What is potential in terms of Taoist practices?

[Songtsan]

Deci, no need to mention a "bob" as a side-note to what I hear as your the half-baked and misleading plagiaristic co-opting of various schools teachings...

 

Deci needs no one to defend her, but I have to say as a wanna-be writer/teacher myself that there is nothing wrong with co-opting - either literary approaches or instructional methodology - there are too many things written now for anyone to have a style that is completely their own. I personally love Deci's writing/teaching style, and in fact it has given me much understanding of several important facets of Taoist (and other) material. I actually will be co-opting certain flavors of 'her' style myself at some point...I have always believed that 'self' was illusion - just aggregate formations. How can any aggregate formation accuse another aggregate formation of co-opting the forms of other aggregates when we are all equally aggregates that have been formed in/by exposure to other aggregates? That is puzzle pieces arguing with puzzle pieces for being puzzle pieces created by other puzzle pieces. It's fascinating! Hehe - I couldn't help myself. No one owns anything - no one is anything. Every one is no one! Any one is every one! We all contain every thing. If you are upset at Deci, then you are upset at your self - for you are that. Everything I just wrote is untrue yet true - judgments and labels are absolutely untrue relative and subjective truths. The truth can easily be found in Deci's writing - or yours. It is almost like optimism/pessimism - the statement is true or false relative to your own stance - seeing falsity shows a stance which sees falsehood and vice versa. Mental realities, formulations, concepts - not real. Oops - contradicted myself - how can a mental reality be 'not real?' Thought is your maker. Consciousness is a series of awake, aware energies of perception/watcher. We are made of the unreal - until we are no longer made at all. A series is not a whole. When you judge the whole based on its parts, you judge a lie that you have created in your head out of misplaced perceptions. Argue with parts, not the whole - best type of argument. I am a hypocrite!

 

So...is what I just wrote true or untrue? Tell me what you found to be untrue! I want to know! This is fun

 

"None of us is OK and all of us are fine. It's not just one way. We are all walking, talking, paradoxes. All passion, aggression, heartbreak, etc. is simply passing memory. It is all just thought. This is how we begin to wake up our innate ability to let go, to reconnect with shunyata, or absolute bodhichitta. Also, this is how we awaken our compassion, our heart, our innate softness, relative bodhichitta. Use labeling with great gentleness as a way to touch those dramas and acknowledge that you just made them up with this conversation you're having with yourself."

 

"Rest in the nature of alaya, the essence, the minds natural state, which is the open primordial basis of all phenomena. We can rest in fundamental openness and enjoy the display of whatever arises without making a big deal."

 

"...be a child of illusion. What you see is not here and it's not not here. It's both and neither. Everything you hear is the echo of emptiness, yet there is sound - it's real - the echo of emptiness. Good, bad, happy, sad, all thoughts vanish into emptiness like the imprint of a bird in the sky."

 

"Good and bad coexist; sour and sweet coexist. They aren't really opposed to eachother. We could start to open our eyes and our hearts to that deep way of perceiving, like moving into a whole new dimension of experience: becoming a child of illusion. We begin to let opposites coexist, not trying to get rid of anything but just training and opening our eyes, ears, nostrils, taste buds, hearts and minds wider and wider, nurturing the habit of opening to whatever is occurring, including our shutting down. The world doesn't speak for itself because we're so caught up in our story line that instead of feeling that there's a lot of space in which we could lead our life as a child of illusion, we're robbing ourselves, robbing ourselves from letting the world speak for itself. You just keep speaking to yourself, so nothing speaks to you."

 

"Self-liberate even the antidote. Let go of all understandings, all security, even shunyata itself. Let go of emptiness, openness, or space."

 

I have thousands of pages of stuff like this - excerpted from the many books I read while I was in prison. I didn't bother to write down the authors because I believe in the view of ultimate selflessness. I have enough stuff to 'remind' me of what it is I need to do. I don't need to even come here. I come here to speak to real, living beings. People such as Deci Belle fulfill my desire to have a spiritual connection with others. She is a different flavor and will appeal to certain types of individuals based on their predilections. Do I think that she is enlightened? No. But I don't believe in enlightenment. I believe in endless refinement. Enlightenment suggests reaching some plateau - but even in the Buddha's works I found pride and arrogance - such things don't bother me! If the teaching is sound, then I don't care if it comes from Satan itself. Just my advice to you is this: if you disagree with something that DC says, respond directly to the concept and explain why it is flawed - this will be useful to everyone. Responding in the negative as a whole to anyone is closing the compassionate center in you and slowing you down in your own evolution. We are all guilty of doing this, all the time, of course. I am, in the end, merely speaking to myself.

