Blank3.html

無

Here I will try to present, hopefully with their help, a summary of a discussion that took place between Ohc, Nina, and me (Raymond). The discussion was concerned with the possibility of cultivating the "daoist" principles of Laozi, or as I would put it: can one cultivate the mind/body so that this mind/body is better able to respond to the world around it in a manner that is called "zi ran" by Laozi? Laozi said that "zi ran" operates according to what he called the "dao."

*******************************************************

Hopefully there will be a statement here from OhC and Nina, these can be re-edited by all parties, after they have seen what the others have written.

*********************************************************

OhC:

In this conversation, and others, the idea of Dao and dao has been
presented: big-D Dao - the manifest, the Dao that can be described,
observed, talked about, known, the something; the little-d dao - the
non-manifest, the eternal dao of mystery, the one beyond knowing, the
nothing.

Discussions, cultivations and practices - all occur in the realm of the
manifest Dao - and for what I have observed to be two reasons. First, to
increase the contentment and enjoyment of life by flowing naturally with
things, rather than against them and, secondly, to hopefully bring one to a
place of attunement where the non-manifest dao is realized.

My position is that everything has two components or aspects: one is
manifest, the other non-manifest. In the manifest - there are separate
entities [there is a difference between an apple and a rock], each entity
has its own nature - it just does what it does, lives and cycles to its own
time and rhythm. The other component of each entity is the non-manifest, the
nothing. Unlike the manifested aspects, in which one can discern
differences, the non-manifest component is the SAME nothing that is in EACH
entity. That SAME nothing - that is the non-manifest component - is the
unification between all things, and is the eternal dao - the nothing.

An interesting side-note is that of potential; appearing to reside primarily
in the nothing, with its unity/source in the manifest - whereas the known,
which resides in the manifest, has its unity/source in the nothing.

Will focusing on Dao bring one to a point of realizing the unity of the
nothing (dao) ? Good question, that. Though it brings many benefits for
enjoying life, the specific purpose of cultivating Dao the manifest in order
to realize dao the non-manifest - seems quite a long way around the barn. If
you focus on an apple will you eventually find a rock? Perhaps :-)

Whether one eventually realizes or not - the nothing (dao) is eternal and
unchanging... the 10,000 things (Dao) eternally change within its own
duality... and together the Dao and dao form the Not-two - the all, the
nameless.

OhC

****************************************************

Raymond: From my point of view, when one is responding to the world of phenomena in the manner that is called "zi ran," one has an experience that OhC described as

"....there is a sense of clarity, a feeling of connection and understanding....like it all makes sense. Its beyond a place of words and knowing. It's being attuned to the emptyness, the silnece, the black. Know the white (Dao) and keep to the black (dao) the white you can know, the black you can attune to."

I can relate in my experience to what OhC seems to be saying in the above statement, but I myself do not know what the substance of this experience actually is, and I do not know what "Dao" and "zi ran" actually are. I apply these terms simply as metaphors. The metaphors help me notice that I can cultivate behaviors in myself that seem to make my relationship with the world around me go more effectively for me. In other words I enjoy myself more as I continually learn how to better behave in a manner that I metaphorically call "ziran."

When OhC seems to suggest that I don't need to cultivate anything that I am not already, that I am already "one with the dao," I don't relate. I don't know what "one with the dao" means, other than "one" being a metaphor for being relatively more, rather than less, in harmony, with the world around me.

I seem to differ from both Nina and Ohc in that I have a goal. My continual goal is to try to continually learn how to enjoy myself more.

It appears to me that one can be relatively "good at" (shan) maintaining harmony with the surrounding world, and one can be relatively "not good at it." It also seems to me (and this could be an illusion) that with practice I can get "better at it." I enjoy working on this apparent ability to "get better at it."

I read everything as metaphor, and I find what OhC has to say about unity to be a useful metaphor for me (even though it is not mere metaphor for her). She reminds me not to think of cultivation as being anything special, it is not useful to imagine that when I am not doing meditation I am not practicing "unity." As she suggests, I need to be aware that the metaphor "one with the dao" is best applied to every moment of my life. The human mind has a strong tendency to mistakenly think that the practice of "unity" cannot be done in the everyday world.

*************************************************************

Welcome, Tom.
That's a great question, and one I think most of us have asked ourselves at one time. At least I have.

I wonder which type of alchemy you're refering to? There's alchemy in the Taoist religion, which is practiced by Taoist priests. The priests made a living by casting spells and sending special prayers to the gods for the common people in an effort to change their various circumstances.

But maybe you're refering to meditation, physical practices (i.e: taiji, qigong, etc.), contemplation and the like? We can each only answer from our own experiences.

Many people come to philosophical Taoism because of its lack of commandments, morals, rituals, and dogma. They see it as a license to do whatever they like, and call this "simplicity". That may work for a while, but then there comes to be other things in life that pull them in different directions. What was once fun just for the sake of doing it brings repurcussions or alienation. Part of Taoist practice is learning to integrate - become one with your fellow human and all the things in the universe.

My own practices are a reminder that there's something out there besides myself. Watching Nature in moments of quiet contemplation bring me more in tune with that Natural simplicity. Meditation connects me with a surge of energy that simply fills everything. Physical practice connects me with my body and the way it Naturally keeps on living despite my occasional abuse of it. :-)

I guess if you're questioning these practices - whether they would be beneficial to you or not - how could you know if you don't try them? If you've already become connected with the Natural Simplicity of life, aren't troubled by your own thoughts or actions or the thoughts and actions of others, accept each moment as a treasure, and swing joyfully through the ups and downs of existence, then you probably don't need to practice.

Do you consider yourself a Daosit? What is it about Daoism that interested you in the first place? Are there any practices you use in living a Daoist lifestyle?

So many questions for you, my new friend. I'm interested in the ways you see and hear.

-Nina

Hi Nina,
: My own practices are a reminder that there's something out there besides
: myself.

