From form extract
spiritOthers: comments, criticism, questions...
This section includes the thoughts of others who have written on topics related to mysticism. Hopefully among these writings, I will include some instances where others have a different opinion from my own on various issues.
Masters, Bill Hulet (Owl Clan Recluse)
The false divide between religion and
philosophy: Bill Hulet
Dzogchen, GP Rezoagli
Modes of transcendence, Jim Wilson
Oneness and polarity, an interpretation
of Lao Zi, Wulf Dieterich
Reincarnation, Kate Gicante
Academic versus direct experience, Isabeau
Vollhardt
The self and the no-self, Isabeau Vollhardt
Contentment & Love, Camille Moser
Do the experiment, Scott Phillips
Yi xing lian Shen: From form extract
spirit. KunHock
The interpretation of sacred
texts: Justin
Three key terms in Zhuang Zi's chapter
19: Thomas
Taijiquan and "ti dao": embodying
the dao, Louis Swaim
The false divide between religion and
philosophy: Bill Hulet
Good and Evil, a Confucian interpretation
by Qui Fangxin (James Booth)
Zentao comments on Liu I-ming
The Bodhidharma, by Cinabrius
Jenni Siri: my spiritual beliefs
Alan S.: You can't pervert the reality
of Tao
Sister Kate: Loving the Dao
Prayer: James Clark
1. The following was posted on the Taoist Restoration web discussion board. Owl Clan Recluse, a practitioner of Taoism, has allowed me to reprint it here. His post was a response to someone who expressed concern about his ability to find a proper master from whom to learn Taoism.
Oct 12 2000
"The first thing is to stop looking for a "master"
and start looking for a "teacher".
That is to say, don't look for someone who has all the answers
and instead look for someone who has some of the answers, learn
what you can, and put them together yourself.
Secondly, don't get hung up on finding a specific tradition this early on in the game. You are surrounded by spiritually enlightened people, it is your inability to understand that keeps you from seeing them. Look everywhere---even in your local Christian church. The Sufis have a saying, "Travel to seek wisdom---even all the way to China!". Unfortunately, too many people take this saying literally. This is because modern airfare has made it easier to fly to China than to re-examine the prejudices that keep us from learning from our neighbours.
Finally, don't allow yourself the luxury of saying you need a teacher because you have no discipline. No real teacher will bother with you until you have developed a quite high level of self-discipline and the only way you can get that is by working by yourself, all alone. Once you develop the discipline needed, and you free yourself from hangups about one spiritual tradition versus another, you will find spiritual masters as thick as fleas on a dogs back." Owl Clan Recluse
2. GP Rezoagli gave me permission to reprint the following correspondence, his excellent discussion of Dzogchen. The importance placed on having an initiation by a master is one of many points of interest. This view is obviously valid for Dzogchen. In contrast, apophatic mysticism, in my opinion, has no such requirement. But I think all traditions would agree on the following: Anyone who has the opportunity to meet someone in the advanced state of enlightened humility, will benefit significantly.
"As for Dzogchen, it has a rather peculiar status among the Tibetan schools. First, it is a doctrine which doesn't identify itself with one or another monastic lineage (like Lamdrim with Sakyapa, tantric Mahamudra with Kagyupa, etc.). It is practiced - quite secretively - in all lineages, though most specifically and openly in Nyingmapa. But it is practiced by lay and 'non-official' lineages of Nagpa (lay yogis); and it constitutes the supreme doctrine also of Bon, the non-Buddhist Tibetan tradition, which is comparable to what we know about Taoism. Dzogchen (the Great Perfection, also called Thigle Chenpo, the Great Thigle, that is 'Sphere of inner reality'), has been considered for centuries by mainstream Gelugpa and Sakyapa scholars as an 'heretic' doctrine, connected with Taoism or with Shivaism rather than to 'orthodox' Buddhism. And it has always been a very secret teaching. Only in our days, after the Chinese invasion and the diasporic flow of Tibetan masters, it has been openly taught. There are a few known masters in the West: Sogyal Rinpoche, a monk of Nyingma order, and Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, a lay teacher, are the most known.
