The original face

[Stosh]

So why would my possible enlightenment be some kind of crappy version?

[Bindi]

19 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

On a practical note, when you meditate, it's best to simply dwell in the desired state of mind (to the best of your current ability) without worrying about results too much.

 

I always found it peculiar when in the description of a sesshin (retreat) in Philip Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen, the meditating participators are motivated by the priest in charge along the lines of: "Just twenty minutes left... Try your very best to achieve enlightenment still! But make no mistake, your enlightenment will be nothing like the Buddha's far superior enlightenment!" And so on. - Instead of just sitting there in (external and internal) silence! (As I experienced especially in the Sosenji in Kyoto.)

 

And it is telling that in the same book, Alan Watts (without actually calling his name) is sharply critisised as having "the attitude of a beginner", even though there is plenty of support for his non-doing approach in classical Zen literature.

 

While Watts did not hold back mockery of what he liked to call "the-aching-legs-brand of Buddhism"...

 

But to each their own, I would say.

 

 

 

There's different ways to 'do'. If a dream tells me to examine a certain feeling or thought pattern, I am calling that 'doing'. If I'm shown some very specific energy exercise to do for a few weeks to achieve a very specific result, that's doing. But all of this doing is exactly what I'm meant to do at any given time. And I always try to understand how each bit of doing fits into the whole, I absolutely allow my natural curiosity to be satisfied. 

 

Then there's the doing that is out of sync with your personal psyche and energy system because some random person who set themselves up as a master told you to do something, which you then do, and God only knows how that will affect your energy system, but it's almost certainly going to be negatively. 

 

There are various other ways to do as well, qigong is a doing form, mantras, prayer, I see all of them as doing. 

 

But what is non-doing exactly? Sitting in non-thought meditation? Not engaging the thinking mind in an activity? I gather to Buddhists the mind only is the creator of thoughts and emotions, so silence the mind, and there will be peace? Is the mind still used for practical daily affairs in some special way? 

 

 

[Bindi]

Zhuang zi (circa 370-300 B.C.) looks at it as the expression of the Dao (道) and the way to integrate it. Heaven and earth have their great beauties but do not speak of them; the four seasons have their clear-marked regularity but do not discuss it; the ten thousand things have their principles of growth (li 理) but do not expound them. The sage seeks out the beauties of Heaven and earth and masters the principles of the ten thousand things. Thus it is that the Perfect Man does not act, the Great Sage does not move - they have perceived [the Way of] Heaven and earth, we may say. This way, whose spiritual brightness (shen ming 神明) is of the greatest purity (zhi jing 至 精), joins with others in a hundred transformations. (Zhuang zi ch.22. Transl. B. Watson)  

 

The «spiritual brightness (shen ming 神明)» is how both the splendor of nature and the order, the principles underlying this great beauty, appear through the presence of what is called «spirits». To understand these patterns is to know all that is possible to know with a human intelligence and to recognize the «intelligence», the natural cleverness and spontaneous order which is behind the manifestation of life; to acknowledge the spirits as the agents allowing the process.

 

We will come back to this «spiritual brighness» when it is a reality within a human. Zhuang zi uses human understanding in order to go beyond the intellectual, the thought, the will and become an entirely «natural» being, entirely acting through what comes from the reality of his original nature, from the Way of Heaven (tian dao 天道). Such a man is in the likeness of the spirits : helping the emergence of beings and inspiring the transformations maintaining their lives.

 

http://www.elisabeth-rochat.com/docs/31_shen.pdf

[Bindi]

Thus, the spirit is the possibility, the potentiality given to each human being to build their own heart/mind, and through it their own awareness and consciousness, discernment and reason, in such a way that they behave according to the order and patterns of the cosmic life. It is the spiritual intelligence (shen ming 神明) operating through the human heart/mind. In Daoism, it leads up to the union with the Dao.  

 

Therefore what is called spirit allows the responsibility of a human for his own life and behavior. To embody the spirit is to open the heart to nature, to natural order, to Heaven, to enlighten the intelligence, knowledge and understanding, in order to fulfill one’s destiny and also, at the same time, to nourish one’s life and that of the others.

 

More than attracting external spirits into his body, it is the process of internalization, the building of an inner life which is real; it creates the link with the source of all lifes, the foundation of all reality.