I understand your sentence in the context you used it, yet am focusing on it for a tangental thought. IMO - its kind of like...there is nothing that is more sacred than something else, nothing to pray to that is seperate from anything else. In a similar manner, your sentence above, to me, reinforces a perceived seperation between "myself" and "something out there". Discovering the boundary-less-ness of everything brings the simplicty to it: there is no self that isn't dao...so everything is practice. Having something "special" as practice seperates it from "everything is practice".

Your words about.."Watching Nature in moments of quiet contemplation bring me more in tune with that Natural simplicity. Meditation connects me with..." seems to point to wanting a connection; my suggestion is that there's no need to connect to something you're not seperate from in the first place. Does that mean I also suggest no quiet watching or meditation? Of course not :-) Just like eating when hungry, we choose things to enjoy, and to each their own way.

There is nothing I could do that isn't dao. So how does one discover the boundary-less-ness? I have no idea - but making more boundaries by setting things apart by thinking "this is sacred" or "this will get me closer" doesn't seem logical to me; realizing the seperate-less-ness - does.

Sorry, muddy words.
OhC

Hi OhC-
Yes, I agree with you. There are no practices that are more special than other practices. They're all dao-ing. Dancing to loud rock music with wild abandon. Having an interesting conversation with a friend. Preparing a tasty dinner. Writing at this forum. Studying or reading. Meditation is no more special than all the rest. It's just another flavor. But at the same time, it IS a flavor. Maybe not tasty to some? That's cool. The only thing I was trying to point out to Tom is that there are various paths, and it can be beneficial to learn of other ways that others find work for them. If Tom or you see no benefit from meditation, then I certainly wouldn't try to push it on either of you. I have no idea where Tom is coming from or what information he has learned about Daoism in the past. If he's been told that inner practices are of no benefit, then he might miss something that would work for him. Being involved in the World at every moment can be ecstaticly joyful, but hearing the quiet is another joyfulness that most people ignore.

As Laozi and Zhuangzi point out, there is an inate tendency in people to see themselves as "this" and everything else as "that". Having the understanding and knowledge that everything is inter-connected is still just knowledge. Words written and repeated until the brain believes them. Reading the words of the TTC and letting them imprint upon the brain until the words have convinced us that we actually feel them.

Maybe you've gotten to the place where you're truly connected with everything around you. I have no idea. All I have to go on is the words you or anyone else chooses to write in these little white boxes.

However, the rest of us (I think) are students who haven't reached final conclusions. If someone really believes that something "sacred" will guide them to a richer and fuller life, and it's working for them, who should tell them their work is meaningless? If you put the cart before the horse, who benefits?

: There is nothing I could do that isn't dao. So how does one discover the
: boundary-less-ness? I have no idea - but making more boundaries by setting
: things apart by thinking "this is sacred" or "this will get
: me closer" doesn't seem logical to me; realizing the seperate-less-ness
: - does.

Is there nothing anyone else could do that isn't Dao? Are you making boundaries by stating that thinking "this is sacred" doesn't work? Is there a way to see beyond what your "this" perceives as beneficial and what others "that" might find beneficial? I think what you're saying is that you only know what works for you. Dao travels down all the roads.

One more question: Do you ever sit quietly listening to nothing?

Another cog-
Nina

Hi OhC and Nina
I think this horse is worth beating some more. I am not being sarcastic, by the way.

We all speak here as if there is some final oneness/unity which actually exists. Is this dao not merely a metaphor?

What if we rather simply said that there seems to be some kind of ability to intensify the (seeming like) integration "we" have with things that appear to be (maybe are not) outside our skins. We then call the metaphor of dynamic integration "dao." The intensified integration is achieved by doing practices (Nina and Raymond) and/or not doing practices (OhC). The intensified experience is comsummated partly by conceptualizing such practices (N/R) and/or by not conceptualizing anything as separate (OhC).

And are N/R and OhC really obtaining (by their practices and non-practices) anything that can be identified with certainty, or are they just applying metaphors in a way that satisfies each of them.

Do you two agree to these terms so far, or do I have to back up a bit?

Raymond

Okay, Raymond, I agree with those terms.
There's one thing I might need to back up on. You said:

: We all speak here as if there is some final oneness/unity which actually
: exists.

I'm not sure if I agree with that idea of a "final" oneness. I see it more as an acceptance and adaptability to others' "that-ness". I think the underlying unity that actually exists is that we're all in the same boat. I mean - on the same horse? :-) If I beat your horse, mine might buck and land me flat on my behind. We ride together, but still on different horses. But I can love you nonetheless.

Does that still work with what you're going to say?

Please continue - if OhC agrees with your terms, of course. :-)

-Nina
Hi Nina
"I'm not sure if I agree with that idea of a "final" oneness."

That is exactly what I am trying to demonstrate, we cannot definitively identify this "oneness." We can not (I think) give it a final definition. What we can do (I think) is give operational definitions, as you have done, for what we are trying to point at. And we can try to speak of the result that satisfies us, makes us feel (experience) harmony/integration with what is. (and we may or may not know "what is.")

For instance we can say "I do" (or [Ohc] says "don't do") "and as a result I get along much better with everything I perceive/experience." I propose we avoid any definite/final definitions, leave the dao metaphor provisionally open-ended.

Then if we agree, more or less, with the above, we can debate why we think one metaphor is better than another, why one way of looking at the project might be more effective than the other. Instead of anyone claiming to "have the authentic approach to a definable dao", each might express why their perspective on integration seems to be "more useful" than the other person's.

It would be useful to operationally describe each of our aims and/or direction. (which does not have to be a "goal.")

Raymond

Thanks for waiting :-)
[Nina] Is there nothing anyone else could do that isn't Dao? Are you making boundaries by stating that thinking "this is sacred" doesn't work? Is there a way to see beyond what your "this" perceives as beneficial and what others "that" might find beneficial? I think what you're saying is that you only know what works for you. Dao travels down all the roads.

