Raw vs refined

[hagar]

So it boils down to this:

 

Are refining your prudent behaviour closer to an inegrated Self, thus closer or aiming at getting closer to the Way, or is Dao all about the Uncarved Block, meaning no stalling emotions, setting boundaries, being a no-sayer, etc.

 

Shoot.

 

h

[goldisheavy]

So it boils down to this:

 

Are refining your prudent behaviour closer to an inegrated Self, thus closer or aiming at getting closer to the Way, or is Dao all about the Uncarved Block, meaning no stalling emotions, setting boundaries, being a no-sayer, etc.

 

Shoot.

 

h

 

Everything is the same distance from the Dao. The distance is 0. Even the most erratic and undisciplined idiot follows Dao 100%, without the tiniest deviation. In fact, they don't even "follow" it anymore then water follows wetness, so that language is misleading in the first place.

 

The whole point of studying Dao is not so that you can follow it per se, but so that you can become wise. If you learn about the nature of appearances, you can have a better life, relatively speaking. From an ultimate point of view, there is no improvement at all that can be had by studying Dao. It's only in some limited and relative sense that some sort of improvement can be made, or that something good can be preserved.

 

The ultimate truth is like a mirror, which, in itself shows nothing, but thanks to it, you can interact with the relative truth wisely, as if removing a smudge from your face with the aid of a mirror. The ultimate truth, as anything recognizable, is relative to the relative truth though. So there is a bit of a deception in the idea of an ultimate truth. But let's say there is truth that's more important and some that's less important. The nature of distinctions is always a habit of imagination that's self-possessed, alive, malleable, and the self-possesseddness of it is called intent.

Edited February 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Aetherous]

An uncarved block is not unrefined.

[hagar]

Everything is the same distance from the Dao. The distance is 0. Even the most erratic and undisciplined idiot follows Dao 100%, without the tiniest deviation. In fact, they don't even "follow" it anymore then water follows wetness, so that language is misleading in the first place.

 

The whole point of studying Dao is not so that you can follow it per se, but so that you can become wise. If you learn about the nature of appearances, you can have a better life, relatively speaking. From an ultimate point of view, there is no improvement at all that can be had by studying Dao. It's only in some limited and relative sense that some sort of improvement can be made, or that something good can be preserved.

 

The ultimate truth is like a mirror, which, in itself shows nothing, but thanks to it, you can interact with the relative truth wisely, as if removing a smudge from your face with the aid of a mirror. The ultimate truth, as anything recognizable, is relative to the relative truth though. So there is a bit of a deception in the idea of an ultimate truth. But let's say there is truth that's more important and some that's less important. The nature of distinctions is always a habit of imagination that's self-possessed, alive, malleable, and the self-possesseddness of it is called intent.

 

If you feel like it, please elaborate your last paragraph.

 

Great post.

 

h

 

An uncarved block is not unrefined.

 

Uncarved meaning the space in you where there is no intention, or spontaneous presence?

 

Refined in a sense where you use intention to reach non-intention.

 

h

[NeutralWire]

Are refining your prudent behaviour closer to an inegrated Self, thus closer or aiming at getting closer to the Way, or is Dao all about the Uncarved Block, meaning no stalling emotions, setting boundaries, being a no-sayer, etc.

 

Good question, nicely phrased.

 

To me it is both the same. Bardon method 'works towards', aiming. You pick something and you work on it until it is done. Vital to be prudent and to be consciously as wise as you can, refining on purpose... It has to be transformed from one state into another, and you do it with the will -- so it appears in method on the surface.

 

Even so, in practice, how it feels is that I am returning to a state of greater simplicity as a result, that what I am 'doing' is actually equally undoing, depending on how you see it.

 

Negativity means 'inability to attain neutrality' rather than 'absence of positivity', that's my outlook -- hence my screen name... positivity builds towards the middle, but when you get to the middle, it appears that it was always there anyway, and one could equally say you removed what obscured it. So building and taking away seem the same to quite a big extent, and raw and refined end up being the same -- I relate more to refined because I relate spirituality to 'living well' but if I were a Buddhist I would philosophically consider them identical.