 

The spirit no one knows its limits; with a natural clarity it knows all that exists. Safeguard it within and don’t let it slip; don’t let the (external) beings disturb the sense organs, don’t let the sense organs disturb the heart/mind (xin 心 ) : this is called to grasp the core. (Guan zi, ch. Neiye)

 

http://www.elisabeth-rochat.com/docs/31_shen.pdf

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bindi

[Bindi]

The above quotes capture my sense of something holistic which is created 'in the pattern of heaven', but without negating our human mind, perhaps instead just illuminating the minds that we do have. 

[Michael Sternbach]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

There's different ways to 'do'. If a dream tells me to examine a certain feeling or thought pattern, I am calling that 'doing'. If I'm shown some very specific energy exercise to do for a few weeks to achieve a very specific result, that's doing. But all of this doing is exactly what I'm meant to do at any given time. And I always try to understand how each bit of doing fits into the whole, I absolutely allow my natural curiosity to be satisfied. 

 

Then there's the doing that is out of sync with your personal psyche and energy system because some random person who set themselves up as a master told you to do something, which you then do, and God only knows how that will affect your energy system, but it's almost certainly going to be negatively. 

 

There are various other ways to do as well, qigong is a doing form, mantras, prayer, I see all of them as doing. 

 

But what is non-doing exactly? Sitting in non-thought meditation? Not engaging the thinking mind in an activity? I gather to Buddhists the mind only is the creator of thoughts and emotions, so silence the mind, and there will be peace? Is the mind still used for practical daily affairs in some special way? 

 

 

 

There are different methods of meditation, to be sure, and some are more active than others. Zazen is far from being the most passive one, for that matter; sitting in the lotus posture a couple of hours with your spine straight and your mind wide awake takes a good deal of stamina and determination (trust me on this). Stopping the mind's activity is not the express goal thereby, even though there may be phases of 'thoughtlessness' spontaneously experienced at the more advanced stages. I was taught to just let them thoughts come and go, much like clouds floating by in an (otherwise) blue sky.

 

The art then is not to cling to any particular thought - because that's when the mind gets stuck and stops. If that happens while you are attempting to paint a circle by brush, it will likely be shown as a slight deviation from the perfect circular shape. And if it happens while you are engaged in lethal combat with four skilled sword-wielding enemies, it will likely be shown in your head being severed from your trunk.

 

Now while the latter would arguably be an effective way to put your mind at rest for good, fortunately that (as we have seen) is not really the aim of Zen or of any art based on it. The aim is the undisturbed and unfettered mind that never stops and is therefore able to smoothely flow from one action to the next in a flash! 

 

 Your comments towards the end of your post made me think of a friendly debate that I once had with a Zen mate while I was in Japan. He thought that an activity that requires intellectual effort (such as learning information from a book) would be incompatible with a Zen state of mind, whereas I was of the opinion that it is not, if only the mind stays relaxed and in a state of flowing receptivity. Surely, if writing a book can be a Zen type of activity,* reading one can be too?! 

 

* See Ray Bradbury: Zen in the Art of Writing - Essays on Creativity.

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

But what is non-doing exactly? Sitting in non-thought meditation? Not engaging the thinking mind in an activity? I gather to Buddhists the mind only is the creator of thoughts and emotions, so silence the mind, and there will be peace? Is the mind still used for practical daily affairs in some special way? 

 

I think your quotes regarding Zhuangzi capture non-doing quite well.

It is not 'non-thought meditation' really and it also not quite correct to say it is not engaging the thinking mind in activity.

It is not silencing the mind either.

The mind can still be used for practical affairs.

 

It is most definitely quite special.

By special, I mean that it is a very subtle and tricky business and it is very specific and unambiguous.

I also mean it is priceless and such a gift that we have access to these teachings which were once quite rare and secret.

 

The quotes you shared about Zhuangzi are wonderful for me. While I have been slowly seeing deeper and deeper into the similarities and connection between Dzogchen and Daoist meditation, these quotes have really struck a chord with me. I've not previously seen this precise usage of the word spirit and it really opens my eyes to understanding the Daoist concept of spirit in a deeper way that connects with what I'm currently practicing. One of those AHA moments...

So thank you for that!

 

I'll try to describe the non-doing principle.

Please forgive me for any errors, I'm a beginner and am constantly trying to refine my understanding.

 

In the Dzogchen tradition, the first step is to recognize and develop absolute certainty in what is called the Nature of Mind.

One of the most important functions of the teacher is to help the student develop this in a very precise way.