All I know is what works for me, yes. That in mind, I see/hear others seek to find the non-seperate - and they seek...by making something seperate. There is nothing anyone can do, imo, that isnt dao; I perceive no boundaries. Whether someone believes they are seperate or not is fine; from my perspective they are not seperate, nothing they do is seperate. These arent just metaphors for me.

[Raymond] We all speak here as if there is some final oneness/unity which actually exists. Is this dao not merely a metaphor? What if we rather simply said that there seems to be some kind of ability to intensify the (seeming like) integration "we" have with things that appear to be (maybe are not) outside our skins. We then call the metaphor of dynamic integration "dao." The intensified integration is achieved by doing practices (Nina and Raymond) and/or not doing practices (OhC). The intensified experience is comsummated partly by conceptualizing such practices (N/R) and/or by not conceptualizing anything as separate (OhC). And are N/R and OhC really obtaining (by their practices and non-practices) anything that can be identified with certainty, or are they just applying metaphors in a way that satisfies each of them. Do you two agree to these terms so far, or do I have to back up a bit?

[Nina's response] I'm not sure if I agree with that idea of a "final" oneness. I see it more as an acceptance and adaptability to others' "that-ness". I think the underlying unity that actually exists is that we're all in the same boat. I mean - on the same horse? :-) If I beat your horse, mine might buck and land me flat on my behind. We ride together, but still on different horses. But I can love you nonetheless.

[Raymond's return] That is exactly what I am trying to demonstrate, we cannot definitively identify this "oneness." We can not (I think) give it a final definition. What we can do (I think) is give operational definitions, as you have done, for what we are trying to point at. And we can try to speak of the result that satisfies us, makes us feel (experience) harmony/integration with what is. (and we may or may not know "what is.") For instance we can say "I do" (or [Ohc] says "don't do") "and as a result I get along much better with everything I perceive/experience." I propose we avoid any definite/final definitions, leave the dao metaphor provisionally open-ended. Then if we agree, more or less, with the above, we can debate why we think one metaphor is better than another, why one way of looking at the project might be more effective than the other. Instead of anyone claiming to "have the authentic approach to a definable dao", each might express why their perspective on integration seems to be "more useful" than the other person's. It would be useful to operationally describe each of our aims and/or direction. (which does not have to be a "goal.")

I'm quite comfortable with you both (anyone) thinking about dao as a metaphor or anything else. For me, dao is not a metaphor. I can't describe dao, I can't define it with words, but I absolutely know it and I've spent my life wondering why - fully content that I'll never know why I know it. Of what use is what I know to anyone else? None. In similar manner - of what use is my perspective to someone else? Likely even less. As far as an operational definition of dao...I'll need to think a bit to put words to that, and look forward to your operational definitions. As soon as we can talk in anti-words (like anti-matter) I may have something profound to say...heheh..but here, I can only try to keep the mittens off while pointing, and am quite grateful for your tolerance, and agree to all terms.

Raymond - your words about doing something that *intensifies the integration* - are quite good, and I understand this is what Nina is speaking of as well.

Here is the theory of the "N/R position" as I understand it: (Is *cultivation* an okay word to use? If not, replace it please) A desired result of cultivation is to intensify the integration - to the point of full continuous and perpetual integration. If successful, the connection is continuous - so that eventually one doesnt need to do *seperate practice* to experience the connection. Of course, one might continue to enjoy doing the *seperate practice* for reasons other than the search. I enjoy taichi, for example, keeps my body flexible :-)

I'm not sure how to define the theory of the "OhC position" - as there are no aims or directions (or goals). Just like you cant return to something you never left - you cant *become* something (connected) you already are (not-seperate).

What am I missing?
OhC
Hi OhC
A good start thank you.

Can I continue with your "There is nothing anyone can do, imo, that isnt dao"

From this we might conclude that what you would call the "separation practices" of N/R also "are dao." And in that case there is no "actual" separation. Could we say therefore that this N/R perspective might work as well as the OhC perspective? And if we can, what would be the point of pointing out, as I think you have done, that such practices are superfluous for realizing dao?

It would have been easier for me if you held the metaphor position, but it would be useless for you to agree to something you did not believe. You apparently believe you have absolute knowledge that "everything is one," and I will try to continue the debate with your position in mind.

My position is an "imo". Imo I don't think I can say with absolute assurance that "everything is one." (I don't think there is much I can say with absolute assurance, and I am completely comfortable ("at one with") that.) I think your position is not an "imo." You apparently are totally convinced you are right. Have I stated that fairly? Btw, I don't think there is anything "wrong" with believing you are totally right.

"Operational definitions" simply mean defining things in a manner that describes our experinece of them, rather than dogmatically claiming something is the case independent of experience."

But if you positively and absolutely know something, for example I know absolutely that I am an experiencing being, there is no need to define by using an experiential/operational definition.

Raymond
Hi Raymond Nina
--Previous Message--
: Hi OhC
: A good start thank you.
: Can I continue with your "There is nothing anyone can do, imo, that
: isnt dao"
: From this we might conclude that what you would call the "separation
: practices" of N/R also "are dao." And in that case there is
: no "actual" separation. Could we say therefore that this N/R
: perspective might work as well as the OhC perspective?

Absolutely yes. But work for what? To me, you're trying to do find something you already have, to be something you already are. Nothing wrong or right with any of it, including the search, searching is fun if you enjoy searching.

And if we can, what
: would be the point of pointing out, as I think you have done, that such
: practices are superfluous for realizing dao?

The point of my pointing is based on my believing your search is one of looking to find - rather than searching for the fun of searching - and the affection I have for you all. If your mate was looking for his glasses and you knew where they were, would you point them out to him? If you knew he enjoyed searching, would you still point them out? As its not possible for me to know if one is searching or enjoying searching - sometimes I point, sometimes I dont. If a forum topic comes up around where are my glasses, I point.