 

(Mind you, I don't relate to 'setting boundaries' as Uncarved, to me that is intention also and also very important. The Uncarved is the result -- but the uncarved was always present, the carving didn't actually alter it, so as well as being the result, it's also the cause of the result, or its own cause, the causeless cause, etc. This is related to what Bruce would call the 'face you had before you were born'.)

 

I want to know your answer Hagar!

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

EDIT: Here's a related question which has been asked before but I don't know if an answer was reached: is anything gained by incarnating and if so what? goldisheavy's answer seems to be 'a little', if wisdom is developed... an interesting issue.

Edited February 28, 2009 by NeutralWire

[Ian]

 

Refined in a sense where you use intention to reach non-intention.

 

 

That's exactly what I'm trying not to try to do !

 

 

is anything gained by incarnating ?

All too often. But it is at least possible to lose...

 

Incidentally, I'm told that there are different types of incarnation. Most types you are just enduring the results of the past until it's used up, but in human-type realms you can shed or build..

 

What I heard, anyway.

[NeutralWire]

Ian --

 

All too often. But it is at least possible to lose...

 

So you understand the question karmically, thinking it will be 'better' to lose?

 

So something is gained, something of value -- namely a reduction in karma?

 

I've always found this a paradoxical viewpoint! 'The point' of spirituality would then be to cease involuntary incarnation... so then the reason to incarnate is to cease incarnating. Therefore nothing is in fact gained by incarnating.

 

That was the reason I personally ceased to look at the question in terms of karma. Both the Western and Taoist viewpoints, it seems to me, look at things a little differently, or anyway, they are closer to what I see.

 

But you obviously feel that to lose is good and to gain is bad, where I feel that they are essentially the same, as I mentioned before. This is perhaps compatible with the Hindu/Buddhist point of view, since ceasing 'attachment to gain and loss' would mean that the idea of gain or loss alike ought to be seen as false. It's just that I don't quite connect with that whole concept.

 

NW

[DaoChild]

So it boils down to this:

 

Are refining your prudent behaviour closer to an inegrated Self, thus closer or aiming at getting closer to the Way, or is Dao all about the Uncarved Block, meaning no stalling emotions, setting boundaries, being a no-sayer, etc.

 

Shoot.

 

h

 

Both

 

I believe that by nature, we have this child-like inquisitiveness. As we age, we become more critical in, and less interested by, the world we've been raised in. We become less aware, and we find ourselves more in our thoughts as well as in our heads intellectually.

 

Refinement means bringing us back to the original state of Tao - that childlike wonder, where everything is an adventure, filled with wonder and beauty! Children have been cited by every sage of the world as some of the greatest keepers of the mysteries. Why? I believe that when we are born, we are fully immersed in the Way, and as time goes on, society (Although benefiting us) also helps deviate us..

 

Children are one of the truest sources of the Way. (My opinion)

 

Bottom line: I believe that refinement brings us back to the uncarved block. Our intellectualism helps us deviate into these finely sculpted minds, bodies. But through that, beyond that, we need the discipline to realize and acknowledge the simplicity of the world.

 

We need to return back to understanding that even the most crooked tree in the forest has supreme importance and stunning beauty.

 

 

Perfect William Blake lines to illustrate how Children are incredible Taoist Sages:

 

To see a world in a grain of sand,

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour.

 

 

 

If you ask me, Children are fascinated and will spend hours watching a single ant or butterfly.

 

"To the Mind that is still - the whole universe surrenders"

 

Have an awesome weekend.

Edited February 28, 2009 by DaoChild

[Wayfarer64]

Michaelangelo said something to the effect that his sculptures already resided in the uncarved blocks he worked on and his job was just to liberate them and give them form...His "slaves" series shows this to the greatest degree- human forms seemingly in a struggle to release themselves from the stone that is what they are made of as well as that which they "wish" to be rid of as it were...