If you don't get it right, everything else is just a waste of time.

A commonly used metaphor is water -

The mind is like waves and swells in the ocean, currents in a river, sweat on your skin, snow, and morning dew.

The nature of mind is the essence of water that is common to whatever form the water takes but transcends form; characteristics like wetness, fluidity, flexibility, and so forth. 

This is just a metaphor and there are lots of them used in the teachings to describe the three basic characteristics of the Nature of Mind. The other thing worth pointing out is that it is often described in terms for three characteristics - the empty aspect (or space), the aware aspect (or clarity), and the arising of dynamic energy from the inseparability of these two (warmth or bliss).

 

Once the student develops certainty in this, she needs to develop stability.

In the beginning, this connection or what is called "resting in the Nature of Mind" is quite fragile. 

The Mind is constantly entering in and carrying the awareness away. With practice, stability is possible.

Once stability is cultivated, it is possible to remain in this state of resting while beginning to engage in activities.

This is taught in the context of body (physical activity), speech (words, concepts, communication), and mind (thought, emotion, imagination, creativity). So in each of these 3 categories we exercise our ability to rest in the Nature as we engage in these various areas of physical and mental activity. 

 

With enough practice, the accomplished yogi can maintain this resting in the Nature throughout the day in all activities, during dream, during dreamless sleep, and, most importantly, during the transition of death. 

 

This resting is very much analogous to non-doing but I prefer to think of it as non-interference.

It's not that you don't think. Thoughts come and go but at an advanced level do not disturb this rest. 

One can engage in activity and still maintain this "non-grasping awareness," also referred to as naked awareness.

This is called integration and is the next step after cultivating some stability.

 

I don't know if I"m making sense, it gets easier to understand as we actually experience it. 

It's not quite the same as mindfulness. In mindfulness, there is the observer.

In these practices, the observer and that which is being observed merge, this is the non-dual experience.

Our relationship to thought, in fact our relationship to all life experience, is referred to a "rang shar rang dröl" which means self arising and self liberating. The accomplished yogi is like the sky in which anything at all can freely arise and spontaneously and effortless liberates since there is no grasping. It's likened to writing in the air or throwing a bucket of paint in the air - nowhere for it to stick.

 

The shine that is being referred to in your quotes is the spontaneous arising of what is referred to as dynamic energy. It is considered the source of all creativity. It is the source of true compassion. Whatever needs to happen does so effortlessly and what arises from this pure openness is always precisely what is needed in the moment. This is analogous to Wu Wei and the unimpeded flow of Dao or what may be called "merging" with Dao. Merging is probably not the best word either here or when I used it above referring to the non-dual experience. I think it's better to think of it as self liberating. The one who tends to get in the way, the thinker, or perhaps better to say the thought or tendency that claims itself to be thinker is allowed to liberate and the Dao simply is as it is.

 

I hope that makes some sense.

 

 

 

[doc benway]

PS - I'm looking forward to reading that pdf in full, thanks Bindi

[Bindi]

24 minutes ago, steve said:

 

I think your quotes regarding Zhuangzi capture non-doing quite well.

It is not 'non-thought meditation' really and it also not quite correct to say it is not engaging the thinking mind in activity.

It is not silencing the mind either.

The mind can still be used for practical affairs.

 

It is most definitely quite special.

By special, I mean that it is a very subtle and tricky business and it is very specific and unambiguous.

I also mean it is priceless and such a gift that we have access to these teachings which were once quite rare and secret.

 

The quotes you shared about Zhuangzi are wonderful for me. While I have been slowly seeing deeper and deeper into the similarities and connection between Dzogchen and Daoist meditation, these quotes have really struck a chord with me. I've not previously seen this precise usage of the word spirit and it really opens my eyes to understanding the Daoist concept of spirit in a deeper way that connects with what I'm currently practicing. One of those AHA moments...

So thank you for that!

 

I'll try to describe the non-doing principle.

Please forgive me for any errors, I'm a beginner and am constantly trying to refine my understanding.

 

In the Dzogchen tradition, the first step is to recognize and develop absolute certainty in what is called the Nature of Mind.

One of the most important functions of the teacher is to help the student develop this in a very precise way.

If you don't get it right, everything else is just a waste of time.

A commonly used metaphor is water -

The mind is like waves and swells in the ocean, currents in a river, sweat on your skin, snow, and morning dew.

The nature of mind is the essence of water that is common to whatever form the water takes but transcends form; characteristics like wetness, fluidity, flexibility, and so forth. 