: It would have been easier for me if you held the metaphor position, but it
: would be useless for you to agree to something you did not believe. You
: apparently believe you have absolute knowledge that "everything is
: one," and I will try to continue the debate with your position in mind.
: My position is an "imo". Imo I don't think I can say with
: absolute assurance that "everything is one." (I don't think there
: is much I can say with absolute assurance, and I am completely comfortable
: ("at one with") that.) I think your position is not an
: "imo." You apparently are totally convinced you are right. Have
: I stated that fairly? Btw, I don't think there is anything
: "wrong" with believing you are totally right.

Sure its a fair statement - based on what I typed, yes. And it's useless knowing. All words are metaphors, actually. If you have an apple in your hand, and I have one in mine - does the word "apple" describe yours or mine? What if yours is yellow and mine is red? "Apple" is less of a metaphor than say "courage" or "hope" - and "dao" is the biggest metaphor of all. I resisted kicking into the big Dao little dao group of words, maybe that would have made more sense, maybe not. The N/R position speaks to the Dao - the OC position speaks to the dao. When Nina said "I'm not sure if I agree with that idea of a "final" oneness. I see it more as an acceptance and adaptability to others' "that-ness"..." - she was right on the edge of what I was pointing at with the words of "non-seperate". Hard to explain, the words coming now will likely make it more cloudy, and, I guess this will be my operational definition of it all.

We are all in the same boat; we are all the same boat. All of existance, from Raymond to the tiniest mote of dust at the edge of the universe, and everything in between - is made up of *stuff* and *energy*. Atoms of carbon, silicon (we're just starting to find/label some)continuously re-arrange themselves into this and then that. A bit of Nitrogen found it's way into a carrot that my mom ate and passed to me through her blood stream which found its way into one of my bones forming in her womb. That specific bit of Nitrogen has long since left my body, perhaps its now part of the fuel that will fly your jet to California :-) All part of the form, the manifest, the big-Dao. That which IS. Capital-D because we can Define this Dao - into Apple and Thing and Stuff. Categories can be made. This and That. Even the *energy* of existence is just starting to be understood and defined - and to a degree its patterns of movement and predictability. When a collection of the particles of the manifest group near each other, they behave in a certain way [Nina's *that-ness*] Cohesion, +/- attraction/repulsion, etc... It may be that conceptualizing the way of energy - might be as close as one might get in defining the undefinable dao.

When I typed about being non-seperate - it was the little-d dao, the undefinable, the non-manifest, that unites everything. Everything has a manifest(Dao) and non-manifest(dao) aspect to it. Each has their "that-ness" (Te?) and way it manifests is different for each [each re-combination of *stuff* is slightly different] - but the non-manifest component of everything - is the same and not seperate. That is what I know, but I cant tell you how or why or even what it means, or if it means anything at all. It is absolutely useless knowing.

: "Operational definitions" simply mean defining things in a manner
: that describes our experinece of them, rather than dogmatically claiming
: something is the case independent of experience."
: But if you positively and absolutely know something, for example I know
: absolutely that I am an experiencing being, there is no need to define by
: using an experiential/operational definition.
: Raymond

Watching birds fly in a group, climbing and diving together; seeing schools of fish darting together in different directions, responding to external stimuli; are visible manifestations of *something* - something they *know* by some means or another. How do we know what we know? Good question that. What I've observed supports what I know - but I cant put words to that anymore than I can define dao. We may "know what we know" (whether we can put words to it or not)- but everything past that is IMO. I dont have any answers, an Answer or The Answer. I cant tell you what something means, I can only tell you what something means to me. I thought we were all starting from that position, and nicely.

OhC

Hi OhC
I find this a difficult subject to discuss, but am delighted that you are discussing it.

You say:
"To me, you're trying to do find something you already have, to be something you already are."

I would suggest what I am trying to do is become more in tune with what you call the dao. My purpose (and I realize you say you have none)is to continually find an increasing satisfaction with life. I use what I call the "dao metaphor" to speak about this process.

(you feel dao is something that exists and is knowable, I take it as a metaphor, but I think we can work with that difference)

I think that what you are saying is that this "attunment" can't be done by effort.

My experience leads me to believe it can be done by effort. You are saying this (my experience of improvment) is not plausible. And therefore I would assume you think I am deluding myself.

Am I reading you correctly so far?

Raymond

Hi Raymond [jump in anytime Nina!]

: I think that what you are saying is that this "attunment" can't be
: done by effort.
: My experience leads me to believe it can be done by effort. You are saying
: this (my experience of improvment) is not plausible. And therefore I would
: assume you think I am deluding myself.
: Am I reading you correctly so far?
: Raymond
:
Wrong assumption. :-)

Dao (the manifest) is knowable learnable observable discuss-able. Practice and study and talking and learning makes life easier - and brings the increased satisfaction with life. This includes the understandings about the nature of things, cycles, the duality of things, etc. Understanding moves towards the more refined by recognizing the dualities [high/low right/wrong etc] until the difference between discernment and differentiation are apparant - and life gets really pleasurable then. The efforts of practice bring these things, yes.

The non-manifest dao is an aspect of the manifest but not seperate from it. Even the word aspect is misleading. I'll try to point at it, even though I know its not possible.

Am I correct in guessing that, for you, during those times of practice when you are attuned - there a sense of clarity, a feeling of connection and understanding...like it all makes sense. Its beyond the place of words and knowing. Its being attuned to the emptiness, the silence, the black. Know the white(Dao) and keep to the black(dao). The white you can know; the black you can attune to. Know the Dao, and keep to the dao. Sorry, Words suck, limiting twerps they are.

As to whether practice can bring realization of the non-manifest dao - I have no idea - nor do I think you are deluding yourself. From what you and others have said, it might indeed. What causes me to think that it might not - is because once the realization (keep to the dao) comes, everything falls into place...and stays in place...and one goes back to 'chopping wood and carrying water'. I am lost when I try to imagine how one could forget this after being attuned the first time. Like trying to unring the bell. There is before, and then after.

