Siddhis in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras - Vibhuti pada.

[Lairg]

In philosophy "knowledge" is a reification.  The state of knowing is turned into an object that exists independently of a host intelligence.

 

It may be better to refer to "knowing" as an experiential condition implicit in an intelligent entity.

 

Knowing comes from experience and from intuition.  It is highly valued in physical trades and in quantum physics.

 

Logic is a procedure applied to input statements - axioms and believed data.    Even if the axioms were true to/in some situation, it is unlikely that they could be true to all times and universes.

 

Truth is another reification.

 

It may be better to go with the flow of Life.

[Jadespear]

  On 11/30/2022 at 4:14 AM, dwai said:

Self realization is the highest knowledge, because that is what makes all other forms of knowledge possible. What is the Self? It is consciousness unconditioned. No one can prove it to you - you have to realize it yourself. We can only point to it, and show the way. 

it’s your prerogative to doubt. So how many are you going to teleport, or materialize food for, or heal? There are 8 billion people in the world - maybe at any one given moment, even if 1% are suffering (sick/starving/in danger) - which Siddhi can alleviate all their problems? 

that’s great! It’s okay to learn and pursue knowledge. But after a point it too becomes craving. 

Again, that’s your prerogative and preference. Just because Patanjali and other masters have warned against chasing Siddhis, it doesn’t mean you have to follow it. More power to you!  

 

Um, how does your first statement make any sense whatsoever?  What exactly are you referring to when you say self realization?  It makes no sense, because of the entire historical record of humanity.  No one has to achieve self realization to learn about anything else... if they did then the entire history of the world would not be what it is.  But it is, what it is.  Self realization isn't required to learn about other non-esoteric subjects.  So once again, please continue... because I'd like to understand your point of view.  And what is it higher compared to?  What is beneath it?  Self realization may be a very special piece of knowledge that we can all attain, but it's not necessary to attain it to know anything else.  

 

...alleviating all the world's problems?  Never said that was an objective.  But, I'll go there with you... if you want to compare the usefulness of skills/abilities vs faith based religions and states of mind.... then look at the history of the world.  Skills/abilities beat religion and states of mind every day.  Peoples problems are their own responsibility to overcome or deal with - that is what I believe.  Your own unique identity is only made unique by the things you have embraced in the past and what you need to overcome and embrace in the present.... without distinction and difference there would not be difference between anyone in a karmic sense.  

 

Seems that you just don't get the point on learning.  Learning never ends... it's not possible to ever really assert in absolute truth that you do know everything, that you have attained something akin to the most highest thing or whatever, that you can basically answer every question someone has without inquiring into their inquiry, without communicating with people.  Without endeavoring to learn what is going on.  I mean I get what you're trying to say in a sense that eventually enough is enough and we all need to relax and be content with ourselves.  But that too is temporary.... eventually you'll want to move along in some direction for some reason.  And just because you believe fervently in what you do and many other people have before you - doesn't in any way render your belief as true or valid.  Just look at the millions of Christians in the world...none of them really know much and are mostly all blinded by their own dogma/beliefs etc.  Same is true for every religion....  

 

I think you misunderstand the whole point I've been trying to make and you are mis-representing the subject matter and people who are interested in it.  We aren't talking about "chasing" siddhis like they are play things to be misused... we are talking about seriously understanding them and their usefulness in light of the greater context of life itself.  

 

Siddhis, I seem to remember... really translate to "accomplishment".  Accomplishment of what exactly?  Accomplishment of concentration/meditation/focus/intent/imagination toward a direction.  Almost as if they are a distinguished accomplishment of the fluctuating mind.  Some of the minds greatest abilities made manifest.  They are the divine right of every human being.

 

Your highest truth of self realization is more like the yin side to the siddhi yang side.  They can both compliment one another.  Neither is ultimately or absolutely better than the other in every life circumstance.  They both have a use.  

 

 

[Lairg]

  On 11/30/2022 at 5:08 AM, Jadespear said:

What exactly are you referring to when you say self realization?

 

So here we have the difficulty of human logic.  The word "self" has various meanings.  In this case "self" does not refer to the human but rather to the transcendental source of the human manifestation.

