of other things and also there is no part of us that is complete by itself. The packet of processes that each of us is, is individual and unique.

Moment to moment there are things I figure Id prefer , and yes , I go for those.

But whether they come to me or not isnt all that important, which includes any cultivation.

 

Do you imply that your life is an endless chase of stuff you cant be satisfied with?

If it is then you havent learned anything from the stuff you have read ,

in fact it would have become a new obstacle,

a new attatchment .

 

If he wants to say we are all individual and unique, he can say it.

I read it, that he means to find a way to transcend this 'base evil' world,

by recognizing some kind of weird unity.

I as an individual have existance, I am also an American by birth,

but the american thing is a confabulation, it is a false unity, though I fit the definition.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

No, I mean that I am not satisfied because of ignorance and clinging which I aim to be free of, I want to let loose my Buddha-nature (although there is no attainment or hindrance or liberation, on the absolute level).

 

Don't you feel like there's *something* missing right in front of your nose? My main desire is to realise that - Tao. Don't get me wrong, I'm not burning with craving for it, it's just a niggle which drives me.

 

If you don't see it that way there's no point arguing, I can't make you want to know and be what I want to and I doubt anyone could change my mind about this.

 

I don't have that much desire for stuff - like you, I'm fairly content.

 

Nobody's saying the world is base and evil - our false conceptions cause us suffering, the world itself is great and so are we. There's nothing pessimistic about that.

 

"But most of all we believe that we exist and we do not see that we also do not exist." I don't know where you're getting this unity thing from. Please read http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta. No-self doesn't deny individual existence, it simply says that individuals are sets of processes and no one of these processes 'does' or 'owns' the others.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Seeker of Tao

[Nikolai1]

Pythagoreanfullotus

 

 

Here do this for 20 minutes.

 

Then we can talk philosophy.

I think you raise an interesting question and now is as good a time as any to address it. It is certainly true that practices like Qi Gong yield the exact same benefits as philosophy does, despite what seems like huge differences between them.

 

Philosophical Taoism is all about removing the mental clutter from our minds. To remove mental clutter is to remove our involvement with time, space and earthly existence. Why? Because time and space exist nowhere except in our thoughts, as mental concepts. The less cluttered our minds are, the more available we are to live in the ‘present’, which is actually an atemporal realm where our spiritual selves live.

 

Qi Gong techniques access this eternal present through bodily feelings. We cannot feel anywhere except in the present moment. To feel is to transcend time and space and the earth. It is often said the Qi Gong cultivates and strengthens vital energies. We must remind ourselves that are awareness of these energetic processes occurs through feeling and feeling alone. If we cannot feel the energy then all this talk of dantians, meridians and chakras, is, spiritually speaking, empty theology.

 

The Qi Gong master is a master of feeling, a master of feeling directly and deeply the power of the eternal.

 

This strength of his connection to the eternal means that he is little side-tracked by all the time/space based intellectual clutter that beleaguer the average person. He does not hear, he is not detained by the senseless superstitions of those around him. His Qi Gong practice is constant. He is fixated by the superiority of the spiritual present In this he is exactly the same as the philosopher - he has attained the same fruits - even if this Qi Gong master has never learnt to read or write, let alone understand the German metaphysicians.

 

And this brings us to an interesting point. Even though the Qi gong master enjoys all the benefits of philosophical enquiry, he does so unconsciously. He is not able to teach nor talk about the philosophical path because it was not his way. All paths to realisation are the same, and to tread one path is to tread them all. But by consciously following one path, we consign the other paths to unconscious darkness. We walk them but we do not know this until quite late, and all the Qi Gong int he world will not make you familar with the works of Kant.

 

Best wishes

[Nikolai1]

Seeker of Tao

 

 

However, I think true realisation is a shift in perception that thought alone can't deliver. Conceptions have a place, but plain perception is vital because no amount of thinking can capture the nature of qualia.

 

And going further, prajna wisdom is beyond even perception,

 

Yes, I agree. I said at the beginning that philosophical enquiry will only take you so far…it must be complemented and facilitated by non-intellectual practices if it is to bear fruit. In my case philosophy was complemented by sitting meditation.

 

One thing I am keen to point out in this thread is that we are all in possession of prajna wisdom, and it permeates all our lives. To see that right and left are the same, and yet, in any different situation different is an insight that goes beyond mere perception – perceptually the coffee cup will always appear either right or left handed.

 

 

Meditation is necessary to perceive the nature of a thing or of reality itself directly, rather than (even accurate) concepts of it.

 

 

Yes, exactly. Until we meditate we find it very hard to distinguish raw naked perception from conceptually guided perception.