 

You are me, we are we, and there is no one here at all.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Songtsan

[3bob]

Spirit Self is true, in that all rest deeply and travel faster than light while standing still.

The Sage smiles kindly.

 

Om

[Songtsan]

Stillness doesn't exist. Nothing still, nothing solid, nothing fixed - so no thing can be labeled as a 'thing' for to label any thing suggests it has fixed boundaries and does not change.

 

I challenge any one to prove that stillness exists absolutely! (not conventionally)...in a new thread though.

[9th]

I read a few books by him...but mainly what I need to know are details which I will not have the questions for until I start practicing in earnest...so yeah, no need for me to post here anymore until I have some questions.

 

The instructions in that video are incredibly basic fundamental concepts of meditation found in almost all traditions, and are the same given by almost all teachers. You speak of having such interest and passion for practice, but frankly it is all talk, all bluster. What you have the most interest in is generating a certain appearance - the appearance of being "spiritual", the appearance of having "understanding", the appearance of being "sincere" and so on. If you want to practice, you just do it - there is no discussion involved. The basics are so simple to grasp - really the only difficulty at all is in sustaining and deepening the practice endlessly. Your reticence here is not genuine caution, but rather symptomatic rubbish of a more pernicious self-generated manifestation.

 

 

 

When a man decides to do something he must go all the way, but he must take responsibility for what he does. No matter what he does, he must know first why he is doing it, and then he must proceed with his actions without having doubts or remorse about them.

 

Look at me, I have no doubts or remorse. Everything I do is my decision and my responsibility. The simplest thing I do, to take you for a walk in the desert for instance, may very well mean my death. Death is stalking me. Therefore, I have no room for doubts or remorse. If I have to die as a result of taking you for a walk, then I must die.

 

You on the other hand, feel that you are immortal, and the decisions of an immortal man can be cancelled or regretted or doubted. In a world where death is the hunter, my friend, there is not time for regrets or doubts. There is only time for decisions.

 

When you get angry you always feel righteous. You have been complaining all your life because you don't assume responsibility for your decisions. To assume the responsibility of one's decisions means that one is ready to die for them. It doesn't matter what the decision is. Nothing could be more or less serious than anything else. In a world where death is the hunter there are no small or big decisions. There are only decisions that we make in the face of our inevitable death.

 

Think of your death now. It is at arm's length. It may tap you any moment, so really you have no time for crappy thoughts and moods. None of us have time for that. The only thing that counts is action, acting instead of talking.

[3bob]

Quoted from the Buddha:

 

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned"

 

and if that That changed then the Buddhist description of enlightenment/liberation would not be.

Edited January 21, 2014 by 3bob

[Songtsan]

The instructions in that video are incredibly basic fundamental concepts of meditation found in almost all traditions, and are the same given by almost all teachers. You speak of having such interest and passion for practice, but frankly it is all talk, all bluster. What you have the most interest in is generating a certain appearance - the appearance of being "spiritual", the appearance of having "understanding", the appearance of being "sincere" and so on. If you want to practice, you just do it - there is no discussion involved. The basics are so simple to grasp - really the only difficulty at all is in sustaining and deepening the practice endlessly. Your reticence here is not genuine caution, but rather symptomatic rubbish of a more pernicious self-generated manifestation.

 

I never said I wasn't interested in him. Just that I already know enough to practice and that I should start again. I have practiced before - Vipassana mainly (watching breath at the diaphragm area) and I have attained 1st jhana many times. I have also opened the MCO route governor/conception style. I understand what you were trying to do and I thank you, but you went a little overboard in its exaggeration and thus it lost its punch. I recommend a more subtle approach.

 

Let's discuss the Stages of Change Model:

 

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheoretical_model

 

I am somewhere in the preparation area, and I keep myself motivated by coming here and discussing things, making statements, asking questions, giving information I think is useful, etc. I have been in the Action phase before more than a few times and even touched on Maintenance. I have also already stated my love for discussing philosophy and metaphysics. What I do here helps me. You will come to see this in yourself if you look.