 

Isn't this the same sort of process we are addressing here? We are made of the stuff we want to rid ourselves of to become the refined-(sculpted) result of our struggles?

Edited February 28, 2009 by Wayfarer64

[forestofsouls]

I would say it depends on where you are. Sometimes you need refinement, sometimes not.

 

I was discussing in another thread talking from an absolute perspective and from a relative perspective. I picked this up from Advaita and consider it valuable. For instance, a wise master may say "There is nothing that can be done." When you look at the arising of the subjective phenomenon we call "I", this is true: thoughts, feelings, and sensations appear and disappear according to there own rhythm, a part of an infinite chain of causes that span the entire universe. On the relative side, there is much we can by way of cultivation.

 

Usually, I cannot be in a naturally attentive, flowing state, so I apply effort. Once the momentum gets going, I can let go and coast for short periods of time. Then I start over again. This makes sense in the yin-yang perspective: there is a time for effort and action, but after a certain point this should wane and the yin cycle begins, etc.

 

I wonder if the whole path isn't like this: refine to a certain point where you can let it all go. I can't help but think, from the relative side, that the quickest way to go nowhere is to do... nothing.

[Spectrum]

shootz if you can rawly refine you'll shread curves through sliced bread.

[hagar]

Good question, nicely phrased.

 

To me it is both the same. Bardon method 'works towards', aiming. You pick something and you work on it until it is done. Vital to be prudent and to be consciously as wise as you can, refining on purpose... It has to be transformed from one state into another, and you do it with the will -- so it appears in method on the surface.

 

Even so, in practice, how it feels is that I am returning to a state of greater simplicity as a result, that what I am 'doing' is actually equally undoing, depending on how you see it.

 

Negativity means 'inability to attain neutrality' rather than 'absence of positivity', that's my outlook -- hence my screen name... positivity builds towards the middle, but when you get to the middle, it appears that it was always there anyway, and one could equally say you removed what obscured it. So building and taking away seem the same to quite a big extent, and raw and refined end up being the same -- I relate more to refined because I relate spirituality to 'living well' but if I were a Buddhist I would philosophically consider them identical.

 

(Mind you, I don't relate to 'setting boundaries' as Uncarved, to me that is intention also and also very important. The Uncarved is the result -- but the uncarved was always present, the carving didn't actually alter it, so as well as being the result, it's also the cause of the result, or its own cause, the causeless cause, etc. This is related to what Bruce would call the 'face you had before you were born'.)

 

I want to know your answer Hagar!

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

EDIT: Here's a related question which has been asked before but I don't know if an answer was reached: is anything gained by incarnating and if so what? goldisheavy's answer seems to be 'a little', if wisdom is developed... an interesting issue.

 

Thank you NW:

 

My answer is that I cannot settle into a conclusion. I really don't know. This issue is deeply, and existentially problematic. Both in my practice and life.

 

But the simple question is that effort, intention, structure, restraint, is in itself meaningless. If you aknowledge the inherent nihilistic nature of all effort, when you take your hopes, longing and ambition out of the equation, refinement and letting go are not antagonistic. They are both in a sense absurd. There is nothing to let go of.

 

Early this morning, I looked at the face of my sleeping son. I realized how much he had to learn, how much of his original purity, innosence and openness that he will have to relinquish to gain what part of acceptance, insight and knowledge that is necessary to function in this life. But what if spiritual cultivation is countering this process, of reclaiming stupidity, yet at the same time remain an adult with boundaries and a sense of self.

 

I feel this is a paradox, as I see that most masters that have reached a certain self-acceptance also have a strong sense of self, and of their boundaries. Yet, what part of me do I let go off to gain access to the kingdom of god?

Probably not the part that is not aware of how he's eating his popcorn as he is watching Star Wars.