 

Only specialist words are suitable for such discussions and English has very few such words.

[old3bob]

I would say specialist words are not an end all solution; whereas agreement and understanding on the meaning of various words can go a long ways.  Granted some words in some languages have certain vibrational and or what could be mystical type of power and are not to be misused or misapplied.  Btw in reading the Upanishads one will see a large S used for Self-realization, thus in reference to the Self.

 

The Self can not be nailed down with the powers of the mind, (or intellect) not unlike the saying about how the "Tao can be talked about, but not the eternal Tao."  (Chp. 1)

Edited November 30, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

  On 11/30/2022 at 5:08 AM, Jadespear said:

 

Um, how does your first statement make any sense whatsoever?  What exactly are you referring to when you say self realization?  It makes no sense, because of the entire historical record of humanity.  No one has to achieve self realization to learn about anything else... if they did then the entire history of the world would not be what it is.  But it is, what it is.  Self realization isn't required to learn about other non-esoteric subjects.  So once again, please continue... because I'd like to understand your point of view.  And what is it higher compared to?  What is beneath it?  Self realization may be a very special piece of knowledge that we can all attain, but it's not necessary to attain it to know anything else.

In order to understand the Self is to know it. To know it, one has to follow the path of reduction/release - like peeling layers of an onion. This personality is a complex of layers acquired over time. All the identities we ascribe to us, all the likes and dislikes, etc.

We have to release these layers. So long as the mind latches on to these  compulsively, we cannot release them. So we work on stilling the mind, and entering deep silence via yoga (samadhi). 
 

The Siddhis you (and others are referring to) are the side effects of the mind as it progresses towards this great silence/stillness. That’s why they are called “vibhuti” (like the ash that is the byproduct of a Vedic fire ritual, or incense burning). 
 

 

  9 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

 

 

...alleviating all the world's problems?  Never said that was an objective.  But, I'll go there with you... if you want to compare the usefulness of skills/abilities vs faith based religions and states of mind.... then look at the history of the world.  Skills/abilities beat religion and states of mind every day.  Peoples problems are their own responsibility to overcome or deal with - that is what I believe.  Your own unique identity is only made unique by the things you have embraced in the past and what you need to overcome and embrace in the present.... without distinction and difference there would not be difference between anyone in a karmic sense.  

And someone with skill is able to produce peace/happiness of any lasting nature in others? 

  9 hours ago, Jadespear said:

Seems that you just don't get the point on learning.  Learning never ends... it's not possible to ever really assert in absolute truth that you do know everything, that you have attained something akin to the most highest thing or whatever, that you can basically answer every question someone has without inquiring into their inquiry, without communicating with people.  Without endeavoring to learn what is going on.  I mean I get what you're trying to say in a sense that eventually enough is enough and we all need to relax and be content with ourselves.  But that too is temporary.... eventually you'll want to move along in some direction for some reason.  And just because you believe fervently in what you do and many other people have before you - doesn't in any way render your belief as true or valid.  Just look at the millions of Christians in the world...none of them really know much and are mostly all blinded by their own dogma/beliefs etc.  Same is true for every religion....  

There is nothing wrong with learning. By all means, learn. But learning ceases to be a spiritual pursuit beyond a certain point. I’ve seen many people become compulsive learners. They’ll keep hopping from one tradition to another. The purpose of systems like yoga is not to fuel compulsive behaviors of any kind, even for learning.

  9 hours ago, Jadespear said:

I think you misunderstand the whole point I've been trying to make and you are mis-representing the subject matter and people who are interested in it.  We aren't talking about "chasing" siddhis like they are play things to be misused... we are talking about seriously understanding them and their usefulness in light of the greater context of life itself.  
 

No one has stopped you from doing that. But that is not the purpose of yoga. Usually people who do what you’re suggesting get sidetracked by these things. 

  9 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Siddhis, I seem to remember... really translate to "accomplishment".  Accomplishment of what exactly?  Accomplishment of concentration/meditation/focus/intent/imagination toward a direction.  Almost as if they are a distinguished accomplishment of the fluctuating mind.  Some of the minds greatest abilities made manifest.  They are the divine right of every human being.