During those times when you feel you're not in "attunment" - perhaps its the
non-manifest dao that you feel separate from - and have to re-attune to
later during your next effort? I'm also curious to know if you feel
realization (of non-manifest dao) can come only during times of attunement
with manifest Dao?

My words are becoming more and more useless. Did any of this make sense? Probably not and it cant be done but it was fun trying even though my head now hurts. :-)

OhC
Raymond and OhC-
These terms are getting way over my head. I'm going to try to respond in a way that's simpler for me to understand, okay?

Raymond asked how we each gain insights or benefits from our practices. I don't know if I'm seeing manifest Tao, unmanifest Tao or the Unexplainable Tao. Tao does what it does and I do what I do. Yes, OhC, it's all Tao. Trying to sort out the various aspects of Tao is a little futile, isn't it?

In real life, everything I do or experience is like a gift wrapped up in bright paper with a giant bow on top. Sometimes the box contains what others may term as shit, and sometimes it contains what everyone agrees is a treasure. But it's MY shit or MY treasure. And I just share it all. That's my nature.

About meditation and what I gain from it: No, OhC, there is no goal or clarity or emptyness or connectedness. It's like opening the door of the body, mind and spirit to whatever is outside of me and inside of the box. It's removing the senses from all the voices inside my own head and coming from outside my own head. There are no voices. This isn't, for me, a connection with the Un-separated-ness, if there is such a thing. It's merely putting myself through the wash and rinse cycle. No goal has been accomplished. No clarity has been revealed. Maybe for some people, they think meditation is a shortcut to "enlightenment", and maybe that's why you're reacting to it so oppressively, OhC.

Does meditation provide a better path to connect to Tao than rolling along on your merry way without meditation? Of course not, because, as OhC pointed out, we're already connected with Tao. It would take great effort to dis-connect! :-)

So, why bother to meditate at all? Because it feels so damn good! Should everyone meditate? Only if it feels good. I never force meditation when I'm not ready for it.

I don't think anyone reaches a point where they've "gotten it", and can exclude other options. Maybe you at one time felt a sense of "connectedness", and you cling to it. Realizing that there's nothing to cling to, and no "connectedness" can send you hurdling off into the Dark Night (as Raymond calls it?).

Am I missing something here? If so, please get me back on the track.

-Nina

Hi Nina :-)
: About meditation and what I gain from it: No, OhC, there is no goal or
: clarity or emptyness or connectedness. It's like opening the door of the
: body, mind and spirit to whatever is outside of me and inside of the box.
: It's removing the senses from all the voices inside my own head and coming
: from outside my own head. There are no voices. This isn't, for me, a
: connection with the Un-separated-ness, if there is such a thing. It's
: merely putting myself through the wash and rinse cycle. No goal has been
: accomplished. No clarity has been revealed.

"There are no voices" Agree! There isnt anything else there either :-) There are no words or knowing or goals. By opening the door and removing the senses...and falling into the nothing - the *nothing-ness* is experienced, yes? Can you bring the memory of experiencing the nothing back with you into the manifest? Ack - that didnt make sense. There was nothing to experience or bring back. I see my mittens are on again :-/ Perhaps you can see what my glove was intending.

: Maybe for some people, they
: think meditation is a shortcut to "enlightenment", and maybe
: that's why you're reacting to it so oppressively, OhC.

Not sure I understand your use of the word "oppressively" - but the first part may be true, yes. And...even if meditation (or other practice) is not seen as a shortcut - but as a requirement to reach what they think is the big prize - then I hope they are also enjoying it...as there is no big prize in the nothing-ness. There is nothing to find but nothing.

: Does meditation provide a better path to connect to Tao than rolling along
: on your merry way without meditation? Of course not, because, as OhC
: pointed out, we're already connected with Tao. It would take great effort
: to dis-connect! :-)
: So, why bother to meditate at all? Because it feels so damn good! Should
: everyone meditate? Only if it feels good. I never force meditation when
: I'm not ready for it.
: I don't think anyone reaches a point where they've "gotten it",
: and can exclude other options.

Other options for what...sorry, I missed your meaning on this.

: Maybe you at one time felt a sense of
: "connectedness", and you cling to it. Realizing that there's
: nothing to cling to, and no "connectedness" can send you hurdling
: off into the Dark Night (as Raymond calls it?).

For me, there is a connection - but its not what I think you're speaking about. Its not like a *smarmy warm We Are All One* kind of thing...

IMO, the nothing-ness is the connection. The nothing-ness unifies the manifest and brings the non-seperate-ness to the manifest. Its the single yin to the 10,000 yangs. Its the dao to the Dao. Because its all the same "nothing" - it connects all the "somethings". What brings the joy (for me) - is knowing there is nothing to connect to and everything is already connected through the nothing!

: Am I missing something here? If so, please get me back on the track.

I think you're on track - but then I dont even know where the hell I am. Raymond? Do you know where we are? Time for wine :-)

OhC
Hi OhC-
I agree with you on lots of things, and it's too easy to look at the differences. Maybe, as Raymond suggested, we should look at the similarities.

: "There are no voices" Agree! There isnt anything else there either
: :-) There are no words or knowing or goals. By opening the door and removing
: the senses...and falling into the nothing - the *nothing-ness* is
: experienced, yes? Can you bring the memory of experiencing the nothing back
: with you into the manifest?

The nothingness that's experienced in meditation is probably similar to the nothingness you experience au natural in life. What some people refer to as "emptiness" is maybe better described as "openness". Can the nothingness be openness? Being open like a valley through which the wind and water can travel, where plants can flourish then die leaving a new seed to grow in their place, where all creatures can roam without fences to hem them in, where the valley is a mere conduit? There is not "nothing" there, but the free flowing of everything.

By the "manifest", do you mean the World and what transpires there?