 

h

[NeutralWire]

Hagar your writing is very beautiful.

 

The 'strong sense of self and of boundaries' thing, to me, is an entirely different level from refinement vs. letting go. Can you explain what you feel they have to do with one another?

 

In other words, why would it matter whether you refined or let go, from the point of view of having a strong sense of self and personal boundaries? I am not sure I see the relevance of one to the other.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

Edited March 3, 2009 by NeutralWire

[hagar]

Hagar your writing is very beautiful.

 

The 'strong sense of self and of boundaries' thing, to me, is an entirely different level from refinement vs. letting go. Can you explain what you feel they have to do with one another?

 

In other words, why would it matter whether you refined or let go, from the point of view of having a strong sense of self and personal boundaries? I am not sure I see the relevance of one to the other.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

Well, I'm talking of the basic, healthy sense of personal limitations and needs that a child has before it is taught to surpass them

So "raw" in the sense of being immediately and closely connected to feelings and needs, like "No, I don't want to go there now", or " I like green". These are natural preferences that comes from spontaneous impulse that is rooted in your true Nature.

 

The boundaries that we establish as mature individuals are more or less functional. The container or "vessel" for our spiritual journey is all bout reclaiming our natural boundaries. The natural and immediate No!. But this No nees a mature sense of empathy for others, which is gained through a process of refinement. There is nothing "natural" in real empathy for anothers experience. This comes through knowing one self, and through that understand the experience that others have.

 

There is so much we as adults need to refine; emotions, attachements, views, bodily and energetic blockages, memories and beliefs. But what part of us dissapears and is reclaimed by the natural state of things when we don't hold on, and control anymore. There is so much about cultivation that is control. Meditation is NOT about control. Gaining access to the chi is about stepping back. So in a sense holding on yet letting go.

 

h

 

Did that answer your question?

[NeutralWire]

Yes and no. Your point of view is very different from mine... I will ask more questions, but if it becomes boring for you, don't answer!

 

So "raw" in the sense of being immediately and closely connected to feelings and needs, like "No, I don't want to go there now", or " I like green". These are natural preferences that comes from spontaneous impulse that is rooted in your true Nature.

 

I'm rather surprised at this point of view! So you don't believe then, that these are arbitrary attachments derived from a superficial animal way of seeing?... EDIT ah! hold on, you mean the spontaneity itself not the object of the spontaneity. Right? In other words what you are talking about in this whole thread is innocence vs. experience, and truth to one's true nature, and which is truer, right?

 

There is nothing "natural" in real empathy for anothers experience. This comes through knowing one self, and through that understand the experience that others have.

 

Again very surprising! So you do not feel that a small child has the ability to feel real empathy?

 

There is so much we as adults need to refine; emotions, attachements, views, bodily and energetic blockages, memories and beliefs.

 

So you do not see this refinement as 'returning to the original'? (and hence letting go)

 

There is so much about cultivation that is control.

 

Also surprising! What is about control in your view?

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

Edited March 3, 2009 by NeutralWire

[hagar]

Yes and no. Your point of view is very from mine... I will ask more questions, but if it becomes boring for you, don't answer!

I'm rather surprised at this point of view! So you don't believe then, that these are arbitrary attachments derived from a superficial animal way of seeing?... EDIT ah! hold on, you mean the spontaneity itself not the object of the spontaneity. Right? In other words what you are talking about in this whole thread is innocence vs. experience, and truth to one's true nature, and which is truer, right?

Again very surprising! So you do not feel that a small child has the ability to feel real empathy?

So you do not see this refinement as 'returning to the original'? (and hence letting go)

Also surprising! What is about control in your view?

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

Ah, finally we're getting somewhere... Informed disagreement is rare.

 

I'm tempted to answer your questions, will have to come back when there's time. But in brief:

 

- Sense of self; Remember a story of a hermit that lived on the other side of a mountain from his best friend. One day he set off to see him. He walked and climbed all day, yet when he was but a turn in the path from his friend's hut, he stopped, and turned back. He had changed his mind.