 

Your highest truth of self realization is more like the yin side to the siddhi yang side.  They can both compliment one another.  Neither is ultimately or absolutely better than the other in every life circumstance.  They both have a use.  

 

 

Self is beyond categories, beyond duality of yin and yang. It is beyond comparison with anything else. That is why Self knowledge is considered the highest form. To ask the question, “why is Self the highest knowledge?” itself requires the Self (aka consciousness). It is just because the ordinary mind is outwardly focused that it misses this very important point.

[Jadespear]

  On 11/30/2022 at 2:38 PM, dwai said:

In order to understand the Self is to know it. To know it, one has to follow the path of reduction/release - like peeling layers of an onion. This personality is a complex of layers acquired over time. All the identities we ascribe to us, all the likes and dislikes, etc.

We have to release these layers. So long as the mind latches on to these  compulsively, we cannot release them. So we work on stilling the mind, and entering deep silence via yoga (samadhi). 
 

The Siddhis you (and others are referring to) are the side effects of the mind as it progresses towards this great silence/stillness. That’s why they are called “vibhuti” (like the ash that is the byproduct of a Vedic fire ritual, or incense burning). 
 

 

And someone with skill is able to produce peace/happiness of any lasting nature in others? 

There is nothing wrong with learning. By all means, learn. But learning ceases to be a spiritual pursuit beyond a certain point. I’ve seen many people become compulsive learners. They’ll keep hopping from one tradition to another. The purpose of systems like yoga is not to fuel compulsive behaviors of any kind, even for learning.

No one has stopped you from doing that. But that is not the purpose of yoga. Usually people who do what you’re suggesting get sidetracked by these things. 

Self is beyond categories, beyond duality of yin and yang. It is beyond comparison with anything else. That is why Self knowledge is considered the highest form. To ask the question, “why is Self the highest knowledge?” itself requires the Self (aka consciousness). It is just because the ordinary mind is outwardly focused that it misses this very important point.

 

Once again Dwai - your response contains nice information, but you haven't responded to the first direct question.  Can you?  Knowing what one is, is only 1 piece of knowledge.  That 1 piece does not contain within it every other piece of knowledge that could ever be learned.  It's like your saying that the engine of a car contains all the knowledge of the car...  which simply isn't true.  The engine isn't the wheel or the axle, or the brake, or the spoke.  Just because they are interconnected doesn't distinguish unilateral identical meaning between all parts.  

 

Furthermore - your making contradictory points with regards to your overall premise.  Yoga is actually a dualism tradition, because you are asserting the fact that there is 1 thing that is absolute and true and real = the Self.  Everything else in the phenomenal world is something else.  The Self is eternally separate from the phenomena.  That's a duality.  The way the two interact is the motion of existence itself.  Isn't this the concept of "purusha" and "Prakriti" that Patanjali references?  The Purusha is the Self.  

 

The Siddhis are side effects when one approaches oneself in the way you describe.  Just because they occur more or less at random and spontaneously through that approach doesn't render them useless...  and it also doesn't render them as obsolete/pointless to understand or ever develop into something that can be controlled and used for good.  I welcome any rebuttal you have to this... but don't see how you could ever argue successfully against reason and logic.  

 

Well, I'm not sidetracked.  Thanks for the warning.  

 

Why are you so obsessed with peace and happiness?  Don't you realize that life is not all about peace and happiness all the time?  

 

Your highest knowledge still does not make sense really.  Saying knowing something is the highest thing by itself makes no sense.  Thats like saying "I know how to make the best meal in the world". and then never making it for anyone ever.  Wow, it's a great self comforting fact to think about as you walk around, but is of no use to anyone in a practical sense beyond conceptual and theoretical understanding.  Thats why it's the beginning, not the end.  

[dwai]

  On 11/30/2022 at 4:33 PM, Jadespear said:

 

Once again Dwai - your response contains nice information, but you haven't responded to the first direct question.  Can you?  Knowing what one is, is only 1 piece of knowledge.  That 1 piece does not contain within it every other piece of knowledge that could ever be learned.  It's like your saying that the engine of a car contains all the knowledge of the car...  which simply isn't true.  The engine isn't the wheel or the axle, or the brake, or the spoke.  Just because they are interconnected doesn't distinguish unilateral identical meaning between all parts.  