: : Maybe for some people, they
: think meditation is a shortcut to "enlightenment", and maybe
: that's why you're reacting to it so oppressively, OhC.
: Not sure I understand your use of the word "oppressively" - but
: the first part may be true, yes. And...even if meditation (or other
: practice) is not seen as a shortcut - but as a requirement to reach what
: they think is the big prize - then I hope they are also enjoying it...as
: there is no big prize in the nothing-ness. There is nothing to find but
: nothing.

I used the word "oppressive" because I thought you might see meditation as something which could hinder your natural growth. ?

I don't really see a problem with people who think of meditation as a way to reach "something", whatever they think that might be. You said in the past that you're open to others following their own paths. If you tell them that there's nothing there to reach for, can you be sure about that?

: I don't think anyone reaches a point where they've "gotten it",
: and can exclude other options.
: Other options for what...sorry, I missed your meaning on this.

Other options for living life. For filling in the space between birth and death. If you hold onto a belief that there is "nothing", then "something" comes and hits you between the eyes, do you try to find a way to rationalize that it was merely "nothing", or do you examine your ways of thinking and experiencing that might topple your belief in "nothingness"?

: IMO, the nothing-ness is the connection. The nothing-ness unifies the
: manifest and brings the non-seperate-ness to the manifest. Its the single
: yin to the 10,000 yangs. Its the dao to the Dao. Because its all the same
: "nothing" - it connects all the "somethings". What
: brings the joy (for me) - is knowing there is nothing to connect to and
: everything is already connected through the nothing!

In my life, I don't see anything as nothing. Even the air is filled with particles. Trying to find the nothingness in an empty vase is impossible. However, if I substitute "open" and "openness" in your words above, it resonates within me. Are we still far apart in this?

If Raymond returns, we'll see where he might lead us next. :-)

-Nina
Hi Nina
I think some of our concepts are quite similar, yes.

: By the "manifest", do you mean the World and what transpires
: there?

By manifest, I mean everything that has physical form - and things that do not necessarily have physical form but can be communicated, understood, perceived. Even if agreeing on definitions isn't the easiest, we can still pretty much communicate about cause and affect, motion, energy, and ideas and concepts like hope, love, anger...and usefulness, emptiness, and openess. Even the concept of potential - is (partially) based on something manifest as its source.

: I used the word "oppressive" because I thought you might see
: meditation as something which could hinder your natural growth. ?

Hinder one's natural growth? Oh not at all - and would likely overall bring more benefit than harm; I yield to those familiar with meditation to speak to that.

: I don't really see a problem with people who think of meditation as a way to
: reach "something", whatever they think that might be. You said in
: the past that you're open to others following their own paths. If you tell
: them that there's nothing there to reach for, can you be sure about that?

Actually, you spoke to this better than I could, when you said "Does meditation provide a better path to connect to Tao than rolling along on your merry way without meditation? Of course not, because....we're already connected with Tao. It would take great effort to dis-connect! :-)". Just like you, my words never meant to imply that one wouldnt benefit or find "something" they may be seeking... but something isn't nothing. My point was - why would one have to do anything special to find the nothing-ness? Its everywhere...

: Other options for what...sorry, I missed your meaning on this.
: Other options for living life. For filling in the space between birth and
: death. If you hold onto a belief that there is "nothing", then
: "something" comes and hits you between the eyes, do you try to
: find a way to rationalize that it was merely "nothing", or do you
: examine your ways of thinking and experiencing that might topple your belief
: in "nothingness"?

Ah - I see what you're pointing at now. This will be quite lame but light-hearted, and the examples are stereotypically inaccurate so excuse that please, but I want to try the mitten again: Fundy Christians are solidly grounded on things that are knowable - so when a something unknowable hits them between the eyes, they quickly make it *ok* to be unknowable...by calling it "God's Will". At the other end of the spectrum are the folks that hold to the nothing, considering reality to be an illusion and life a dream, and when something knowable uh...slugs their arm, for example...what is felt is deemed to be not really felt. To me, they are both right; each believing in one half of the whole. Ack. Have I now alienated everybody? Anybody left? [giggle] No offence was meant.

I believe (as you called it) in both "nothing" and "something"...and when something else comes along that isnt either of those...I'll duck! Ha! Actually, it has come along. It's the source before duality - where something and nothing aren't seperate. I used to call it dao - before I stupidly gave meanings to "big-D Dao" and "little-d dao". Now, for me, its just nameless.

: In my life, I don't see anything as nothing. Even the air is filled with
: particles. Trying to find the nothingness in an empty vase is impossible.
: However, if I substitute "open" and "openness" in your
: words above, it resonates within me. Are we still far apart in this?

Yeah, I think still a bit apart in this - but thats okay. Like your words far above, the openness of the vase makes it useful, and both "openness" and "usefulness" are "something" that have manifested as a result of the "something" called a vase.

: If Raymond returns, we'll see where he might lead us next. :-)
: -Nina

Agree! A new direction would be most welcome :-)
OhC

(OhC):Just found this posted on another site - thought it fit a bit with our journey... The poster sourced it as "part of The Hsin Hsin Ming, a collection of writings by Seng Ts'an who was a Buddhist".
"If you don’t live the Tao,
you fall into assertion or denial.

Asserting that the world is real,
you are blind to its deeper reality;
denying that the world is real,
you are blind to the selflessness of all things.

The more you think about these matters,
the farther you are from the truth.

Step aside from all thinking,
and there is nowhere you can’t go.

Returning to the root, you find the meaning;
chasing appearances, you lose their source.

At the moment of profound insight,
you transcend both appearance and emptiness.

Don’t keep searching for the truth;
just let go of your opinions.

For the mind in harmony with the Tao,
all selfishness disappears.

With not even a trace of self-doubt,
you can trust the universe completely.

All at once you are free,
with nothing left to hold on to.

All is empty, brilliant,
perfect in its own being.