This is the form of naturalness I'm talking about, and something that is reclaimed. A fresh, unintenionality that is pure and vital, yet totally a-social.

 

- What is superficial in animals?

- Yes, I mean spontaneity istself. Method has no truth in it, as it is discarded as soon as truth is gained, like when the shoe fits, you walk to your destination.

- How can a child have empathy? It has no experience? Some years ago, I worked at a drug rehab institution. I had only sympathy, not empathy. Only after realizing where my own "hookedness" is, where I hold on did I reach a certain ability to feel real empathy. So this is by definition a process of maturation.

A small child has no ability to put itself in the place of another, only a sound lack of separateness from what is "other".

- Again, refinement is in itself a method of surpassing conditioning, not an end in itself. We all are cast into darkness, and have to find ourself back, thus effort is needed, yet effort is nothing with out proper measure, thus the "return" home is about recognizing what is allready there. That you are allready home. The paving to this "jump" is usually done with effort to let go of fear, and wrong views.

 

The jump itself is pure ease.

[NeutralWire]

Informed disagreement is rare.

 

I find that asking questions tends to open this up... I also will answer quickly as I have to be elsewhere.

 

Sense of self; Remember a story of a hermit that lived on the other side of a mountain from his best friend. One day he set off to see him. He walked and climbed all day, yet when he was but a turn in the path from his friend's hut, he stopped, and turned back. He had changed his mind.

This is the form of naturalness I'm talking about, and something that is reclaimed. A fresh, unintenionality that is pure and vital, yet totally a-social.

 

Could you explain what you mean by 'a-social'? What in this example is a-social? What in general in a human being is social or a-social?

 

What is superficial in animals?

 

In animals nothing! In humans alot of difficulty and need for refinement comes from inability to assimilate an animalistic nature (see below on the sword test)....

 

- Yes, I mean spontaneity istself. Method has no truth in it, as it is discarded as soon as truth is gained, like when the shoe fits, you walk to your destination.

 

Things must 'become unconscious again', yes. This is equivalent to that very useful NLP concept of 'unconscious competence'. But why is this a problem? After all, if you succeed in meeting the need to refine, haven't you become unconscious and natural again?

 

How can a child have empathy? It has no experience? Some years ago, I worked at a drug rehab institution. I had only sympathy, not empathy. Only after realizing where my own "hookedness" is, where I hold on did I reach a certain ability to feel real empathy. So this is by definition a process of maturation.

 

We disagree here... to me the nature of empathy is precisely the same in adults and children, what has changed is the greater sense of self (which you are referring to), so that one is able to tell, these are not my feelings, and the ability to interpret the experiences, to understand the story of them.

 

Is this helpful? I think we are getting closer. We are talking about individuation, and what it takes to become an adult, and that spontaneity may be lost, and how to regain it. My original answer, waaaaay back up there was: can you not refine to spontaneity? Can you not by art achieve simplicity? It seems to me that you can. That is why I mentioned that if you succeed in 'building' the person you must be, you also reveal what was there all along and did not need to be built.

 

The ninja sword test is appropriate to think about here. Instinctively and without thought you save yourself -- but only having learned by art to still yourself, which means being able to ride the dragon, the animal nature. If you simply give in to fear, you won't pass. Which is more spontaneous, giving into fear, or the refined human being who passes the test?

 

In the seed of a human being is the child and the adult and the one near death. The immortal one does not change in time. The one who changes in time must either change towards the immortal one, or away from him.

 

Again, refinement is in itself a method of surpassing conditioning, not an end in itself. We all are cast into darkness, and have to find ourself back, thus effort is needed, yet effort is nothing with out proper measure, thus the "return" home is about recognizing what is allready there. That you are allready home. The paving to this "jump" is usually done with effort to let go of fear, and wrong views.

 

Indeed, agree with that and it is precisely what I thought I said at first?