"Knowing this, everything is known" is intended for spiritual/higher knowledge, not transactional knowledge. What it means is once Self-knowledge arises, all other questions regarding spiritual matters become irrelevant. 

  23 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Furthermore - your making contradictory points with regards to your overall premise.  Yoga is actually a dualism tradition, because you are asserting the fact that there is 1 thing that is absolute and true and real = the Self.  Everything else in the phenomenal world is something else.  The Self is eternally separate from the phenomena.  That's a duality.  The way the two interact is the motion of existence itself.  Isn't this the concept of "purusha" and "Prakriti" that Patanjali references?  The Purusha is the Self.  

Actually, you are right that Yoga is based originally on Samkhya - the dualistic philosophy of Purusha and Prakriti. And yoga can be considered as a preparatory phase for nondual systems. Yoga will take you to Nirvikalpa samadhi, which is the first step in nondual realization. To get to nondual realization, the yogi then has to rely on savikalpa samadhi and develop the non-grasping mind (aka no-mind) to release the compulsive patterns that bind them to the cycle of craving and aversion. 

  23 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

The Siddhis are side effects when one approaches oneself in the way you describe.  Just because they occur more or less at random and spontaneously through that approach doesn't render them useless...  and it also doesn't render them as obsolete/pointless to understand or ever develop into something that can be controlled and used for good.  I welcome any rebuttal you have to this... but don't see how you could ever argue successfully against reason and logic.  

Which is more important? The fire from a burning log or the ashes? The fire from a burning log is the mind that is being purified. The ashes are the by-products (vibhuti/siddhis). That is the position of the masters of Yoga, Vedanta, etc. I agree with them. You don't. That's your prerogative. I don't think it is a matter of logic so much as the objective of one's practice. If your practice is to gain these siddhis to understand and use them for whatever purposes, then you will pursue them. If your objective is to develop a non-grasping mind and Self-realization, then you will not give them much importance. 

  23 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Well, I'm not sidetracked.  Thanks for the warning.  

 

Why are you so obsessed with peace and happiness?  Don't you realize that life is not all about peace and happiness all the time?

 

Everything anyone ever does is in pursuit of happiness and peace. Whether they realize it or not, it doesn't matter. 

  23 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 Your highest knowledge still does not make sense really.  Saying knowing something is the highest thing by itself makes no sense.  Thats like saying "I know how to make the best meal in the world". and then never making it for anyone ever.  Wow, it's a great self comforting fact to think about as you walk around, but is of no use to anyone in a practical sense beyond conceptual and theoretical understanding.  Thats why it's the beginning, not the end.  

That's correct - the highest knowledge is of no use to anyone in the transactional sense.  

[old3bob]

My take:

The highest knowledge of mind is still of the mind,  Self is not of the mind yet it knows the mind for what it is or can be boiled down to, namely a thing or of things,  and to know that in a non-regular way of knowing is of great benefit in all worlds being that there is freedom of Beingness in said worlds through the important actions (of Self through Guru) namely compassion, inspirational sharing, helping and uplifting  for those caught in suffering or not yet free.  (with the Upanishads being revealed and given as inspiration from Rishi's as one major example of same) 

Edited December 1, 2022 by old3bob

[Jadespear]

  On 12/1/2022 at 3:50 PM, dwai said:

"Knowing this, everything is known" is intended for spiritual/higher knowledge, not transactional knowledge. What it means is once Self-knowledge arises, all other questions regarding spiritual matters become irrelevant. 

Actually, you are right that Yoga is based originally on Samkhya - the dualistic philosophy of Purusha and Prakriti. And yoga can be considered as a preparatory phase for nondual systems. Yoga will take you to Nirvikalpa samadhi, which is the first step in nondual realization. To get to nondual realization, the yogi then has to rely on savikalpa samadhi and develop the non-grasping mind (aka no-mind) to release the compulsive patterns that bind them to the cycle of craving and aversion. 