This is just a metaphor and there are lots of them used in the teachings to describe the three basic characteristics of the Nature of Mind. The other thing worth pointing out is that it is often described in terms for three characteristics - the empty aspect (or space), the aware aspect (or clarity), and the arising of dynamic energy from the inseparability of these two (warmth or bliss).

 

Once the student develops certainty in this, she needs to develop stability.

In the beginning, this connection or what is called "resting in the Nature of Mind" is quite fragile. 

The Mind is constantly entering in and carrying the awareness away. With practice, stability is possible.

Once stability is cultivated, it is possible to remain in this state of resting while beginning to engage in activities.

This is taught in the context of body (physical activity), speech (words, concepts, communication), and mind (thought, emotion, imagination, creativity). So in each of these 3 categories we exercise our ability to rest in the Nature as we engage in these various areas of physical and mental activity. 

 

With enough practice, the accomplished yogi can maintain this resting in the Nature throughout the day in all activities, during dream, during dreamless sleep, and, most importantly, during the transition of death. 

 

This resting is very much analogous to non-doing but I prefer to think of it as non-interference.

It's not that you don't think. Thoughts come and go but at an advanced level do not disturb this rest. 

One can engage in activity and still maintain this "non-grasping awareness," also referred to as naked awareness.

This is called integration and is the next step after cultivating some stability.

 

I don't know if I"m making sense, it gets easier to understand as we actually experience it. 

It's not quite the same as mindfulness. In mindfulness, there is the observer.

In these practices, the observer and that which is being observed merge, this is the non-dual experience.

Our relationship to thought, in fact our relationship to all life experience, is referred to a "rang shar rang dröl" which means self arising and self liberating. The accomplished yogi is like the sky in which anything at all can freely arise and spontaneously and effortless liberates since there is no grasping. It's likened to writing in the air or throwing a bucket of paint in the air - nowhere for it to stick.

 

The shine that is being referred to in your quotes is the spontaneous arising of what is referred to as dynamic energy. It is considered the source of all creativity. It is the source of true compassion. Whatever needs to happen does so effortlessly and what arises from this pure openness is always precisely what is needed in the moment. This is analogous to Wu Wei and the unimpeded flow of Dao or what may be called "merging" with Dao. Merging is probably not the best word either here or when I used it above referring to the non-dual experience. I think it's better to think of it as self liberating. The one who tends to get in the way, the thinker, or perhaps better to say the thought or tendency that claims itself to be thinker is allowed to liberate and the Dao simply is as it is.

 

I hope that makes some sense.

 

 

 

 

I find that my mind is very good at understanding why things have happened in the past, but it's very bad at predicting what is necessary for the future - though it has a habit of thinking that it will be able to predict the next future moment despite its many abject failures at being right in the past. 

 

So, it does have a talent, and that is understanding and collating what has been and why, slowly putting together the big picture, and this is a talent that I feel is not being acknowledged. All that is being acknowledged are it's shortcomings - thinking it knows what is necessary and valuable in the future, and I feel it is then dispensed with on these grounds alone, and what it is very good at is not cultivated. A case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

 

I fully acknowledge that what I need to do must be informed by 'the original face' or the pattern of heaven, I don't know if this is the same as 'the nature of mind'. I don't know if 'the nature of mind' informs actions, or if it more passive, just accepting that things are exactly as they are. Not engaging. My sense of what informs me is that it is directive and active, and that it informs my mind on exactly what to do and how to do it, which is actively trying to Create heaven on earth within myself. Without this step I think I would be at the mercy of accepting what is imperfect as perfect, instead of actively trying to establish perfection.

[3bob]

maybe sleep on that if you can,  and see what the morning brings...?

[3bob]

it might be considered that Chap 14 of the TTC describes as well as it can be what the term "original face" means....

LOOK at it but you cannot see it! Its name is Formless. Listen to it but you cannot hear it! Its name is Soundless. Grasp it but you cannot get it! Its name is Incorporeal. These three attributes are unfathomable; Therefore they fuse into one. Its upper side is not bright: Its under side not dim. Continually the Unnameable moves on, Until it retums beyond the realm of things. We call it the formless Form, the imageless Image. We call it the indefinable and unimaginable. Confront it and you do not see its face! Follow it and you do not see its back! Yet, equipped with this timeless Tao, You can harness present realities. To know the origins is initiation into the Tao.