I had the chance to learn by Norbu Rinpoche, who lived for
many years in Italy (he taught Tibetan language in Naples' University;
and was brought to Italy in his youth, after having escaped from
Tibet, by Prof. Tucci). He is a great master indeed, of great
simplicity, without the theatrical mysticism and the 'mumbo-jumbo'
of many Tibetan exiles...But he has a large crowd of disciples,
in many countries, and it's very difficult to receive instructions
by him - above all in these last years, when he retired from teaching
and left Italy. Dzogchen's origins are legendary. Buddhist practitioners
say that this doctrine originated in the country of Oddyana (today's
Kashmir, perhaps, or Afghanistan...), a little time after Sakyamuni's
death. It was introduced by master Garab Dorje, then brought to
Tibet by Vairocana, called by the great Padmasambhava. Bon practitioners,
on the contrary, say that Dzogchen was introduced by the founder
of Bon religion, Sherab Miwoche or Tonpa Sherab, who lived in
a remote past, long before Sakyamuni's birth, in the land of Shang
Shung, near Mt. Kailash. Recent studies have proposed that Dzogchen
may be like a 'crossroads' of esoteric teachings from ancient
Iran,
India and China.
In Dzogchen there are three main paths: Semde, Longde and Mannagde. The first works mainly with the 'mind', and uses techniques of meditation comparable to samatha-vipassana (though with some differences). Longde works with the 'voice', and uses very peculiar techniques which work on some 'energy points' in the body, and meditations on space, etc. Mannagde is the 'secret instructions' series, which has bizarre and often paradoxical 'skillful means', and practices of all kinds (it's very difficult to generalize: Mannagde is like a storage of teachings coming from all masters, very practical and abrupt methods, some of which are just non-methods...). The practitioner begins usually with one of these series, but she/he can use methods of all series (and even of all traditions, even belonging to other 'religions', if they fit...), of which he received the 'lung' (permission and initiation) from a qualified master, accordingly with his needs and circumstances.
The practitioner must be very skillful and brave: she/he mustdevelop a complete independence, even from the master; know the situation, the meaning of the circumstances, and learn what he needs, day after day. There is no set of rules, no traced path, no 'religion', nothing. The master introduces, gives the transmission (very important!), leads in the first steps, and gives advice afterwards, along with the instructions for more advanced (and sometimes dangerous) practices; but the practitioner must develop a complete independence, and understand what is her/his real dimension, to 'escape even from the cage of the Teaching'.
The first season of a practitioner is called Trechod, 'breaking through'. She/he learns what is her/his true dimension, its limits and possibilities; and 'breaks through' the everyday perception, to find the Presence which underlies the 'inner' and 'outer' world. To symbolize that, is often used a mirror: it is a mirror in itself, it has the capability to reflect, and it actually reflects all images. These are the three facets of individual 'presence' (rigpa), and furthermore the three facets of the Presence which encompasses everything. This Presence (which is called Dzogchen) must be found and developed. In it there is no duality; but it doesn't mean that all things become 'one': everything maintains its unique presence and reality. This is true non-duality. And in everyday life this is attained by a supreme and all-pervading 'relaxation', not by an 'effort'... This may have a true parallel in 'wu-wei'...
(Even devotion may be used, in absence of all qualification and abilities. Devotion to the lineage may lead to 'leap beyond' one's individual limits. There is no difference between 'one's power' and 'other's power': one uses what works best, according to one's real condition.)