[Songtsan]

also see jnana yoga, such as this site: http://yoga108.org/pages/show/55

 

notice that study and contemplation are part and parcel of the system. I already explained how I partially come from this system...so if I come here to question, debate, etc. in my mind I am fulfilling a part of my practice. It is trying to understand how and what and why before even getting there. Some recommend just getting there, and then you understand. Patanjali mentions jnana yoga as one of the yogas to end the fluctuations of the mind. It's a respectable path. I am still interested in understanding several key concepts from Taoism - such as turning the light of awareness around, following the tao in reverse, etc. DC recommends just starting the basic practice of pursuing nonpsychological awareness or extinction of the wandering mind. I have already begun practicing the all-day long system of meditation which she suggests, starting a few months ago. I am not doing much formal meditation yet.

 

The type of questions I might ask are like this:

"When doing the all-day long style of meditation, should I allow the attention to roam freely, or try to keep it fixed in certain areas given the situation?"

 

"When watching the mind during moving meditation, should I keep focus approximately split 50/50 between external perceptions and internal perceptions, or only be aware of what aspects of mind break through as I try to observe external perceptions from moment to moment without judgement?"

 

"Is it better to have a mixed one-pointed object focus practice combined with objectless meditation, or focus on just one type?"

 

It isn't as if I need the answers to these questions, as I can certainly choose for myself - one big reason I ask is out of plain curiosity about what others are doing or think is best from their studies/experience. This is group mind educating single mind.

 

Mainly, bottom line is that coming here entertains me! Everyone has their poison. I don't go to any other sites than this, hardly ever watch TV, don't play video games, or go out much. This place feeds my desire for stimulation, or escape from reality.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Songtsan

[9th]

good luck

[ChiDragon]

Stillness doesn't exist. Nothing still, nothing solid, nothing fixed - so no thing can be labeled as a 'thing' for to label any thing suggests it has fixed boundaries and does not change.

 

I challenge any one to prove that stillness exists absolutely! (not conventionally)...in a new thread though.

 

Stillness is another one of those western misinterpretations. I believe it was translated from the character 靜. Actually, its linguistic meaning is complete quietness. Quietness is to a point that there was not even a sound but it does not imply it was motionless. Doing meditation, one is sitting still but not deadlock because one is alive.

 

Learning martial arts, one must learn to isolate the facts from fallacies or misunderstandings in order to learn thing correctly.

[Songtsan]

 

Stillness is another one of those western misinterpretations. I believe it was translated from the character 靜. Actually, its linguistic meaning is complete quietness. Quietness is to a point that there was not even a sound but it does not imply it was motionless. Doing meditation, one is sitting still but not deadlock because one is alive.

 

Learning martial arts, one must learn to isolate the facts from fallacies or misunderstandings in order to learn thing correctly.

 

Forget about that challenge - useless philosophical debate. I was a little manic when I posted that.

[Songtsan]

good luck

 

if I don't get what I say I want, it probably means that I didn't really want it in the first place.

[deci belle]

Nice Don Juan Matus quote there, 9th!

 

Nothing doesn't even exist, Song. It (the comment on the concept of stillness you don't know) is a meaningless point, at any rate. C'mon!

 

Shaddup and be still. YOU have to prove it to yourself~ I challenge you to see what has never moved.

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: add comment below first line

Edited January 22, 2014 by deci belle

[Songtsan]

Nice Don Juan Matus quote there, 9th!

 

Nothing doesn't even exist, Song. It (the comment on the concept of stillness you don't know) is a meaningless point, at any rate. C'mon!

 

Shaddup and be still. YOU have to prove it to yourself~ I challenge you to see what has never moved.

 

I like the Carlos Castaneda series of books myself, but did you know he made a lot of it up? (says one his wives after he died)- and that he stole a significant amount from a fellow anthropologist (so said my anthropology teacher years ago who was very fascinated with the whole deal and well connected in that area)...not that the value of something that makes sense isn't true even if its a story or if it comes from the mouth of a fabulist - like I said, I don't care if a teaching comes from a demon if its true and it works.

 

As far as the stillness comment, I retracted that one before you got here - so nuh uh! don't count...hehe

 

I will look for this thing that doesn't move! I accept that challenge. I am not attached to being right, but seeing is believing with me on this one. It shouldn't matter anyways, because by the time I were to see that, my mind should have dwindled away for most of the day and there would only be true seeing. I have had the thought that you might be saying that the universe moves around awareness, and that awareness is not a product of the universe - so that awareness doesn't move. I will see. All movement occurs relative to something else, so if there was a place where there was only one thing and one thing only, then it would have to be still.