[doc benway]

19 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

I find that my mind is very good at understanding why things have happened in the past, but it's very bad at predicting what is necessary for the future - though it has a habit of thinking that it will be able to predict the next future moment despite its many abject failures at being right in the past. 

 

So, it does have a talent, and that is understanding and collating what has been and why, slowly putting together the big picture, and this is a talent that I feel is not being acknowledged. All that is being acknowledged are it's shortcomings - thinking it knows what is necessary and valuable in the future, and I feel it is then dispensed with on these grounds alone, and what it is very good at is not cultivated. A case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

The mind is a wonderful thing!

Everything beautiful comes of it and everything painful.

I think you are insightful to acknowledge both. 

 

19 hours ago, Bindi said:

I fully acknowledge that what I need to do must be informed by 'the original face' or the pattern of heaven, I don't know if this is the same as 'the nature of mind'.

I'm sure we could find some differences but I think they are pointing in the same direction, more or less.

It's always a little tricky to mix paradigms.

 

19 hours ago, Bindi said:

I don't know if 'the nature of mind' informs actions, or if it more passive, just accepting that things are exactly as they are. Not engaging.

Even more than informing, it serves as the basis of all actions and inactions, including passive acceptance.

In the Buddhist and Bön view, everything is mind - all experience.

And the foundation of all of that is the nature or essence of mind, like water is the foundation of the ocean.

 

19 hours ago, Bindi said:

My sense of what informs me is that it is directive and active, and that it informs my mind on exactly what to do and how to do it, which is actively trying to Create heaven on earth within myself. Without this step I think I would be at the mercy of accepting what is imperfect as perfect, instead of actively trying to establish perfection.

In the non-doing practices, the understanding is that the very perfection you are looking for cannot be established or created simply because it is always already there, it's simply (but not easily) a matter of perspective. The imperfect IS perfect. Not a molecule is misplaced. This is a very difficult teaching to fathom and we can easily cite of examples of "how could ____ be perfect?!" Until our view is very deeply established, it is difficult to imagine how some things can be considered perfect. My instruction has been rather than discounting this path because I don't fully understand, simply allow myself to let go of what doesn't make sense trusting that it will become clearer over time. I recognize this is a big leap of faith and you will find that the Tibetans have enormous faith and consider it one of the most important resources on the spiritual path.

 

 

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, steve said:

The mind is a wonderful thing!

Everything beautiful comes of it and everything painful.

I think you are insightful to acknowledge both. 

 

I'm sure we could find some differences but I think they are pointing in the same direction, more or less.

It's always a little tricky to mix paradigms.

 

Even more than informing, it serves as the basis of all actions and inactions, including passive acceptance.

In the Buddhist and Bön view, everything is mind - all experience.

And the foundation of all of that is the nature or essence of mind, like water is the foundation of the ocean.

 

In the non-doing practices, the understanding is that the very perfection you are looking for cannot be established or created simply because it is always already there, it's simply (but not easily) a matter of perspective. The imperfect IS perfect. Not a molecule is misplaced. This is a very difficult teaching to fathom and we can easily cite of examples of "how could ____ be perfect?!" Until our view is very deeply established, it is difficult to imagine how some things can be considered perfect. My instruction has been rather than discounting this path because I don't fully understand, simply allow myself to let go of what doesn't make sense trusting that it will become clearer over time. I recognize this is a big leap of faith and you will find that the Tibetans have enormous faith and consider it one of the most important resources on the spiritual path.

 

 

 

In neidan something still needs to be produced, and then nurtured and brought up from the LDT to the UDT, and to do this energies need to be refined. This perspective is nullified by all the non-dual philosophies that abound right now, from the trite to the profound. We have different paths, because we have different initial assumptions of fundamental reality, but not because I am lesser or wrong or just not far enough along in the process to know any better. What if the assumptions and conclusions of the non-dualists are wrong, despite its current popularity (again from the trite to the profound)? Yet this proposition is not examined, because there is a ready made response and finalised perspective. You are no longer looking for the truth because you believe you have found it, and instead you keep trying to squeeze yourself into non-duality's specifications. 

 

Anadi is one of the few voices I have come across who is critiquing non-duality, very directly in this article Freeing the Mind from the Prison of Non-duality.  Maybe this is a conversation that should happen, instead of dismissing what might be a valid perspective. 