 

Best wishes

[Stosh]

No, I mean that I am not satisfied because of ignorance and clinging which I aim to be free of, I want to let loose my Buddha-nature (although there is no attainment or hindrance or liberation, on the absolute level).

 

Don't you feel like there's *something* missing right in front of your nose? My main desire is to realise that - Tao. Don't get me wrong, I'm not burning with craving for it, it's just a niggle which drives me.

 

If you don't see it that way there's no point arguing, I can't make you want to know and be what I want to and I doubt anyone could change my mind about this.

 

I don't have that much desire for stuff - like you, I'm fairly content.

 

Nobody's saying the world is base and evil - our false conceptions cause us suffering, the world itself is great and so are we. There's nothing pessimistic about that.

 

"But most of all we believe that we exist and we do not see that we also do not exist." I don't know where you're getting this unity thing from. Please read http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta. No-self doesn't deny individual existence, it simply says that individuals are sets of processes and no one of these processes 'does' or 'owns' the others.

Well then we might actually be rather close philosophically , Im working now but Ill read the thing later.

[三江源]

.

Edited July 21, 2014 by cat

[Rara]

Good post, and yes, I understand what you're saying.

 

Isn't this just what people refer to as "Enlightenment"?

 

Otherwise, the only objection I have is calling it "unsatisfactory earthly existence". If one is wise, what can be unsatisfactory about inevitable being here until their time is up? They may detatch themselves from materialism, but not from earth itself.

[Nikolai1]

Hi Stosh

 

 

If he wants to say we are all individual and unique, he can say it.

I read it, that he means to find a way to transcend this 'base evil' world,

by recognizing some kind of weird unity.

I as an individual have existance,

 

The philosopher doesn't transcend the world. He transcends the concept 'world'. The philosopher discovers that 'the world' is a kind of one-sided opinion...and that it is equally true to say that there is no world. Just as the coffee cup is not intrinsically right-handed, things and events in the world are not intrinsically real. The world both does and does not exist in the same way as things can be both left and right handed.

 

The philosopher has the flexibility to take the world as real or as a dream. Both are valid appraisals and he will find himself switching between them as appropriate. He sails through life skilfully because he has options. The ignorant person has no options when the world lets him down. Misfortune is misfortune, no two ways about it.

 

But the philosopher can enjoy good fortune as being real and tangible, and then disregard misfortune as a mere meaningless trifle. He is able to make every situation a winning situation.

 

You say that "I as an individual have an existence". Well, guess what... I say there's another side to this coin: you as an individual do not exist. East and West, the best philosophical argument to illustrate this point I have encountered is Buddha's teaching on impermanence. It's a breathtakingly radical argument that goes widely misunderstood, perhaps because most don't realise just how deep it goes. If you want to talk more about this we can do so.

 

Best wishes

[Jadespear]

If truth is your aim, you must have an intellect to discover it. Of course the ability to think is of use to all of us. It's just the limiting defeatist thoughts, views, faiths, and beliefs that stifle true discovery from happening. It's more like a blocked intellect vs. an open mind.

 

However, philosophy mostly boils down to the strength of arguments.

 

What truth are you seeking anyway? Truth has come to mean many mystical things to people with intellectual inclinations, however "truth" as being something in of itself always eludes them...

 

I don't think anyone will ever know "the truth" because it is not within the field of knowledge, it is what makes the field of knowledge happen... I believe truth is this endless moment evolving endlessly eternally. It's like how could we say we know this moment? You can't hold onto it like a piece of knowledge, like a fact.... Because we are part of it. So truly, there is nothing to find- but there is ample and endless room to create.

 

"Truth is not contingent upon belief"

"Truth is a path less land"

 

It seems like you may be searching for The Absolute Truth, that cannot be reduced to relativism, the truth that permeates everything in existence... Some people call it God or the Tao.

 

"The great tao is hidden deeply within all things." - TTC

 

Beyond knowing how we, and everything in the universe behaves and operates... What greater truth could there be? .... Where the universe came from ? Where it is going? Is reincarnation real? .... Blah blah blah .... How would it be possible to find those answers without stepping out of time?

 

I'm really passionate about philosophy in general as well and these are resolutions I've come to so far. The biggest truth though is that it feels good to be loved and to love others in return. No your emotions are not something to chuck away like stupid philosophers say.... Life is a learning experience where everything is of value and can benefit those who learn and use their knowledge.

[thelerner]

The philosopher doesn't transcend the world. He transcends the concept 'world'. The philosopher discovers that 'the world' is a kind of one-sided opinion...and that it is equally true to say that there is no world.