Which is more important? The fire from a burning log or the ashes? The fire from a burning log is the mind that is being purified. The ashes are the by-products (vibhuti/siddhis). That is the position of the masters of Yoga, Vedanta, etc. I agree with them. You don't. That's your prerogative. I don't think it is a matter of logic so much as the objective of one's practice. If your practice is to gain these siddhis to understand and use them for whatever purposes, then you will pursue them. If your objective is to develop a non-grasping mind and Self-realization, then you will not give them much importance. 

Everything anyone ever does is in pursuit of happiness and peace. Whether they realize it or not, it doesn't matter. 

That's correct - the highest knowledge is of no use to anyone in the transactional sense.  

 

Too bad that you don't see everything as a "spiritual" thing.  I think the great misconception everyone ever always has is thinking like that.  That somehow, parts of life and existence are pointless compared to others.  I don't see how there can be any classification of what is higher/lower or sideways about any of it.  It's all part of life, therefore it's all important.  Thats all I'm saying.  Wonderous supernatural things included.  

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

  On 12/1/2022 at 8:07 PM, Jadespear said:

 

Too bad that you don't see everything as a "spiritual" thing.  I think the great misconception everyone ever always has is thinking like that.  That somehow, parts of life and existence are pointless compared to others.  I don't see how there can be any classification of what is higher/lower or sideways about any of it.  It's all part of life, therefore it's all important.  Thats all I'm saying.  Wonderous supernatural things included.  

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, there is no life or existence apart from the "spiritual" thing. The Universe is the physical body of Brahman, the collective unconscious is Brahman's subtle body/mind, and "God" is the causal body of Brahman. In other words, Samsara is Nirvana, and Nirvana is Samsara (the form is void, and void is the form). 

 

However, the difference is needed in learning/teaching - to help separate the appearance (names and forms) from the source. Why? Because names and forms are all, we see until someone shows us otherwise. We are like someone who doesn't know that the images and sounds being played in the movie theater on the screen are appearances. There is a lot of seriousness and associated problems as a result of this mistake of taking the appearance for reality. Without realizing the underlying unity, people behave in ugly ways to make their lives "better." (hurt, kill, steal, cheat, hate). Me and you, Us and them, mine and yours. Such people would just as quickly use a siddhi to their benefit than for the good of the world.

 

So we teach to separate the appearance from the source (discernment of unreal and real). Once that is established, we teach that the individual is none apart from the source (jiva is brahman) and that the appearance is none apart from the source (samsara is brahman). 

 

Why do we need to do this? Because the Self is hidden in plain sight, always there, yet never recognized, because it is the closest of the close to us. That's why the Upanishads refer to it as "closer than the closest, farther than the farthest, bigger than the biggest, smaller than the smallest," and so on.  

 

[Jadespear]

  On 12/1/2022 at 8:30 PM, dwai said:

In my opinion, there is no life or existence apart from the "spiritual" thing. The Universe is the physical body of Brahman, the collective unconscious is Brahman's subtle body/mind, and "God" is the causal body of Brahman. In other words, Samsara is Nirvana, and Nirvana is Samsara (the form is void, and void is the form). 

 

However, the difference is needed in learning/teaching - to help separate the appearance (names and forms) from the source. Why? Because names and forms are all, we see until someone shows us otherwise. We are like someone who doesn't know that the images and sounds being played in the movie theater on the screen are appearances. There is a lot of seriousness and associated problems as a result of this mistake of taking the appearance for reality. Without realizing the underlying unity, people behave in ugly ways to make their lives "better." (hurt, kill, steal, cheat, hate). Me and you, Us and them, mine and yours. Such people would just as quickly use a siddhi to their benefit than for the good of the world.

 

So we teach to separate the appearance from the source (discernment of unreal and real). Once that is established, we teach that the individual is none apart from the source (jiva is brahman) and that the appearance is none apart from the source (samsara is brahman). 

 

Why do we need to do this? Because the Self is hidden in plain sight, always there, yet never recognized, because it is the closest of the close to us. That's why the Upanishads refer to it as "closer than the closest, farther than the farthest, bigger than the biggest, smaller than the smallest," and so on.  

 

 

Thank you Dwai. 

 

So, to refine your explanation... the terminology is confusing.  Nirvana is void? Void as in what? The meaning of this word in these subjects eludes me... does it mean "open"?  I think in a literal way, so to say something is void doesn't make much sense. 