[Michael Sternbach]

Bindi,

 

From my experience, realizations of non-duality (of the kind we are discussing here) are occurring at certain stages of a spiritual way. They have got to do with the acceptance of imperfection. This is just one of many lessons to be learned and re-iterated, although a rather profound one. It may be particularly important when you have been whipping on yourself too much for awhile - for growth requires time and patience to happen in a sound fashion.

 

You can't pull on a plant in order to make it grow faster, you will just end up uprooting it. The best  you can do is providing the right conditions for it to thrive - then you must allow it the room that it needs.

 

You mentioned Neidan/Internal Alchemy. Yes, it speaks to the processual nature of spiritual awakening. It is true that non-dualistic approaches sometimes tend to neglect that aspect. But my basic assumption is that the avatars of all times and cultures arrived at essentially the same insights into the metaphysical universe. I therefore like to look at their zones of overlap (hidden as they may sometimes be) more than at their apparent differences. Many of those can be resolved by taking a higher philosophical vantage point, once we move beyond our biasses.

 

Anadi does make some valid points, although I don't agree to everything that is said in the linked article. He emphasizes the role of the individual soul. Alright - but this raises the question: What is the soul? How do we conceptualize it?

 

Now before I share my perspective on this,  I would like to hear yours first.

[doc benway]

11 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

In neidan something still needs to be produced, and then nurtured and brought up from the LDT to the UDT, and to do this energies need to be refined. This perspective is nullified by all the non-dual philosophies that abound right now, from the trite to the profound. We have different paths, because we have different initial assumptions of fundamental reality, but not because I am lesser or wrong or just not far enough along in the process to know any better. What if the assumptions and conclusions of the non-dualists are wrong, despite its current popularity (again from the trite to the profound)? Yet this proposition is not examined, because there is a ready made response and finalised perspective. You are no longer looking for the truth because you believe you have found it, and instead you keep trying to squeeze yourself into non-duality's specifications. 

 

Anadi is one of the few voices I have come across who is critiquing non-duality, very directly in this article Freeing the Mind from the Prison of Non-duality.  Maybe this is a conversation that should happen, instead of dismissing what might be a valid perspective. 

 

Just because you are not aware or familiar of comparisons and debates of these different paths, does not mean they are not compared. In fact, they've been compared for centuries. In the Bön and Buddhist world, this would be comparing the Dzogchen and Tantric paths. Nothing new there. The Tantric path is very similar to the Neidan path, not identical, but very similar.

 

What if the assumptions and conclusions regarding energy cultivation are wrong? Similarly, you believe you've found truth and try to adapt to that paradigm. It's what we all do, is there another way? The one thing that is somewhat unique about Dzogchen is the definition of the view. it is not a statement, a philosophy, an explanation, or a conclusion of any sort. There is no truth to be accepted, not even any explanation of fundamental reality. The view is openness. All beliefs, preconceptions, concepts, paradigms, and expectations are completely abandoned. The view is resting in open, naked awareness. I guess it is possible that is "wrong" and it probably is wrong for the practitioner that does not find that supportive or conducive to growth. In maintaining that openness, I am continuously looking for truth; not in concepts or explanations, but in open, clear, uncontrived awareness. 

 

It's important for each of us to find the path that works for us, supports us in our spiritual goals and practices, and that is the correct path for us. No path is right or wrong, better or worse in an absolute sense, it is all relative to the practitioner at this particular moment in their lives. 

 

 

 

 

[Jeff]

30 minutes ago, steve said:

...

 

It's important for each of us to find the path that works for us, supports us in our spiritual goals and practices, and that is the correct path for us. No path is right or wrong, better or worse in an absolute sense, it is all relative to the practitioner at this particular moment in their lives. 

 

 

To me, these last words are especially important. I spent much time trying to figure out what was the “best” or clearest path, but then I ultimately came to realize that a path or method is only best relative to the current place of that individual being. A hammer is not useful when a saw or wrench are needed. Similarly teaching an advanced technique to a beginner who is not ready for it, can lead to even greater issues of confusion.

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Bindi,

 

From my experience, realizations of non-duality (of the kind we are discussing here) are occurring at certain stages of a spiritual way. They have got to do with the acceptance of imperfection. This is just one of many lessons to be learned and re-iterated, although a rather profound one. It may be particularly important when you have been whipping on yourself too much for awhile - for growth requires time and patience to happen in a sound fashion.