After one achieves Trechod, the season of Todgal may begin. Todgal ('jumping over the levels', that is over the many levels of realization of 'gradual paths') has many secret methods, which the master doesn't reveal to anyone because of their potentially dangerous nature. By these methods, the Presence - really, not only 'intellectually' discovered - may develop; and the gross elements of one's body (that's the perception of one's body) may be re-integrated in their subtle nature of light. At the end of this proceeding, the body is re-integrated and disappears from the sight of 'ordinary' beings. It can live forever and visit advanced disciples, to help them along the Path; it is always present, and works (with its 'enlightened activity') to maintain this Path of freedom open to all beings (not only humans may walk along it. Humans are only a little part of practitioners: there are beings of all kinds on the path of Dzogchen...). If the body doesn't disappear in a 'rainbow body' (ja'lus), the practitioner dies when it is time, but her/his mind is enlightened and free; or, at least, she/he has attained some level of enlightenment, and after death she/he can succeed in 'attaining' (so to say...) it (there are many teachings about post-mortem, among which the Bardo Thodol, which belongs just to Dzogchen doctrine. They are generally misunderstood, because they refer only to an advanced practitioner, or at least to an initiate who has received some teachings).
The doctrine is pervaded by the concepts of 'spontaneity', of 'non-interference' (though in the context of Mahayana 'universal salvation' tendency), of 'non-effort'. Obviously, this may be attained only after a great effort in the practice, due to our real and undeniable limits; but the goal, and the path itself, after a certain time, are 'effortless'. Furthermore, the goal and the path are the same: the two are not identical for an 'ordinary' perception, but in reality it is so. It is necessary only to free oneself from the distracting illusions. The goal and the path as one mean also the Basis of Being and the Innumerable Beings as one, in the multifaceted - and yet unique - Presence: Kuntu Zangpo, which is depicted as naked ('rough', 'un-adorned') and blue (like the all-pervading Space), whose name means 'All is Good'.
It must be noticed that Dzogchen doesn't identify itself with any 'religion': it takes the robes of Buddhism and Bon only to use the circumstances. It is not a religion, but - explicitly - an esoteric lineage, that is something which works directly with the nature of things, without 'myths'.
This is a first 'taste of Dzogchen'. Surely I've been unclear or maybe even wrong in making such a general picture: the tradition is very abstruse and difficult to grasp, and has innumerable facets. But this can give you at least a first idea, to deepen further.
It seems to me very close to Taoism; and I think that those who accused Dzogchen of being a 'non-Buddhist, maybe a Taoist doctrine' weren't so wrong...obviously, not in the literal sense.
In my life, I have practiced in Paths which gave a great importance to the initiate lineage: Sufism, Dzogchen. So, I tend to think the same way. But what you say about Lao-Zhuang is very interesting. It could be similar to the 'dominical initiation' of the 'Afrad' (adepts without master) in Sufism; furthermore, it seems that this kind of transmission - directly 'from above' - was relatively frequent in a Christian context. I think it's better not to talk of it too much in public, today, because it could cause illusions and be misleading, seeming to give some 'authority' to all kinds of modern pseudo-spiritualism, to all kinds of New Age fancies..." GP Rezoagli
3. The following was posted on the Taoist Restoration Web page by Jim Wilson. Here he presents an insightful challenge to my interpretation of Lao Zi. I had claimed that Lao Zi is a book that presents the mystical state as being a common root experience of all mystics.
Hi Raymond:
Does it follow that all pre-cultural and universal understandings
are the same? I don't think it does follow. Mysticism and apophaticism
are no guarantee that all mystics are having the same experience;
and I think there is good reason to suspect that they are not.
A universal understanding/experience means something that always applies. I refer to this as the everywhen aspect of this kind of comprehension/experience. Some traditions then separate the everywhen from the everywhere, asserting that the everywhen exists removed from the world of ordinary time-bound experience. Other traditions unite the everywhen with the everywhere so that this universal understanding permeates all of existence. As Prashastrasena would put it -- nirvana has no location.
I think these descriptions refer to genuinely different experiences. Yet both are preconceptual, precultural, and make a claim for transcendence, though the modes of that transcendence differ.