In the world of things as they are,
there is no self, no non-self.

If you want to describe its essence,
the best you can say is "Not-two."

:-)

I think the issue is good, because I believe there is a deep value in each of the apparently contrasting ways we look at this difficult subject, which we might call:

Can you cultivate a more effective embodiment of the dao (ti dao) or not. (Can you by cultivation become better able to embody the dao dynamic [be more ziran])??

Or is it perhaps: both yes and no. And maybe this "yes and no" is the "not two" that OhC has just presented here

Thanks for your patience, especially those other board members who we may be annoying.

Raymond

Hi OhC
re: "Am I correct in guessing that, for you, during those times of practice when you are attuned - there a sense of clarity, a feeling of connection and understanding...like it all makes sense. Its beyond the place of words and knowing. Its being attuned to the emptiness, the silence, the black. Know the white(Dao) and keep to the black(dao). The white you can know; the black you can attune to. Know the Dao, and keep to the dao."

Yes, well said, and this seems to be happening more and more as a result of my practice---- but I could be fooling myself, maybe it is happening (as you may be inferring) for no reason at all. And maybe it is not actually happening. I only know that, as Nina indicates, I am enjoying the ride. I know nothing for sure beyond knowing whether or not I am satisfying myself or not.

Btw, I find it satisfying to know very little for sure.

Raymond

Yes. My body actions choices laughter sadness are in the Dao, where knowing consists only of how to tie shoes; my head is of the dao, always has been. There, there is nothing to know. A long time back Nina asked me if I ever sit quietly and listen to nothing. It's where I live.

OhC

A long time back Nina asked me if I ever
: sit quietly and listen to nothing. It's where I live.
: OhC
:
:
:
Hi OhC-
Maybe you HAVE been meditating all along, but don't call it by that Ming (name).

A few months ago my 94 year old father described a certain mind-stilling-control practice he'd been doing for a long time, and asked me if that was like "meditation". When I said "Yes", he said, "Then I've been meditating all my life!"

Many "conventional" forms of meditation use mantras, symbols, colors, words of the Masters, etc. in an effort to still what seems to be an uncontrollable mind. Some people need to be in complete silence to meditate. And I do agree with you that "Meditation" as a religious dogma for reaching "Enlightenment" is way over-valued. But then, some people need sensory-deprivation and the idea of reaching a "goal" in order to see any value whatsoever in such practice. At least they're looking at something other than TV. :-)

A couple of years ago I decided to treat myself to a hair cut, style, and coloring at a very "hip" little salon in Venice Beach. I had been hacking away at my own hair for a long time, and decided to get some style to my unruly locks. As I was sitting under the hair dryer, I decided to close my eyes and meditate. I heard the loud rock music blasting in the salon mixed with the voices of the other patrons. I felt the warm air blowing around my head and neck. I could see through my closed eyelids the reflections of the sun on the passing cars, blasting bright colors into my retinas. It all blended into the "nothingness" you refer to (for lack of a better word). I'm sure there are those who would say - "That's NOT meditation!" Hah!

You see, OhC, you can meditate at any time IMO. While you're gardening, cooking, sewing, listening to music, etc. Those times when your mind is doing things automatically without needing your immediate attention.

Maybe you're just one of those people who LIVE in meditation?

-Nina

Previous Message--
: As I was sitting under the hair dryer, I decided to
: close my eyes and meditate. I heard the loud rock music blasting in the
: salon mixed with the voices of the other patrons. I felt the warm air
: blowing around my head and neck. I could see through my closed eyelids the
: reflections of the sun on the passing cars, blasting bright colors into my
: retinas. It all blended into the "nothingness" you refer to (for
: lack of a better word). I'm sure there are those who would say -
: "That's NOT meditation!" Hah!
: -Nina
Nina :-)

Thanks for sharing that. May I ask a question to refine my understanding of your experience? When it all blended...which of the following occured:

a. You no longer heard the sounds, felt the heat, etc...everything actually did *go away*, or...

b. You still had a thin awareness of the stimuli - but it had absolutely no affect on you, nor were there thoughts associated with stimuli (or anything else), or...

c. something else.

The fundamental differences between a & b - may fall into other topics here on the forum.

IMO - "a" describes what I understand to be an active method to attune; kind of a "bringing an emptiness to one's self"...by ridding external (and internal) stimuli...with the result of no-self apparant. Quite pleasant. This method would be dependant on the stimuli "staying away" - which suggests that the duration of attunement would be parallel to one's ability to keep stimuli at bay.

Whereas "b" - on the other hand - describes the situation where nothing has to *go away*, because *you* - are there but not there...with the the result of self still apparant, but not important. Quite pleasant. This still enables one to respond to both external and internal stimuli as needed, but unaffected by either, discerning as needed without extraneous thoughts or judgements...

With "a" - as soon as your dryer buzzed... you'd find yourself back as before, again weighted by the decisions, joys and trials of the day. With "b" - the dryer buzzing doesn't change anything, the decisions joys and trials of the day come and go - all enjoyed because of the non-weight of you still being in two places...here, and not here.

Perhaps doing "a" - enables "b" to occur more frequently, and if one does "a" enough - then "b" occurs continuously naturally?

From your words, it sounds like your Father found his way to "b", indeed, and that you experience it as well. From my understanding, "a" - is a method one can learn and practice... and "b" - is, well, I dont know how one develops or finds "b". This has been natural for me since birth and nothing that I found or learned so I dont have words about learning it. The only way I can describe it is having one foot in the something and one foot in the nothing. It's only through generous words of others that I'm able to describe this. If "b" falls into your definition of meditation - then my answer to your question would be yes.

OhC

Hi OhC-
I think both (a) and (b) can be beneficial methods of meditation. Different strokes? Although some "puritsts" will probably disagree with me, I think that there are as many different forms of meditation as there are different types of people. Why force yourself into a practice that rasps like an emery board against your spirit? Some people prefer taiji, some qigong, some yoga, some develop their own physical practices. It's the same with meditation.