 

"True emptiness exists when the mind is clear and all forms have disappeared. Externally, there are no objects. Internally, there is no mind. There is only emptiness. In this state, even emptiness does not exist. In true emptiness there is no space, no desire, no will; there are no appearances, no thoughts. All realms of existence are dissolved. In absolute stillness there is no self and no other. There is only Earlier Heaven in its undifferentiated whole."

~ Eva Wong, from Cultivating Stillness

 

The above sounds like a perception attainment to me - but I will see.

 

But from a rational point of view, ultimate stillness sounds far fetched, as the whole universe is always moving from the largest nebula to the smallest particle of an atom. If one has the view that things have continuity in time. As above so below...if you are speaking metaphorically or in some twilight language, then that is fine. Even space moves. It expands and contracts with the amount of matter - in fact it is directly tied to matter - the one wouldn't exist without the other. I have studied too much physics to hold an entirely different belief yet. I aim to ultimately see how the laws of the universe (physical, mental, spiritual) coincide. I can see how one could have the view that there are no things, because each moment is a reality unto itself, and the idea of thing-ness is ultimately untrue - there is only this, then there is 'something else' new. In that case I accept that every 'thing' is still. So perhaps both are true based on stance.

 

Perhaps ultimately, neither stillness nor movement exists - it's something else entirely.

 

It's not that I don't believe you, for I have already accepted that there is a possibility that there is something that doesn't move since you say so - it's that I still believe myself too. I am in no hurry. The best belief is probably no belief.

 

Also, it would be unfair of you to expect that if I have chosen to pursue a Taoist practice, that I wouldn't spend some time studying the basics - hence I will be purchasing various works that are mentioned by you and others.

 

I am still practicing the 24/7 style meditation, though it still needs tweaking..I haven't been able to hold the intent 24 hours a day yet, but for at least 4-6 I am breaking old patterns...I used to do this for a little over a year - Thich Nhat Hanh style - basic mindfulness meditation...your style is very similar, although I am still reading descriptions of it.

 

Here is something that I am wondering though - can we ever really trust that that which we know (on any level of knowing that you can experience) is actually ultimately true and not just a translation and thus an imperfect reflection of true unknowable reality? Does reality even know itself? Of course we must assert things at some level to communicate. I just think its best to always hold a sliver of acceptance that that which we think/believe/feel/intuit/perceive/hear/etc. we know -, from that true seeing that you talk about to the statements of Gods, Buddhas, Immortals, and so on - might not be it at all - this will preclude one from building barriers to ultimate truth (if it can be known at all).

 

This will not influence my ability to practice in any event, so it doesn't matter for our purposes.

 

"Nothing doesn't even exist" - I never said it did - I was using conventionalese.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Songtsan

[3bob]

A little stillness example:

 

Remember the old record turntables that had multiple speeds like 33, 45, and 78 rpm? Many of them had a little light that you could watch with a control to make fine adjustments for those playing speeds, if the speed was off a little the light would flicker indicating that speed synchronization was off along with the record not sounding right but once the speed adjustment was correct the light would hold still and you would get then get the correct sound while of course the record was still moving...

 

If one does some major extrapolation on this idea/image its principle could be applied (although not exactly) to that which is moving so fast that it is synchronized and holding still everywhere at once and playing a roaring silence.

Edited January 22, 2014 by 3bob

[Songtsan]

Of course, an important point to make is that to effectively communicate or understand syntax within a system, the communicators must come from a similar view or stance -agreed upon definitions essentially. Let's take "Nothing doesn't exist." To argue that nothing does in fact exist, I simply take the view that there are no 'things' whatsoever - trust me, I could argue it.

 

So while it may seem that I am debating with you, I am really trying to understand your language and stance underneath it all - even if I am not aware of it.

 

Because even though I intend to go beyond rational mind to get to Taomind (and I am trying as often as I can remember), I can't kid myself that I won't try to understand the concepts intellectually for at least some time, as I am new at Taoism and have too many intellectual queries at this early stage. I do know how to exhaust the mind by concerted contemplation. When this happens, I know it by feel, and act accordingly by dropping the introspections out of sheer peaceful and acctepting readiness to not think on it anymore. I guestimate 2-6 months from now I will be done.