Comments, as always, greatly appreciated.
Best wishes,
Jimfw
Wulf Dieterich regularly posts on the Taoist Restoration Society web site. (He has his own web site as well, see the links page on this web site.)
For maturing and matured people
oneness and wholeness of emptiness and fullness
is the very mental condition.
-
It is the innermost moving energizing element
looking for harmony and equilibrium
as a result of dynamic exchange and influencing:
- it polarizes oneness and energizes polarity in maintaining oneness.
-
-
It is the fundamental,
it is the basis for all.
This mental condition is the pacemaker for consciousness.
-
For me it is the basis for being good within good conditions.
For me it is the basis for being good as well within bad conditions.
-
This pace...
seeing the oneness of polarity ... and being conscious of this
...
this is the basis for being good.
-
For me it is the basis for communicating with trustworthy people
in a human way.
For me it is the basis for communicating with not-trustworthy
people in a human
way as well.
-
It is again this pace...
seeing the oneness of polarity ... and being conscious of this...
this is the basis for trusting.
-
Maturing and matured people live in this world.
They have this entrance to its very depth
...where the polar wings come together....
-
They have this leading idea of a world
as a flux under the protection of a polarizing energy
as a pathing ladder to consciousness.
-
All people live within this flux,
moving inside of it for development
comprehending it
with ears and eyes.
-
Maturing and matured people live this way:
All of them are children of this phenomenon - like the hour before
midnight:
having this ability for changing to a new matching polarity.
I don't have any beliefs one way or the other regarding reincarnation. But I thought the following was one of the most creative and insightful treatments I have read on the subject. Thanks to Kate Gicante for letting me reprint her post from the Taoist Restoration website.
My very own personal beliefs on the subject of the afterlife are based in Taoism, but mostly my own thought processes.
It goes something like this (and please try not to ridicule too much... I may not follow Tao the "right" way, but I don't believe in an eternal afterlife in Heaven, and it took me several years to find a theory that could comfort me when loved ones die)
All things in the universe are created from a Life Force, or a type of energy that comes together in different forms. It is my belief that when we die, the energy is dispersed and returns to the universal "pool" as such. So, in a sense, we are reincarnated, but not as an entire soul. The energy that returns to the pool is drawn back into another soul.
Some people claim to recall past lives, and I completely believe that is possible if enough of the same energy was drawn again. In extremely simple terms, it's like putting 100 pennies (soul #1) and 100 dimes in a jar (soul #2), mixing it up, and pulling out a handful (the new, or reincarnated, soul). You might pull out a handful that's almost entirely dimes, entirely pennies, or an equal amount of the two.
My theory isn't perfected yet, and this doesn't even factor in energy transferred from the mother and father at conception, but it's interesting to think about when I can't get to sleep.
Of course, I could be entirely incorrect, but it gives me comfort to know that those I've lost could be a part of every child that I see.
Kitochka
Academic versus direct experience
The following was posted on the Taoist Restoration Message board in answer to a question regarding the difference between academic study and direct experience. It is written by Isabeau Vollhardt; you can read more of her work at her Internal martial arts webpage.
When I was in high school (oh, about 25 years ago ;-) ) I took up needlepoint as a hobby. I found books and studied the different stitches, found a design, found supplies, and created my first project -- with a big mistake because I misinterpreted the instructions on the basic stitch -- that I managed to fix in a way that was actually interesting (and led to petit point, which the long and short of it is that it's half the size and takes twice as long ;-) )
Anyway--I also worked as a baby-sitter in the evenings for a few different families with children of different ages; and when I went with a new needlepoint project, some of the children were interested in 'learning how' (the age range of the children was from 4 to 10).