 

What you are saying is equivalent to the zen notion: 'There is always an easy way, therefore strive hard!'

 

But if you already understand this, what's the question you are asking? Because you are saying you already realize that it isn't one or the other, either/or; you are saying you know it is both raw and refined because they imply each other. Aren't you?

 

NW

Edited March 3, 2009 by NeutralWire

[gendao]

"Raw" or "unrefined" are all relative and subjective - and therefore not good quantitative measures here.

 

The real hallmark for how closely aligned you are with the Way is your efficiency. When you are doing things the right Way, you maximize your results/effort ratio for "effortless power." That is why at the highest levels it is called wu wei - the action of non-action.

 

A concrete example of this would be (authentic) IMA, where subtle force is employed over crude, brute force...

 

However, you don't attain the Way simply by being effortless or via non-action. That's putting the cart before the horse. Rather, ONLY once you HAVE properly attained the Way...can you achieve "effortless" results and "action through non-action." HUGE, CRITICAL distinction there that most people get AZZ BACKWARDZ.

 

This is why most IMAr's can't fight their way out of a wet paper sack - because they foolishly believe that simply "relaxing" and being effortlessly "soft" will give them power. When they have confused the symptoms with the root cause here - and what they should be doing is figuring out that real root cause first. Then, once they have attained the right Way there, all the rest will follow as mere side effects/byproducts... But not vice-versa.

 

IOW:

Right way => effortlessness

Effortlessness =/=> right way

Edited March 3, 2009 by vortex

[hagar]

"Raw" or "unrefined" are all relative and subjective - and therefore not good quantitative measures here.

 

The real hallmark for how closely aligned you are with the Way is your efficiency. When you are doing things the right Way, you maximize your results/effort ratio for "effortless power." That is why at the highest levels it is called wu wei - the action of non-action.

 

A concrete example of this would be (authentic) IMA, where subtle force is employed over crude, brute force...

 

However, you don't attain the Way simply by being effortless or via non-action. That's putting the cart before the horse. Rather, ONLY once you HAVE properly attained the Way...can you achieve "effortless" results and "action through non-action." HUGE, CRITICAL distinction there that most people get AZZ BACKWARDZ.

 

This is why most IMAr's can't fight their way out of a wet paper sack - because they foolishly believe that simply "relaxing" and being effortlessly "soft" will give them power. When they have confused the symptoms with the root cause here - and what they should be doing is figuring out that real root cause first. Then, once they have attained the right Way there, all the rest will follow as mere side effects/byproducts... But not vice-versa.

 

IOW:

Right way => effortlessness

Effortlessness =/=> right way

 

Actually, eventhough I feel it has a tint of instrumental attitude to it, that's by far one of the most spot on explanations of what is a qigong-state . Yet it would not be my description, since it is similar to an engineer's it's as unsentimental and compelling.

 

But quantitative? May I ask you to elaborate?

 

h

[hagar]

a-social in the sense of not being moved, defined or motivated by social norms, and in a sense being indifferent to them. Not in the sense of anti- but in a transcended state, as non or a-.

 

 

 

In a way, we're talking about different things. Natural life, as originally in humans, blossoms where there is lack of intention. In social groups where a long process of opening has been happening, the moment of release of attention, where there is no longer a need to "see" the other, as basic trust is established, the Dao is manifesting in the relations.

Without going into psychology, toddlers or infants do not have a dualistic sense of the world, so that when another infant is crying, they will cry. When someone is taking their toy, they feel no loss. But empathy in the mature sense of sharing the complexity of an experience is impossible to even bigger child.

Empathy is an aquired state of mind.

 

I'd say that there is no giving into fear. Fear is a natural reaction, yet giving in means being aware of loss. So in that sense, if I am the Ninja, spontaneous reactions towards danger is natural, yet fear of loss is aquired, and that's where the shedding of false sense of self needs work, and intention.