 

You can't pull on a plant in order to make it grow faster, you will just end up uprooting it. The best  you can do is providing the right conditions for it to thrive - then you must allow it the room that it needs.

 

You mentioned Neidan/Internal Alchemy. Yes, it speaks to the processual nature of spiritual awakening. It is true that non-dualistic approaches sometimes tend to neglect that aspect. But my basic assumption is that the avatars of all times and cultures arrived at essentially the same insights into the metaphysical universe. I therefore like to look at their zones of overlap (hidden as they may sometimes be) more than at their apparent differences. Many of those can be resolved by taking a higher philosophical vantage point, once we move beyond our biasses.

 

Anadi does make some valid points, although I don't agree to everything that is said in the linked article. He emphasizes the role of the individual soul. Alright - but this raises the question: What is the soul? How do we conceptualize it?

 

Now before I share my perspective on this,  I would like to hear yours first.

 

Of the little I know about the soul, I do think we have one, and I think it is placed safely away from our unconscious selves where we can do it no harm. I don't think it is perfect as it is, more likely it resembles the hun and po souls, and to advance spiritually a conscious decision must be made to side with the heavenly side. But I might be wrong about this, it's not something I know enough about yet. It's really diving into the deep end. 

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

Just because you are not aware or familiar of comparisons and debates of these different paths, does not mean they are not compared. In fact, they've been compared for centuries. In the Bön and Buddhist world, this would be comparing the Dzogchen and Tantric paths. Nothing new there. The Tantric path is very similar to the Neidan path, not identical, but very similar.

 

How come they got to debate, and we just have to accept everyone's view as being right for them at that time, unless it's Mopai? 

 

1 hour ago, steve said:

What if the assumptions and conclusions regarding energy cultivation are wrong? Similarly, you believe you've found truth and try to adapt to that paradigm. It's what we all do, is there another way? The one thing that is somewhat unique about Dzogchen is the definition of the view. it is not a statement, a philosophy, an explanation, or a conclusion of any sort. There is no truth to be accepted, not even any explanation of fundamental reality. The view is openness. All beliefs, preconceptions, concepts, paradigms, and expectations are completely abandoned.

 

This is the only way truth might be found, by initially abandoning all preconceptions. It would seem to be a fundamental necessity to me, if we accept that there are more things in heaven and earth than have already been specified. 

 

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

The view is resting in open, naked awareness. I guess it is possible that is "wrong" and it probably is wrong for the practitioner that does not find that supportive or conducive to growth. In maintaining that openness, I am continuously looking for truth; not in concepts or explanations, but in open, clear, uncontrived awareness. 

 

If truth is laid bare before me, I will use it to build an understanding of the big picture as it is, that big picture can remain uncontrived and yet represent reality on ever deeper levels. 

 

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

It's important for each of us to find the path that works for us, supports us in our spiritual goals and practices, and that is the correct path for us. No path is right or wrong, better or worse in an absolute sense, it is all relative to the practitioner at this particular moment in their lives. 

 

 

Any path might be the best path you can manage at the time, but it doesn't make it intrinsically good or valuable. Unless you inordinately value learning from  your mistakes. It might be perfect to screw up for 10 000 future lifetimes, but I'd prefer to get it right in this one if I had the chance. 

[dwai]

9 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Bindi,

 

From my experience, realizations of non-duality (of the kind we are discussing here) are occurring at certain stages of a spiritual way. They have got to do with the acceptance of imperfection. This is just one of many lessons to be learned and re-iterated, although a rather profound one. It may be particularly important when you have been whipping on yourself too much for awhile - for growth requires time and patience to happen in a sound fashion.

 

You can't pull on a plant in order to make it grow faster, you will just end up uprooting it. The best  you can do is providing the right conditions for it to thrive - then you must allow it the room that it needs.

 

You mentioned Neidan/Internal Alchemy. Yes, it speaks to the processual nature of spiritual awakening. It is true that non-dualistic approaches sometimes tend to neglect that aspect. But my basic assumption is that the avatars of all times and cultures arrived at essentially the same insights into the metaphysical universe. I therefore like to look at their zones of overlap (hidden as they may sometimes be) more than at their apparent differences. Many of those can be resolved by taking a higher philosophical vantage point, once we move beyond our biasses.

 

Anadi does make some valid points, although I don't agree to everything that is said in the linked article. He emphasizes the role of the individual soul. Alright - but this raises the question: What is the soul? How do we conceptualize it?