Of course, if someone claims to be meditating while they're yelling at their children or watching soap operas, I might not take them seriously. :-)

: a. You no longer heard the sounds, felt the heat, etc...everything actually
: did *go away*, or...
: b. You still had a thin awareness of the stimuli - but it had absolutely no
: affect on you, nor were there thoughts associated with stimuli (or anything
: else), or...
: c. something else.

As for what I experienced at the salon (and in other similar situations), I think I'd choose (c). I had a full awareness of the stimuli, and it all had an effect on me. It's just that the stimuli didn't need to be Minged (named). It was all just as it should be - a wonderful cacophony of delights played out for my utter enjoyment. You said before that you enjoy the roller-coaster ride - maybe it was similar to that. Ups, downs, turns, swings - not being apart from anything, and yet seeing it all whisk by in its "otherness" at the same time. The music was a sound unto itself, my eardrum was an amplifier unto itself, my brain assimilated it all, and I was a part of it all. Separated yet united. You can do this type of meditation in many situations. I even do it when I'm stuck in a traffic jam.

Does the feeling stay with me? You bet! There's a smile that starts from deep inside and works its way through every nerve in my body. Then I end up grinning like an idiot for the longest time.

: Perhaps doing "a" - enables "b" to occur more
: frequently, and if one does "a" enough - then "b" occurs
: continuously naturally?

I think so. But again I think it's up to each individual. Some people prefer staying in (a). Some people like (b). And maybe others have found (c through z)? That's what's great about these conversations - instead of repeating what's been written by ancient sages, we can actually explore the various methods we've each come up with.

If "b"
: falls into your definition of meditation - then my answer to your question
: would be yes.
: OhC
:

Yes, OhC. But why stop there?

-Nina
--Previous Message--
: Hi OhC-
: I think both (a) and (b) can be beneficial methods of meditation. Different
: strokes? Although some "puritsts" will probably disagree with me,
: I think that there are as many different forms of meditation as there are
: different types of people. Why force yourself into a practice that rasps
: like an emery board against your spirit? Some people prefer taiji, some
: qigong, some yoga, some develop their own physical practices. It's the same
: with meditation.

Right, right - I was using meditation to give the example of "a"; attunment can come with the other practices as well...the only difference would be that the "practice" would need to continue for the attunement to continue. Sorry, that was unclear of me.

: Of course, if someone claims to be meditating while they're yelling at their
: children or watching soap operas, I might not take them seriously. :-)
: : a. You no longer heard the sounds, felt the heat, etc...everything
: actually
: did *go away*, or...
: b. You still had a thin awareness of the stimuli - but it had absolutely no
: affect on you, nor were there thoughts associated with stimuli (or anything
: else), or...
: c. something else.
: As for what I experienced at the salon (and in other similar situations), I
: think I'd choose (c). I had a full awareness of the stimuli, and it all had
: an effect on me. It's just that the stimuli didn't need to be Minged
: (named). It was all just as it should be - a wonderful cacophony of
: delights played out for my utter enjoyment.

Ah ok. That would be neither a or b - right.

: You said before that you enjoy
: the roller-coaster ride - maybe it was similar to that. Ups, downs, turns,
: swings - not being apart from anything, and yet seeing it all whisk by in
: its "otherness" at the same time. The music was a sound unto
: itself, my eardrum was an amplifier unto itself, my brain assimilated it
: all, and I was a part of it all. Separated yet united. You can do this
: type of meditation in many situations. I even do it when I'm stuck in a
: traffic jam.
: Does the feeling stay with me? You bet! There's a smile that starts from
: deep inside and works its way through every nerve in my body. Then I end up
: grinning like an idiot for the longest time.

Why not all the time? {the feeling, not the grin}

: Some people
: prefer staying in (a). Some people like (b). And maybe others have found
: (c through z)? That's what's great about these conversations - instead of
: repeating what's been written by ancient sages, we can actually explore the
: various methods we've each come up with.
: If "b"
: falls into your definition of meditation - then my answer to your question
: would be yes.
: OhC
:
: Yes, OhC. But why stop there?
: -Nina
:

Sorry, I dont understand your question.
Where is *there* that you think I've stopped?

Thanks,
OhC

Sorry, I dont understand your question.
: Where is *there* that you think I've stopped?
: Thanks,
: OhC
:
:
:
I'm sorry, OhC. I'd forgotten that you've already found contentment.
This thread has run a full circle right back to Tom's original post, hasn't it?

A wonderful journey - thanks!

-Nina
Hi Jan
Thanks for the input.

I don't "see a unity," I sense something that feels like an integration, a smooth flow. I don't know whether my subjective experience of smooth flow is "actually" unity. I think I would like to use your idea of the sense of a "process", rather than claim that I possess definitive knowledge of an "entity."

You write:
"As to practice. When your practicing, you're focussing. You're filtering things away. And then you feel united. If it makes you feel good as Nina says, go on. Good is good, isn't it. But being in touch with Dao is IMO being in touch with all. Not filtering."

You see I am not fundamentally interested in whether I am "actually" in touch with the dao. I am not interested in whether or not I am actually "not filtering." I don't fundamentally care if I am "in touch with all."

What I am interested in is what my (subjective) experience of smoothness brings. I what to see whether or not my sense of feeling in touch with the dao (which may be, from your point of view, a mistaken sense) allows me to engage a process where I am content (le). If I am content, I am not concerned whether I am "mistaken" or not.

And so I will continue to practice as long as it makes me happy, not too disturbed if I am "right or wrong." Provisionally speaking, I doubt if I will ever know the essence of "right or wrong." I am more interested in process. My fundamental interest is the process of "zi le", sovereign contentment.

And your input helps me engage that process, thank you.

Raymond

RETURN TO EDIT PAGE: CLICK

(a locus of body-mind awareness)