To liberate oneself is a radical process of opening where you realize that conscious effort is futile, yet you need to do it to realize its futility. Only the person who in an instant sees that he is allready there, will get there. The avid practitioner, who with immense effort refines his subtle body and spirit every day, will never get there.

In a way you could say that the drunk man looking at the stars is closer to the truth than the aspiring mystic. Yet you need intention and effort to become conscious of the difference. so its a paradox.

To see it as clear cut, I find is unproductive. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

In the seed of a human being is the child and the adult and the one near death. The immortal one does not change in time. The one who changes in time must either change towards the immortal one, or away from him.

Indeed, agree with that and it is precisely what I thought I said at first?

Very nicely put. Nothing more to say. You're less ambivalent about this, which is probably good! )

Edited March 3, 2009 by hagar

[Wayfarer64]

I'm also not getting the quantitative difference... I still see this as steps through a process and not an end in itself...We take what is raw and refine it. There is a likely later stage where a grinding down of what has been refined then becomes something coarse - becoming something akin to sand for sand paper to then become the instrument of refining..

 

There are steps and a master is often useful for this "sculpting" process...We carve and we adjust and we reuse what we can; but it seems we are each changing all the time always in a process of delving within to extract what is dross.- (is that quantitative ?)- in the losing of what is useless for what is useful, true to the inherent nature of our own potential...

 

That seems to be part of my process anyway, maybe not a complete discription in any way but an apt metaphor. I like the idea of less is more in terms of energy vs outcome when it is relating to addressing needs with no frivolous agendas being of any concern.

[rain]

"....blossoms where there is lack of intention".

 

veldig vakkert

 

tror jeg

[NeutralWire]

You're less ambivalent about this, which is probably good! )

 

Truly I'm not ambivalent about it; I don't see why you are unless because you find the tension useful. This I really think is possible!

 

When 'it' occurs it doesn't feel like a sucker-punch to me. Often a moment of 'enlightenment' has the connotation of, how stupid I am, I only act out of my own way, it is here all along, etc. But these are gifts! If I feel stupid, I laugh, and continue, if I feel tragic, I cry and continue... but I have achieved something, even if 'achievement' seems normally to mean something different.

 

I agree with Vortex and he is saying in another way what I said about the NLP thing -- unconscious competence. You must know the formula? It is a question of laying down the habit of doing something correctly so that after a while 'it' does it correctly. Then all is simple... but there has been a change, you are closer in line with the immortal one. And so it continues.

 

Sometimes we forget how far we have come.

 

To liberate oneself is a radical process of opening where you realize that conscious effort is futile, yet you need to do it to realize its futility.

 

What I don't get is why you use the word 'futile'. I think that's your judgement! You aim to do something, eventually you do it. But that moment of doing it makes you see that there was in a way nothing to do. Still you did do it! So there is nothing futile there for me.

 

You strive at the right time and you let go at the right time, and if not you are prompted. This is the process!

 

Only the person who in an instant sees that he is allready there, will get there. The avid practitioner, who with immense effort refines his subtle body and spirit every day, will never get there.

 

But they are the same person. You don't see in an instant without immense prior effort, and the effort doesn't pay off if you don't see in an instant.

 

In a way you could say that the drunk man looking at the stars is closer to the truth than the aspiring mystic.

 

Only very superficially. Human beings must learn, that is what they are here for!

 

The sufis say, you can't find it by seeking it, but only seekers find it. There isn't any choice! Which is why you said:

 

Yet you need intention and effort to become conscious of the difference.

 

Exactly. Only that effort makes a human being, there is no other way! But then you suddenly add:

 

so its a paradox.

 

... which I don't get.

 

To see it as clear cut, I find is unproductive. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

I think you don't want to resolve the tension because you find it useful... in which case, no more to speak of!

 

I leave alone the empathy and the ninja, it wasn't working.