 

The philosopher has the flexibility to take the world as real or as a dream. Both are valid appraisals and he will find himself switching between them as appropriate. He sails through life skilfully because he has options. The ignorant person has no options when the world lets him down. Misfortune is misfortune, no two ways about it.

 

But the philosopher can enjoy good fortune as being real and tangible, and then disregard misfortune as a mere meaningless trifle. He is able to make every situation a winning situation.

Lotta food for thought here. <So much so I put in in my Best of Tao Bums log>

 

On one hand its 'feels' right for me to state 'The world is real' is more valid then 'The world is a dream'. Still the world is a dream is very useful concept. As events move further from my sphere of influence so that I have no Real factual first hand knowledge of what has happened, it is to some extent as fictional as a made up story. A very transcendentalist viewpoint.

 

That's probably not the point you're getting at. Just a flavor I'm chewing on right now.

Edited August 5, 2013 by thelerner

[NotVoid]

Hi Nikolai1. I think you have made some good observations.

 

I would not want to try to make a comparison of 'paths', as it seems to me one would have to be highly accomplished at two given 'paths' and fully understand all the intracacies and possible variations, and fully understand all the potential 'benefits' or 'shortcomings', etc., in order to be able to even potentially make some valid comparisons between the two.

 

I am more inclined to look at it all as a wide (infinite?) array of possible approaches, any of which may have pluses and minuses in regards to assisting us to get from 'here' to 'there', so to speak. It would certainly seem that all people seem to be different in various ways, and what is suitable for one person at any given point in time may not be so suitable for another, although these inclinations or suitability may or may not change over time as well.

 

I would say that beliefs in general lie at the root of what you have been discussing, and while some beliefs are quite pliable and not held on to so rigidly, other beliefs can be much more strongly or deeply held and much less open to consideration and change. These more deeply held beliefs, (which incidentally, I don't think apply to just views about reality itself, as people can hold very strong beliefs about say politcs, or even something as mundane and seemingly inconsequential as sports), are protected in various ways, and when these deeper held or 'core' beliefs are challenged in any way it can elicit a wide variation in responses and reactions, including responses like attempts to just simply ignore the 'offending' information by changing the subject or by just otherwise completely ignoring the information, ridiculing another person or the ideas/information and/or viewing them or their ideas with disdain or even hatred, employing logical fallacies or flimsy or even absurd rationalizations to try to justify disqualifying or ignoring the offending information, etc., etc.

 

Emotional reactions often do accompany such responses to 'offending' views or behaviour or information, etc. as well. Most often these types of responses are elicited at an unconscious (or maybe 'subconscious' depending on one's preference of terms) level. The person reacting this way may not be aware to much extent that they are reacting this way, and may not see their reaction as unreasonable in any way at all, as such reactions typically include various forms of rationalization to make the person feel justifed in reacting that way. These sort of rationalizations and other responses can quickly approach the absurd or the extreme if a person continues to be pressed to give real consideration to the 'offending' information or experience, or whatever it is that is causing a conflict with some deeply held or core beliefs which they hold.

 

It seems at least possible if not likely that there are various ways a person can start to become more aware of these processes that help us to hold and protect our beliefs. Whether it be through philosophical or other forms of analysis, self observation, meditation or other 'cultivation' techniques, or just by being brought face to face with a realization that one or more of our deeply held beliefs just can't likely be true, as a result of circumstances and events that we encounter in the course of living our life.

 

Now it also seems at least possible if not probable to me that many people at least need a fairly stable set of 'core' beliefs in order to hold a fairly steady and stable 'world view'. If one considers it, I think it is our core and other beliefs which very much molds our world view and our views and perceptions of everything within this world. To say it another way, beliefs are like filters which filter down the enormous amount of information that is constantly bombarding our senses in a way that we can more readily and more easily relate to and interact with in a meaningful and practical way. Without this filter system in place, or if this filter system becomes imbalanced in one way or another, I am inclined to think that many people would either become very emotionally and/or mentally unstable or otherwise have difficulties in coping in various ways. I think it is for this reason that we have these various 'unconscious' belief protection responses built in that take over when our core or deeper held beliefs become challenged or threatened. This built in belief protection 'security system' really serves a very important function then.