 

Now before I share my perspective on this,  I would like to hear yours first.

Anadi basically espouses a view called vishishtadvaita or qualified nondualism. It’s a happy medium between abject dualism and pure nondualism. But, imho, is based on “personality coloring the realization”.  

 

 

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

To me, these last words are especially important. I spent much time trying to figure out what was the “best” or clearest path, but then I ultimately came to realize that a path or method is only best relative to the current place of that individual being. A hammer is not useful when a saw or wrench are needed. Similarly teaching an advanced technique to a beginner who is not ready for it, can lead to even greater issues of confusion.

In the old days, only when a seeker was ready would he/she find the teacher and teaching. Today it is a lot easier due to the Internet, etc.

 

when I first read Advaita Vedanta I laughed at it/got confused, and put down the books. After working on meditation and taoist neigong for 15 years, it finally made sense. There needs to be purification of the senses, which a practice like neigong or Yoga or some other meditation  can provide. 

 

But  the truth of “nothing is needed” is also valid. Personal effort is needed until it isn’t. Techniques are needed until they aren’t.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by dwai

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

How come they got to debate, and we just have to accept everyone's view as being right for them at that time, unless it's Mopai? 

I don’t think we have to accept anything. I feel like we’re just sharing perspectives. We can accept and reject as we please.  In fact, I’d say we’re having a bit of a healthy debate here and now.

 

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

 

This is the only way truth might be found, by initially abandoning all preconceptions. It would seem to be a fundamental necessity to me, if we accept that there are more things in heaven and earth than have already been specified. 

 

 

If truth is laid bare before me, I will use it to build an understanding of the big picture as it is, that big picture can remain uncontrived and yet represent reality on ever deeper levels. 

 

 

Any path might be the best path you can manage at the time, but it doesn't make it intrinsically good or valuable. Unless you inordinately value learning from  your mistakes.

There are some who suggest that the only time we learn is from our mistakes. I wouldn’t go that far, but I do find them valuable. In taijiquan pushing hands we are taught to “invest in loss.”

 

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

It might be perfect to screw up for 10 000 future lifetimes, but I'd prefer to get it right in this one if I had the chance. 

Me too!

[doc benway]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

After working on meditation and taoist neigong for 15 years, it finally made sense.

I had a similar experience. 

My neigong practice sort of spontaneously morphed into what I later found out was essentially Dzogchen meditation.

In part, it was a natural outgrowth of the neigong practice.

On the other hand, there were quite a few loose ends that came together when I met my current teacher.

 

3 hours ago, dwai said:

There needs to be purification of the senses, which a practice like neigong or Yoga or some other meditation  can provide. 

 

But  the truth of “nothing is needed” is also valid. Personal effort is needed until it isn’t. Techniques are needed until they aren’t.

 

I like how Peter Fenner puts it about his many years of mostly Buddhist practice and making the transition to a more modern "non-dual" paradigm - 

'If I didn't do what I didn't need to do I would not have known I didn't need to do it...'

 

[3bob]

a few doubletakes:  

1. the truth lays us bare

2. 10, 000 lifetimes or one lifetime of ten thousand years, no problemo if one is free.

3. "the mind is a wonderful thing",  but it is not "the wonder of wonders"

4. our mind can not make the crossing and must be left behind - with the mind.

5. " one is only human" until one finds out otherwise. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by 3bob

[Bindi]

4 hours ago, 3bob said:

a few doubletakes:  

1. the truth lays us bare

2. 10, 000 lifetimes or one lifetime of ten thousand years, no problemo if one is free.

3. "the mind is a wonderful thing",  but it is not "the wonder of wonders"

4. our mind can not make the crossing and must be left behind - with the mind.

5. " one is only human" until one finds out otherwise. 

4. our mind can not make the crossing and must be left behind - with the mind.

 

My experience is that the mind is required to take us to a certain point, and it cannot take us beyond that point. A higher force is absolutely needed, akin to your 'grace'. I think I must disagree with the entire board in thinking that the mind is initially required, but at least I can agree with one person that at a certain point grace is absolutely required.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[3bob]

it is said:

"Tao gave birth to the One"....chap 42

also, "The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence"... chap 1

and, ""Only Nothing can enter no-space"...chap 43

 

and I'd say it takes the power of  Mystery (which includes aspects of Wisdom/Grace) for any to return through that Door...which in a way never really left except as being mysteries.

Edited June 2, 2018 by 3bob