[Songtsan]

A little stillness example:

 

Remember the old record turntables that had multiple speeds like 33, 45, and 78 rpm? Many of them had a little light that you could watch with a control to make fine adjustments for those playing speeds, if the speed was off a little the light would flicker indicating that speed synchronization was off along with the record not sounding right but once the speed adjustment was correct the light would hold still and you would get then get the correct sound while of course the record was still moving...

 

If one does some major extrapolation on this idea/image its principle could be applied (although no exactly with words) to that which is moving so fast that it is synchronized and holding still everywhere at once and playing a roaring silence.

 

"There is no absolute stillness as there is no absolute viewpoint."

 

I think that unless one is outside of time, there could only be a perception attainment of stillness. It wouldn't be an absolute perception attainment of absolute stillness, because that would indicate that one never came out of that perception state, in which case that person wouldn't be around to talk about it - they'd be somewhere else..

 

I will continue to discuss this if anyone is interested, since I was the one who brought it up, but,it really isn't that important at all to anyone, as far as I can see. It's one of those things that 'knowing' the answer to won't really matter in the short or long run - like knowing why the sky is blue!

[3bob]

Another stillness example: I read "Siddhartha" by Herman Hesse, if I remember correctly Hesse gave the image of watching a river - and from one perceptive the water in the river was moving constantly yet as Siddhartha continued to observe the river his perceptions varied and at one point he saw the water as standing still.... although apparently moving.

 

but I'd have to dig out the book to verify that since my reading of it was so long ago.

[3bob]

"There is no absolute stillness as there is no absolute viewpoint."

 

If there is absolute synchronization an absolute viewpoint is attained, which may sound like an oxymoron but so be it.

 

btw, I can see how this stuff can be fun ;-)

Edited January 22, 2014 by 3bob

[Songtsan]

"There is no absolute stillness as there is no absolute viewpoint."

 

If there is absolute synchronization an absolute viewpoint is attained, which may sound like an oxymoron but so be it.

 

btw, I can see how this stuff can be fun ;-)

 

yes!

 

let's play then:

 

There are no absolutes. This statement is an absolute statement. It thus contains the seed of its own destruction.

 

All things contain the seeds of their antithesis.

 

Yin contains a Yang seed

Yang contains a Yin seed.

Stillness contains the seed for motion

Motion contains the seed for stillness

Ignorance contains the seed for enlightenment

Enlightenment contains the seed for ignorance

 

No thing stays the same. Change is endless. Endless change is changeless. It will never stop and so thus remains the same. This would seem to be the antithesis to 'no thing stays the same' until you stop labeling change as a 'thing' in the first place. Change doesn't exist if time doesn't exist. Things could still exist though, in a timeless place (weird things!), but they would not be able to move without time. However, in a timeless place, there is no awareness of things, as awareness of things takes motion (of energy). Awareness of things depends on time. It depends on motion. Also on space.

 

The only way awareness could ever contain stillness is if there is something that is still to be aware of. The content of consciousness is empty of permanent nature. There is no thing. There is nothing in the universe which has any permanent essence. Everything is in constant flux..

 

If perception of stillness exists, it is not permanent. Perceptions aren't permanent.

 

".Nirvana means "blown out" (as in a candle) and refers, in the Buddhist context, to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished. With the experience of nirvāṇa the mind has ended its identity with material phenomena and experiences a sense of great peace and a unique form of awareness or intelligence that is called bodhi in Buddhism,"

 

Nirvana is considered a 'state' reached by a person, according to the Buddha.

 

"There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension, nor motion, nor the plane of infinite ether.... nor that of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, neither this world nor another, neither the moon nor the sun. here, monks, I say that there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising, for this is itself without support, without continuance in samsara, without mental object - this is itself the end of suffering.

There is, monks, an unborn, not become, unmade, uncompounded, and were it not, monks, for this unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded, no escape could be shown here for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded. But because there is, monks, an unborn, not become, unmade, uncompounded, therefore an escape can be shown, for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded."

 

If someone speaks of stillness in relation to this above description, I will get to that...but firstly, remember that the Buddha made mistakes, such as recommending that monks meditate on inevitable death of the body and its 'grossness,' whereby a few of them went and killed themselves. He also ate some food gone bad, which seems suicidal, and later defended himself by saying that he did it so as not to upset the woman who gave him the food, which is plain silly. My point being that the Buddha was still subject to ignorance. There are plenty of more examples of that.