 

As I mentioned, there may be both pluses and minuses and also limitations to any given 'cultivation' approach, and we may be able to observe any given approach to some extent without having to practice that approach in depth to make at least some observations about a given approach, although I think we should be careful about trying to make definite generalizations or assumptions when only viewing from an 'outside' position. I am inclined to think that various approaches may well have potential pluses and minuses and limitations, but this may also well depend on various factors and variables. As an example relating to your comments and to my comments about the importance of holding certain core beliefs in order to maintain a more stable 'world view', I can say that I have known or heard of those who involve themself in philosophy quite heavily, in which some at least can become somewhat depressive and/or start to act oddly in some ways. In some cases it may be minor or not such an impediment, but in other cases it can be more severe from my own limited observations anyway. There can be many considerations and variables here however. It might not be too much of a stretch however to say that it seems at least possible that not everyone is suited to a given approach, and what is suitable for a person might well change over time.

 

Again, I think you have brought up some interesting observations, and I think it is likely that people of all different approaches and views may well come to some or all of the same sort of observations at one point or another, despite their different approaches. One might even want to consider that life itself with all its many challenges and variations is a wide open form of cultivation or path in itself. Maybe life itself is a form of meditation. What do we really know for certain?

 

All the best...

Edited August 5, 2013 by NotVoid

[voidisyinyang]

Pythagoreanfullotus

 

 

I think you raise an interesting question and now is as good a time as any to address it. It is certainly true that practices like Qi Gong yield the exact same benefits as philosophy does, despite what seems like huge differences between them.

 

Philosophical Taoism is all about removing the mental clutter from our minds. To remove mental clutter is to remove our involvement with time, space and earthly existence. Why? Because time and space exist nowhere except in our thoughts, as mental concepts. The less cluttered our minds are, the more available we are to live in the ‘present’, which is actually an atemporal realm where our spiritual selves live.

 

Qi Gong techniques access this eternal present through bodily feelings. We cannot feel anywhere except in the present moment. To feel is to transcend time and space and the earth. It is often said the Qi Gong cultivates and strengthens vital energies. We must remind ourselves that are awareness of these energetic processes occurs through feeling and feeling alone. If we cannot feel the energy then all this talk of dantians, meridians and chakras, is, spiritually speaking, empty theology.

 

The Qi Gong master is a master of feeling, a master of feeling directly and deeply the power of the eternal.

 

This strength of his connection to the eternal means that he is little side-tracked by all the time/space based intellectual clutter that beleaguer the average person. He does not hear, he is not detained by the senseless superstitions of those around him. His Qi Gong practice is constant. He is fixated by the superiority of the spiritual present In this he is exactly the same as the philosopher - he has attained the same fruits - even if this Qi Gong master has never learnt to read or write, let alone understand the German metaphysicians.

 

And this brings us to an interesting point. Even though the Qi gong master enjoys all the benefits of philosophical enquiry, he does so unconsciously. He is not able to teach nor talk about the philosophical path because it was not his way. All paths to realisation are the same, and to tread one path is to tread them all. But by consciously following one path, we consign the other paths to unconscious darkness. We walk them but we do not know this until quite late, and all the Qi Gong int he world will not make you familar with the works of Kant.

 

Best wishes

 

 

naw -- for example Chunyi Lin said that he read the book "The Holographic Universe" and that it accurately describes reality for a qigong master.

 

But see that is a theoretical book -- science is not even close to what a qigong master can do.

 

Experiencing the truth of reality is way different than what science can do - for example quantum biology actually comes close to describing this stuff but it can be reproduced through technology.

 

http://www.viewzone.com/spiritualhealing.html

 

Here's a good philosophy of qigong science article I had published.

 

Dude German metaphysicians? You're joking right? haha.

 

I was reading that stuff back before I got into qigong for practice - it's silly compared to real philosophy which is mind-body transformation through complementary opposites.

 

O.K. I have a masters thesis on this - where I go into Hegelian dialectic and qigong.

 

http://reocities.com/Area51/starship/9201/epicenters/preface.html

 

there you go - it's published online a couple places.

 

Here's my book with over 725 scholarly references.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gearslutz.com%2Fboard%2Fattachments%2Fmoan-zone%2F279031d1330198691-retune-your-music-444-old-tuning-standard-alchemy-rainbow-heart-music.pdf&ei=0W18UJblM6Ta0QGmqYGACQ&usg=AFQjCNGbDSpdAc3mm2O1QiDusQagbwRlhQ&sig2=EqYOywpblUW0YI-tpBFslQ

 

Plenty of German metaphysics in there.

 

ummm my blog has the latest updates on my research http://fulllotusqigong.blogspot.com

Edited August 5, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[Nikolai1]

Hi Cat

 

 

Empathy is a special spiritual gift. I never saw it that way, thankyou. Is it more than empathy, is it imagination and flexibility also.. and a lack of attchement to having one and only one point of view..