 

And, does the equivalency of Samasra and Nirvana only hold true in how they relate to the reality of brahman?  Obviously, something that has form cannot be defined as being formless...  how does this make sense?

 

If you'd like, I'd like to ask you a more personal question in a separate message about the nature of a Jiva and the Self realization you talk about.  

 

 

[dwai]

  On 12/1/2022 at 10:17 PM, Jadespear said:

 

Thank you Dwai. 

 

So, to refine your explanation... the terminology is confusing.  Nirvana is void? Void as in what? The meaning of this word in these subjects eludes me... does it mean "open"?  I think in a literal way, so to say something is void doesn't make much sense. 

void is that which is not a thing. Call it emptiness, Brahman, consciousness, Buddha nature. 

  16 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

And, does the equivalency of Samasra and Nirvana only hold true in how they relate to the reality of brahman?  Obviously, something that has form cannot be defined as being formless...  how does this make sense?

In the vedantic context, we’ll say there is no jagat apart from Brahman. Name and form are appearances only. What is real is Brahman. 

  16 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

If you'd like, I'd like to ask you a more personal question in a separate message about the nature of a Jiva and the Self realization you talk about.  

 

 

Sure. 

[dwai]

A bit more on Realization and knowledge -

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Borrowed from a friend on another website, a little excerpt of what Enlightenment in the Daoist Tradition entails....a conversation between Tseng Lao-weng and John Blofeld:

Tseng Lao-weng:  'Your going to such trouble to visit me is flattering.  How may I best be of service to you?'
'You mean, why have I come, Venerable?  I have been longing to meet you ever since I heard our mutual friend describe you as an illumined sage.'
Tseng Lao-weng sighed and answered resignedly: 'Why to people talk so?  Such words are tedious.  You will find no sages here, just this old fellow and four or five other very ordinary men who are students of the Way.  It must be dissappointing for you.'
'Do not blame Yang Tao-shih, Venerable.  He wished only to make me see for myself that Buddhists do not have a monopoly of wisdom.'
'And does seeing an old man distinguished by nothing more than an unusually bushy beard convince you that they do not?'
What could I say that would not sound like flattery, which he obviously disliked?  "Venerable, it is just that, as most of my teachers are Buddhist, I am ignorant about what Taoists mean by such terms as wisdom and illumination, and about their methods of approaching the Tao.'
He laughed.  'How strange.  Can there be two kinds of wisdom, two kinds of illumination, Taoist and Buddhist?  Surely the experience of truth must be the same for all?  As to approaching the Tao, be sure that demons and executioners, let alone Buddhists, are as close to it as can be.  The one impossible thing is to get a finger's breadth away from it.  Do you suppose that some people -- this old fellow, for example -- are nearer to it than others?  Is a bird closer to the air than a tortoise or a cat?  The Tao is closer to you than the nose on your face; it is ony because you can tweak your nose that you think otherwise.  Asking about our approach to the Tao is like asking a deep-see fish how it approaches the water.  It is just a matter of recognizing what has been inside, outside and all around from the first.  Do you understand?'
'Yes I believe I do.  Certainly my Buddhist teachers have taught me that there is no attaining liberation, but only attaining recognition of what has always been from the first.'
'Excellent, excellent!  Your teachers, then, are true sages.  You are a worthy disciple, so why brave the bitter cold to visit an ordinary old fellow?  You would have learnt as much at your own fireside.'  (His harping so much on his being just an ordinary fellow was not due to exaggerated modesty, being a play on the words of which his title, Lao-weng, was composed.)
'Venerable, please don't laugh at me!  I accept your teaching that true sages have but the one goal.  Still, here in China, there are Buddhists and there are also Taoists.  Manifestly they differ; since the goal is one, the distinction must lie in their methods of approach.'
'So you are hungry not for wisdom but for knowledge!  What a pity!  Wisdom is almost as satisfying as good millet-gruel, whereas knowledge has less body to it than tepid water poured over old tea-leaves;  but if that is the fare you have come for, I can give you as much as your mistreated belly will hold.  What sort of old tea-leaves do Buddhists use, I wonder!  We Taoists use all sorts.  Some swallow medicine-balls as big as pigeon's eggs or drink tonics by the jugful, live upon unappetizing diets, take baths at intervals goverened by esoteric numbers, breathe in and out like asthmatic dragons, or jump about like Manchu bannermen hardening themselves for battle -- all this discomfort just for a few extra decades of life!  And why?  To gain more time to find what has never been lost!
And what of those pious recluses who rattle mattets against wooden-fish drums from dusk to dawn, groaning out liturgies like cholera-patients excreting watery dung?  They are penitents longing to rid themselves of a burden they never had.  These people do everything imaginable, including swallowing pills made from the vital fluids secreted by the opposide sex and lighting fires in their bellies to make the alchemic cauldrons boil -- everything, everything except -- sit still and look within.  I shall have to talk of such follies for hours, if you really want a full list of Taoist methods.  These method-users resemble mountain streams a thousand leagues from the sea.  Ah, how they chatter and gurgle, bubble and boil, rush and eddy, plunging over precipices in spectacular fashion!  How angrily they pound against the boulders and suck down their prey in treacherous whirl-pools!  But, as the streams broaden, they grow quieter and more purposeful.  They become rivers -- ah, how calm, how silent!  How majestically they sweep towards their goal, giving no impression of swiftness and, as they near the ocean, seeming not to move at all!  While noisy mountain streams are reminiscent of people chattering about the Tao and showing-off spectacular methods, rivers remind one of experienced men, taciturn, doing little, but doing it decisively; outwardly still, yet sweeping forward faster than you know.  Your teachers have offered you wisdom; then why waste time acquiring knowledge?  Methods!  Approaches!  Need the junk-master steering towards the sea, with the sails of his vessel billowing in the wind, bother his head about alternative modes of propulsion -- oars, paddles, punt-poles, tow-ropes, engines and all the rest?  Any sort of vessel, unless it founders or pitches you overboard, is good enough to take you to the one and only sea.  Now do you understand?'
Indeed I did, though not with a direct understanding firmly rooted in intuitive experience that matched his own; but I pretended to be at a loss, hoping his voice, never far from laughter, would go on and on and on; for, just as his mind when lost in the bliss of meditation had communicated a measure of its joy (on my arrival), so now it was emanating a warmth, a jollity that made me want to laugh, to sing, to dance, to shout aloud that everything is forever as it should be, provided we now and then remember to rub our eyes.
...
Tseng Lao-weng's talk of rivers flowing into the ocean had put me in mind of Sir Edwin Arnold's lovely expression of the mystery of Nirvana, 'the dew-drop slips into the shining sea', which I had long accepted as a poetical description of that moment when the seeming-individual, at last free from the shackles of the ego, merges with the Tao -- the Void.  This I knew to be an intensely blissful experience, but it was Tseng Lao-weng who now revealed its shining splendour in terms that made my heart leap.  Afterwords I wondered whether Sir Edwin Arnold himself had realized the full purport of his words.  At a certain moment in our conversation when Tseng Lao-weng paused expectantly, I translated the beautiful line for him and was rewarded by a smile of pleasure and surprise.  Eyes glowing, he replied:
'My countrymen are wrong to speak of the Western Ocean People as barbarians.  Your poet's simile is penetrating -- exalted!  And yet it does not capture the whole; for, when a lesser body of water enters a greater, though the two are henceforth inseperable, the smaller constitutes but a fragment of the whole.  But consider the Tao, which transcends both finite and infinite.  Since the Tao is All and nothing lies outside it, since its multiplicity and unity are identical, when a finite being sheds the illusion of separate existence, he is not lost in the Tao like a dew-drop merging with the sea; by casting off his imaginary limitations, he becomes immeasurable.  No longer bound by the worldly categories, 'part' and 'whole', he discoveres that he is coextensive with the Tao.  Plunge the finite into the infinite and, though only one remains, the finite, far from being diminished, takes on the stature of infinity.  Mere logicians would find fault with this, but if you perceive the hidden meaning you will laugh at their childish cavils.  Such perception will bring you face to face with the true secret cherished by all accomplished sages -- glorious, dazzling, vast, hardly conceivable!  The mind of one who Returns to the Source thereby becomes the Source.  Your own mind, for example, is destined to become the universe itself!'