 

NW

[hagar]

I'm also not getting the quantitative difference... I still see this as steps through a process and not an end in itself...We take what is raw and refine it. There is a likely later stage where a grinding down of what has been refined then becomes something coarse - becoming something akin to sand for sand paper to then become the instrument of refining..

 

There are steps and a master is often useful for this "sculpting" process...We carve and we adjust and we reuse what we can; but it seems we are each changing all the time always in a process of delving within to extract what is dross.- (is that quantitative ?)- in the losing of what is useless for what is useful, true to the inherent nature of our own potential...

 

That seems to be part of my process anyway, maybe not a complete discription in any way but an apt metaphor. I like the idea of less is more in terms of energy vs outcome when it is relating to addressing needs with no frivolous agendas being of any concern.

 

Insightful.

 

I feel abit ashamed at being so unresolved about the process, since reading both you and NWs accounts of your pragmatic approach.

 

Yet there is for me a really fine line between necessary refinement and just blindly following the "busy bee" blueprint of an avid practitioner. For me the whole process comes down to the present moment in practice where I struggle with this:

 

How to tune in to the cosmic energy when inducing practice as process? If I give up, surrender, and resond, the whole moment changes. If I stick to structrure, my plan, so to speak, there is very little space for transformation, and I am left with mainly the finely grinded nuances of my best intentions as "output" of practice.

 

(to NW)

So when I wrote effort is futile, I mean to gain access to the effect, the state of chi/space that one wants to be realigned with, effort is futile. It is really an obstacle to use effort, to work "hard". The less you do, the more you "forget" you are "doing" anything, the more you soak in the chi. The more I am an expert, an "advanced practitioner" who summons his experience and directs whatever energy I want wherever I want, the result is only proportional to what I put in, which is really not that great. If on the other hand, I step out of myself, and let the great unknown forces do their uncontrollable thing, everything is allready different.

 

So there is nothing to sculpt, shape, grind. There is unneccesary effort, and there is no refinement made by me that is worth anything: If I am able to finally sit in full lotus, or stand in horse stance, yet all that is only right if I see it as kind of a destructive process, as removing something, not adding. Removing "me", or the "doing", and the "work".

That's probably as close to the truth I can come.

 

But hey, maybe I am just revealing my ignorance and immature attitude towards practice. It so, I apologize, yet I do have learnt something.

 

h

[gendao]

Actually, eventhough I feel it has a tint of instrumental attitude to it, that's by far one of the most spot on explanations of what is a qigong-state . Yet it would not be my description, since it is similar to an engineer's it's as unsentimental and compelling.

 

But quantitative? May I ask you to elaborate?

Good read, as I am an engineer...

 

Anyhow, there's not always a good quantitative measure with our limited technology, but just to give a mundane example:

 

Let's say you want to increase your athletic ability: bench press, vertical jump, whatever...

 

Training method A, using grueling brute force workouts, results in 10% gains over 2 months.

Training method B, using a different kind of lower-intensity workouts, results in 25% gains over 2 months.

 

Now, method B would then likely and quantitatively be more closely aligned with the Way - the smarter and more "right/proper" method as evidenced by its greater efficiency (more results with less effort). Cuz the more correctly you're doing it, the less effort it requires.

 

However, as I said, my frustration stems from the fact that many teachers of the "Way," tend to teach the SYMPTOMS rather than the ROOT CAUSE of the Way. As if by mimicking the symptoms, you will somehow effect the root cause. Which may not hurt, but won't really get you there either. In fact, it may even often stagnate you into years of wishful delusion.

 

This would be like simply using less effort as with method B, but the incorrect method...yet expecting the same great results. When it wasn't less effort that produced the enhanced yield, but the CORRECT METHOD.

 

So again, being effortless will not give you power. Doing things the right way, will give you effortless power. IOW, you can only achieve wu wei (action of non-action) by finding the right Way (not vice-versa)...

 

And getting this backwards is probably the single, most common mistake in applied Taoism!

Edited March 4, 2009 by vortex