 

Spiritual gifts are completely known and familiar to us all. We have all developed them to a greater or lesser extent, but because they are so often the norm we fail to identify them as 'spiritual'. We all frequently demonstrate truly Christ like qualities. The average mother loves her child as purely as Jesus loved his disciples. We think the mother unremarkable, and yet in her behaviour is pure saintliness, nothing different...this is how saintliness looks. and yet we fail to recognise it just becuase it is a bit more selective.

 

Spiritual gifts in the egoic life are a series of peaks and troughs. We are all monstrously developed in some areas and not in others. Some people are truly monstrously developed in some areas: musicians, artists, sports people, supermodels.

 

As we grow spiritually the spiritual gifts that seemed so distinct start to to become increasingly interdependent. We find that we cannot love and show empathy unless we also, in our wisdom, see that we are not paltry individuals who need to ration out their love lest wego without ourselves. We then start to say things like 'God is love' or like Keats, 'Beauty is truth, and truth beauty" We start to identify spiritual gifts with each other and then the labels start to break down...all gifts become the same, just as you say.

 

 

And this lack of conscous awareness .. would you say that it constitutes a blockage?

 

Such a great question, I love the way your mind works! If you are still thinking about your Qi Gong practice in terms of physical things like energy blockages then that means that you are blocked philosophically as well. To think of a block is to have a block. When your block is also not a block then you will find yourself unblocked (of something that was never a blockage of course)

[rene]

... To think of a block is to have a block. When your block is also not a block then you will find yourself unblocked (of something that was never a blockage of course)

 

Similar to seeking Tao, imo. The search first requires the idea it's separate to begin with. The more intensely one tries to 'find', tries to 'connect', the more intensely the idea is reinforced; that something that was never lost, is.

[NotVoid]

Realistically, I don't know that there are any actual practicing taoists that would really much or ever use a term like 'seeking tao' to describe what they do. Much of actual taoism involves providing religious/spiritual services for everyday ordinary people along with practices/services for helping in this world as well, such as creating talimans and using geomancy and health maintenance and improvement and that sort of thing. Taoists who practice various types of cultivation practices, which includes many taoist priests/lay followers in religious taoists sects as well, practice for reasons that might more accurately be described as spiritual gymnastics training or spiritual cultivation, with one possible goal being able to move to higher spiritual realms or to better spiritual conditions, and also maybe to gain some special spiritual abilities and attributes that go along with this. Terms like 'converting the void into tao' or similar from some practices seem to really just be terms of convenience to describe something that is supposed to be indescribable and beyond the conceptualization of the ordinary mind. I think most practicing taoists would not argue against the idea that all things are of 'tao', since that is really one of the key concepts of the tao te ching. Trying to understand better what 'tao' actually is might also be part of some of the taoist cultivation practices, but much of actual practicing taoism is probably more concerned with spirituality and spiritual cultivation and becoming more attuned with natural ways and processes to assist living better in this world as well, based on my understanding and experience anyway.

Edited August 6, 2013 by NotVoid

[rene]

NotVoid, hi, thanks for your reply. In your opinion, is it possible for someone to 'go against Tao' ? Not trying to go off-topic, just curious about your own starting point. You can disregard the question if you wish; no harm no foul. (-:

[NotVoid]

Hi Rene. I wouldn't be surprised at all if different practicing taoists would reply to a question like that in different ways, based on each person's own understanding of what is really being asked, and based on their own personal understanding and their particular views of taoism. Whether any taoists would actually term or view things that way, i.e. 'going against tao' I really don't know. From my perspective, since the tao te ching seems to indicate that 'tao' cannot be understood by the ordinary or analytical mind (just my own interpretation here), then it would not make sense to say that one is going with or against 'tao', since we can't know if we are going with or against something which we are not even able to conceptualize or understand, at least not through ordinary means. We can however observe and make better efforts to understand and align ourselves with the natural laws and ways and tendancies of things in this world and possibly also in spiritual realms as well, if one allows such things might exist.

 

To return things back more to the topic at hand, since in the tao te ching (and also apparently in buddhist teachings as well) there is the idea that true understanding can not ever come through ordinary rational thinking and analytical processes of the mind, which philosophy relies upon, then from my limited understanding of taoism and buddhism it would seem that these traditions do not view philosophy as being capable of leading one to true understandings of self and existence and the like. Not saying I either agree or disagree, since I really don't know one way or the other and this is just my personal interpretations, but just mentioning it. There may well be other points of view that I am not aware of in regards to this.

Edited August 6, 2013 by NotVoid