Part of learning to do needlepoint is visual, and part of it is tactile--in order to be able to tell that the stitch is pulled neither too tightly, nor left too loose against the canvas, it's best to touch the stitch and see if the yarn still feels a bit fluffy under the fingertip. It's hard to convey this tactile impression to children who have never sewn or knitted anything before (I was a lousy knitter, by the way). There aren't really words for it, and if your eye can see it, well, it's too late.....because then a whole row of stitches has been done too tight or too loose.
One of the stitches I was working on one day was a more complicated one than the basic stitch--it's called a scotch stitch and forms an impression of a square; it's a sequence of stitches each two 'holes' longer than the previous until the longest stitch in the square, and then each stitch two 'holes' shorter. I was baby-sitting three siblings that day, two girls and their younger brother (who happened to not be talking enough for his age, he was about 4). They all wanted to try a few of the stitches, so I showed them one whole square and then let them do a few.
What was interesting was that the four year old boy made absolutely perfect stitches, first time, first stitch, no 'warm up' required. after I showed him just one time......and he was the least articulate (he was virtually inarticulate) and rather shy. Yet he understood something about the nature of the stitching and executed it well; the older children grasped it intellectually, but were too fast to execute good stitches--like I did at first, they made the stitches too tight, which lets the canvas show through.
Obviously, that moment has always stuck with me; sometimes, the person who seems to be the least intellectually adept with a subject manages to execute it in the real world with great finesse, as the four year old boy did.
I realize it's not a story that fits exactly with your question, however, I hope it illuminates the value of the practical regardless of intellectual pursuit (which is also valuable, but may not be valuable without any practical application).
The self and the no-self
Isabeau Vollhardt
I don't think of the self as something to get beyond (or get
over); but the beyond-self is continuous with us, in other words,
it's all inclusive. It's not a first this note then that note;
it's a chord. The self isn't going to go away, however, dwelling
solely within the parameters of the self gives one view of the
world, going to the next level gives another (and it doesn't mean
the other level is no longer there; it no longer has the same
tone, however).
The single note is important.
So is the chord.
Contentment & Love
Camille Moser
We wish for many things daily while amongst the gamut of distraction.
We are human and humans get caught up in physical existence and
the distractions from truth that it provides on a constant basis.
If contentment means that there are no great highs, then when
the more favorable experience is over, one isn't stuck trying
to make it last longer.
If contentment means that there are no great lows, than one is more able to flow with unfavorable circumstances instead of being caught up in avoiding them. On the surface it may appear mundane at best to be 'just content'. Contentment is a stable and logical goal, filled with purpose, but a difficult one to stay mindful of in that particular moment when one sees a high or low headed her way. And it's considerably more difficult and complex when their are relationships and children involved in one's life.
Regarding love, ecstatic love and bliss, how long can two people hold this feeling at one time? Love is a hard word to define. In the dictionary it denotes high emotion and in some Buddhist thought it denotes compassion and equanimity towards all others. In this latter sense I see the great value, in the former I see unavoidable attachment. Most of us are not nearly past the dictionary version. How can we be if we have kids and a spouse? After all, this is our life and we must embrace it!
However, with emotional love towards these people and others, we know that disappointments are ahead and we know that ecstasy is to come as well. Highs and lows are expected, it's all a part of family life. I accept this, but also take on the spiritual love of compassion and equanimity as something to forever work towards. This is love that is worthy of seeking out within oneself and it balances emotion and energy. But humanity and earthly desires never leave us in our rush to become what we want to attain spiritually. Humanity and earthly desire is what makes it possible to attain; without them, the challenge is gone.
As much as we may wish desire to be gone as an obstacle that stands in our doorway of enlightenment, we can be sure it is here to stay. It is our tempter and our opponent always through the maze of spiritual attainment.
There is a point when some realize that contentment is bliss in human emotional love. What is more blissful than to know there is contentment between both involved, after the beauty fades the wrinkles start, the idiosyncrasies come out? Contentment after the fights, after the finances and responsibilities? Contentment after years of weathering two people? Contentment is especially important in love because it is the one thing that withstands the highs and lows that are unavoidable in relationships. At this point contentment is blissful and secure and something that each can take into old age.