 

Mahayana schools, especially Prajñaparamita and Zen traditions state that Nirvana is in fact no different from samsara, and samsara the same as nirvana. There is no path and no goal. So according to those traditions there is no stillness, unless you consider samsara to be still.

 

I would finish...but my yang just plummeted....everything in its time...

 

I will end with this though: concepts are relative. Stillness/motion is a concept and thus relative. Concepts on the ultimate level are false (I won't try to support this now but I can later). But this doesn't matter for my point. In order to be still, you must be still relative to something that is not still. To relate to something else means that there is more than one thing. When there are two or more things, there is movement if you are assuming time/space, which I am. Also, in a universe of relativity, everything is related to, and thus joined to everything else. In fact, every 'thing' is part of every other 'thing,' co-dependently 'originating' from a stance of nonorigination (endless/beginingless). You cannot truly separate anything. Thus, unless every thing were still, nothing could be still, because no thing could be just that thing and nothing else. There is nothing which is independently existing. Not Buddha, who should be killed. Not awareness, which depends on having something to be aware of. There is always going to be at least two things. Therefore, in time (and the space of awareness), there will always be fluctuations, even if it's a repetitive, wave-like fluctuation of infinite bliss, wisdom, and other things of nirvana-like nature. To be absolutely still would absolutely kill awareness, which depends on movement.

 

Also:

 

Every duality, when seen from the nondual perspective, is like a single coin...or a YinYang if you prefer. To say that one part of the pair could exist without the other is like saying that you could cut a coin in half from the view of the coronal plane and thus rid the coin of one-half of its nondual 'pair.' Or could you cut the Yang out of the Yin? You could never cut motion away from stillness...thus, no absolutes in dualistic thinking, and none in nonduality as well. In nonduality, both polar/relative opposites merge into one 'thing' - thus nothing is still and nothing is not still; nothing is not still and nothing is not not still. All possibilities exist, just not all possibilities! Excuse the Zen persona, but I have a few Zen bones in me.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Songtsan

[Songtsan]

The whole basis of my argument is that there are no absolutes. I state this as absolute!

 

As this is the root of the 'stillness debate,' in my view, we could always go onto to this discussion and cut to the chase.

 

FYI - I realize that I have derailed this thread a while ago - I will ask to have the derailed sections moved to a new thread appropriately titled "There are absolutely no absolutes..." where one can argue 'absolute stillness,' 'absolute truth,' or 'absolute whatever.'

[3bob]

Ah, um, om,

I don't come from a Buddhist background although I do quote some Buddhist stuff now and then, thus from the framework of certain Buddhist concepts you make many of its doctrines points, at least from some of its schools - as far as I know - which is not all that far ;-) I come more from a Vedanta/Upanishad way of descriptions and concepts plus certain experiences that are proof of same to me. Thus we may not be looking at the same maps or be in agreement on terms and meanings yet I appreciate your fun attitude and vigor in kicking things around for question and debate. (although some might say you go a little overboard at times but I'd mostly say, "what the hell and why not" since it all comes out in the wash)

 

Btw, I see stillness as being related to potential so imo its not really a derail. The T.T.C. has the term "Standing still" but I can't look up the chapter right now. Got to run, later

[Songtsan]

Ah, um, om,

I don't come from a Buddhist background although I do quote some Buddhist stuff now and then, thus from the framework of certain Buddhist concepts you make many of its doctrines points, at least from some of its schools - as far as I know - which is not all that far ;-) I come more from a Vedanta/Upanishad way of descriptions and concepts plus certain experiences that are proof of same to me. Thus we may not be looking at the same maps or be in agreement on terms and meanings yet I appreciate your fun attitude and vigor in kicking things around for question and debate. (although some might say you go a little overboard at times but I'd mostly say, "what the hell and why not" since it all comes out in the wash)

 

Btw, I see stillness as being related to potential so imo its not really a derail. The T.T.C. has the term "Standing still" but I can't look up the chapter right now. Got to run, later

 

