Any comments on “effortless effort” practice (?)

[Lataif]

I've come across an article by Gunther Weil, who historically has a prominent background/position in Mantak Chia's teaching.

 

Weil argues for questioning the value of that teaching -- and all "progressive" Neigong teachings. He advocates instead for "effortless effort" such as that in, for example, the "Zhan Zhuang" perspective. 

 

In some respects, it sounds like a Dzogchen kind of non-duality, non-practice "practice" in which Wu Chi has the same status as Dzogchen.

 

I've come across similar people before . . .  and I notice 2 things.

 

First, if the person gives me the impression that he knows from personal experience what he is talking about in advocating against "progressive" spiritual practices . . .  I can't help but notice that he's usually done A LOT of those practices at a deep level before coming to that conclusion.

 

And second, if the person gives me the impression that he DOESN'T know what he is talking about . . . he's usually NOT done those practices at a deep level.

 

The conclusion I myself draw from that . . . seems a pretty obvious one. 

[Marblehead]

This should be an interesting thread if others get involved.  I don't have the knowledge to make any statements right now but perhaps along the way I can share some of my experiences.

[9th]

The only reason there can be a non-practice "practice" and other ideas of that nature (no progression, return to originality, etc.) is because society trains people in adverse ways.  So, the idea is to reverse or release the training or conditioning that society has imposed on you.  Beyond this conditioning (or before it, prior to it) is the original source material, which is already perfect and takes care of itself in the best way possible.

 

Its a non-practice practice, because its not additional.  It is easy to use a spiritual tradition or cultivation method to further condition yourself, because that is what it is designed to do.  However the ultimate goal is unconditional, and that is why the individual and independent nature of original reality must prevail over established and static forms in the collective.  Otherwise, such "spirituality" or "practice" becomes simply another occupation of the larger society, and aligns with its automatic objectives and mechanical principles.

[Michael Sternbach]

I agree with MH that this is an interesting topic.

 

It brings to mind what Alan Watt wrote on Zen. Watts thought of the necessity for strenuous cultivating practices (such as sitting in Zazen until you can no longer feel your legs etc) as a deviation from Zen's true spirit. To him, the key was understanding that there is actually nothing to reach for as you are Buddha already. I think you could call this a kind of self acceptance or self love, even though Watts would never have spoken in such terms.

 

Watts was criticised for his "beginner's attitude" by Philip Kapleau in The Three Pillars of Zen. In this book, you indeed read about sesshin or zen seminars where the (Japanese) master is drilling his meditating apprentices like an army sergeant, constantly ordering them to give their utmost ("only half an hour left... Try harder to reach satori!!!") while at the same time reminding them that whatever enlightenment they may reach, it will be far inferior to Buddha's, anyway, no matter what they do...

 

I have been practising Zazen and various kinds of qigong/internal martial arts, and I can say that these techniques do strengthen and develop your subtle energy system.

 

Bear in mind that individuals are continuously going through stages of an alchemical process, to whatever degree and effect, as are the whole Earth and Universe, whether they are aware of it or not. Cultivation practices can structure and amplify this development, but should be done in keeping with nature or the Dao.

[Michael Sternbach]

I have developed an astrological take on this:

 

In a natal chart, the Sun represents both the conscious personality and the inner (or higher) self. This confused me for a while. On speaking with other astrologers and alchemists, it occurred to me that the ego was in fact "identical" with its highest potential self, although the latter will be actualized to varying degree in different individuals.

[Trunk]

I've come across an article by Gunther Weil, ..

 

Where did you read it?, - so the rest of us can reference it as well.

[Nikolai1]

Imagine you bought a chocolate bar and then you can't find it. You can search the entire house and no find it. The searching was therefore useless. But...realising its not in the house will make you open to the truth...you already ate it and the chocolate bar is inside you.

 

Practices are useless in themselves, spiritually speaking. They may give you all sorts of new esoteric skills and abilities but these have nothing to with the truth.

 

So many of us cannot accept that we need do nothing at all in order or realise the truth. It sounds easy to accept but it isn't, it's pretty much impossible. We have to go through the rigmarole of searching the house, and coming up blank, before we will finally accept the situation. Prior to accepting we can truly find ourselves in despair. Ten twenty years down the road and still nothing yet. Ten twenty years of activity for nothing.

 

Study the biographies of the masters and they were pretty much all in the same boat. They had to go through the rigmarole of the practices before they could be convinced of the deeply radical truth. This is why they so often realise that their students must do as they did, so they recommend practices, but then in the same breath you here them reminding the same student that actually practices are useless.

 

Like Michael said, practices do bring you all sorts of developments. We tend to imagine these developments are spiritual because we still do not understand the true meaning of spiritual. But we have to attach something to the word, and so all the worthless gains get called spiritual. This is like a rich man imagining he is spirtitual because he can build many churches, go on many pilgrimages and feed and clothe many poor people.

 

Neither inner nor outer development are what's required. What's required is realising this.

[dwai]

I've come across an article by Gunther Weil, who historically has a prominent background/position in Mantak Chia's teaching.

 

Weil argues for questioning the value of that teaching -- and all "progressive" Neigong teachings. He advocates instead for "effortless effort" such as that in, for example, the "Zhan Zhuang" perspective. 

 

In some respects, it sounds like a Dzogchen kind of non-duality, non-practice "practice" in which Wu Chi has the same status as Dzogchen.

 

I've come across similar people before . . .  and I notice 2 things.

 

First, if the person gives me the impression that he knows from personal experience what he is talking about in advocating against "progressive" spiritual practices . . .  I can't help but notice that he's usually done A LOT of those practices at a deep level before coming to that conclusion.

 

And second, if the person gives me the impression that he DOESN'T know what he is talking about . . . he's usually NOT done those practices at a deep level.

 

The conclusion I myself draw from that . . . seems a pretty obvious one. 

Effortless effort ties into wei wu wei. It is a paradox but in my experience, it is a state of mind.

 

You set your mind intent to do something, then do the actions that will take you towards that goal. It is a fine balancing act between not too much effort and too much effort. If you do either, the result is inability to reach your goal, or reaching your goal at the cost of mental anguish or some other form of exhaustion etc. When action is effortless, things will seem like they are just happening on their own.

 

Another explanation of this in the Hindu poem - The Bhagavad Gita. Where Sri Krishna tells the warrior prince Arjuna to do "Nishkaama karma" (or Action without desire). This is also a concept that is congruent with effortless effort. The premise is that the action is done for the sake of the action - the aesthetics, the joy of doing the action alone, without worrying about the consequences. If the action is perfect, the result will automatically follow. And what is perfect action? That which is not too much or too little...

Edited April 18, 2015 by dwai