I also have a large influence from Vedanta (and the Tantras)...mainly Advaita Vedanta, Shankara-style. My only initiation into an actual lineage was Kriya Yoga (Hariharananda), although I have been a member of a couple of Zendos (never took formal vows because I am not ready to do that yet). I practiced Kriya Yoga, Raja Yoga, Jnana Yoga and Kundalini yoga (not 3HO - I mean the systems such as Siddha, Kripalu, etc, which rely heavily on spontaneous yoga via shakti as Goddess) for years, and chanted several mantras on a daily basis (Hong Sau, Om namah Shivaya, Gayatri mantra). I don't actually know what nondualist Vedanta would say about stillness. I stopped relying on shakti to do everything for me because that felt lie a crutch and it didn't lend towards me building discipline - I am too free form already. I got into too much of a devotional attitude towards shakti as Kali, Durga, Mahashakti, etc. and this felt too much like 'looking for mommy to come hold my hand.' Plus I came to realize that there are many advantages to being a spiritual tourist, as long as you spend enough time in each system. I almost joined the Krishna devotees when I was in Oregon, and spent much time at their ashrams. I love Krishna still actually. It isn't as if the underlying tenets to these systems aren't the same anyways. I doubt that any Buddhist or Taoist could read Patanjali's Sutras and not respect him as an adept. I feel that my spiritual 'tourism' is coming close to finish soon - I wish to explore Vajrayana Buddhism and Taoism intensely. I really respect the Kama Sutra's recommendations that a well polished individual should master the 60 arts...I have been working on this without trying. I have to say that I am still guided by shakti in the end anyways - 'she' takes your desires and drives you to them and through them, exhausting them so you move on to even better desires, all the while approaching that zenith that everyone talks about. While I have urges towards bodhisattva-ism, I am also very self-oriented, as in I would prefer to scale the heights and see what is out there before I make big vows. I respect the dangers and the fast track of Vajrayana, but for some reason I would like to have an official initiation into this tradition before pursuing it to any great degree. Taoism, on the other hand, is the 'religion' that I said that most resonated with me when I was in the sixth grade and just starting to formally study religion, although I grew up Christian. I consider myself a Sufi-universalist too! One could say I am confused, if one didn't know that I am not attached to attaining anything specific yet. So many people in a hurry to end their confusion and attain no-mind, as if they can't take the heat. I thrive on mental insanity. I have to too - for I am a manic depressive of pretty extreme measure, hence the going overboard. If I resisted my insanity, I would be a goner - instead I roll with it, whether passionately excessively, or void of feeling, I have found a secret to not taking life so seriously and being a clown ninja. I truly believe and have for years that we are all immortal, and that in time, all things will be experienced (over and over again). So I don't try to fake until I make it, out of fear that I will miss out on something big, mainly because I don't have that fear.

 

And also, there is this: I am unemployed, and its like -15 degress outside, and I have nothing better to do! hehe...I am not Bodhidharma, able to stare at a rock wall for 9 years (yet). I am willing to go there however, and I have a funny feeling that I may end up there someday. I am being cooked by forces other than my own desires and I am fine with that. I may as well do this versus read the news or watch TV as I have already noted. I don't think that the things I say here are anything special beyond shooting the shit. That's why I don't take it seriously.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Songtsan

[3bob]

Ah, um, om,

 

You are kinda blowing my mind to, lol

 

I can't say much except maybe roll the whole bundle up and spice it with a strong dose of karma yoga then how could you go wrong, regardless?

[Songtsan]

I have found a neat solution to my need to make posts on this site...this has the potential to be very useful actually. I have the aforementioned 1000 pages of quotes from all the books I read in prison...I intended to type them up and store them as "my bible" - something to read when I needed to read something..I am going to add them to the quotes thread. Therefore I will be learning from the masters as I type, as well as focusing excess yang energy...I think it's pretty nifty.

 

EDIT:

 

Actually, since they are excerpts and not quotes, I will add them to my personal practice journal...

Edited January 23, 2014 by Songtsan

[3bob]

Songtsan,

 

Post 124 sounds like a fine plan to me. ;-)

 

The T.T.C. chapter I meant to bring up earlier is #25. (translation by John Wu, 4th line down)

"Standing alone without change"

By the way "Silent" is also mentioned in that chapter which I'd say infers stillness just as "without change" does.

 

Apparently certain Buddhist teachings (or at least certain interpretations) do not concur along the lines of this Taoist teaching...

anyway I'm not going to pick-over that endlessly picked-over and dubious debate here, I'm just pointing out the text.

 

Later, Bob