Blissful is the loyalty that contentment breeds between two people. It says, Ill be here, with you. Contentment is no easy thing to have in love. Many times it is unattainable for couples and I would bet that these are the people who are searching for that constant high in a relationship that cannot be maintained. Perfect blissful, ecstatic love between two lovers comes only in moments and each has to be willing to take the rest along with it.
Assuming we are willing, then contentment has a chance to brew. It is the part of a lovers' tea that infuses healing and continuity.
The Lao-Zhuang writings
are the basis for the practice of an empirical (you xin)
art. The tradition does not rely on metaphysical speculation but
rather is grounded in immediate experience. We can see this tradition
reflected in the words of Scott Phillips, an initiated Daoist.
He describe a religious practice which amounts to a nearly transparent
experience of being, a "direct grasp of the handle of the
dao." (de dao zhi bing) The text he refers to is the
Daoist Canon.
Do the experiment, Scott Phillips
I am part of a text based tradition. Read the text. Do the experiment it suggests. Check and see if what the text says is verified by the experiment. See now? simple, no guarantees. We cultivate weakness to be sensitive, to be intimate, and to be responsive. Not because it is our greatest strength.
For Scott Phillip's martial arts and qi gong web site go to: north star martial arts
From Kunhock:
To try to know the spirit by focusing on spirit would be futile. It will only irritates the spirit and causes damage. Spirit is always outward looking and thereby could not be encountered head on. Trying to awaken light and focus energy will most likely create a false state through spirit straining or Chi locking.
So for the spirit to receive focus, the mind should intuitively perceive forms (but not acute visualization) and then relax forms (forms blurring or forgetting) to allow forms creativity to flow back naturally to spirit (without awareness of process).
Physical exercise is an aid to develop this method; as one starts to master this formula, the degree of physical movement needed to generate a state becomes smaller. Until a curving or extending of a small finger could induce a big impact on Chi or Spirit.
The interpretation of sacred texts: Justin
This is part of an internet discussion that took place in November
of 2001. In a conversation among Justin, Monty, and Mahadorje,
I notice that Justin points to important aspects to consider in
the translation of sacred texts.
Justin (to Monty): Mahadorje is right about translator bias
in Bhagavad Gita, although I wouldn't put it quite the way he
does. I have a friend who is a Sanskrit scholar, and who is currently
doing a translation of the Gita from a critical Sanskrit edition.
He began the project with the intention of doing an "objective,"
"generic" Gita --- one that would simply translate what's
there, without any kind of explicit or tacit editorializing. He
later admitted that such a task is impossible. You can't translate
the Gita without taking some kind of theological stand. The Sanskrit
language is just too rich and malleable to allow that. Traditionally,
this sort of "bias" is a very "Indian" trait,
he tells me. If you look into the many Vedic traditions, they
all do it.
But then, this does make sense. Hindus have always maintained
that one can't make progress in the spiritual life without a guru.
And every bonafide guru represents a particular lineage (parampara).
The sacred texts "mean" just what the guru and his ancestors
say they mean. This too, makes sense. There's no such thing as
a sacred text in abstracto, falling down from on high already
written. A text is written, read, and interpreted within some
tradition. There's just no such thing as a "pure" text.
The idea that there is, or can be, is bad hermeneutics and worse
religion. One has got to go outside the text and understand the
tradition. This one does by examining it, by seeing how it approaches
and tries to answer the fundamental questions about God, life,
being, and the human condition. That's one constant feature of
Indian religion: it's extremely practical in its orientation.
It's always close to real human life, and concerned to address
immediate, practical problems. At the same time it is always asking
the ultimate questions. The Indian sages have always realized
that unless these questions are addressed, one can't just "get
on with life," because there's really no "life"
to get on with.
If I were you, I'd look at many different editions of Gita ---
there's a lot to choose from. Eventually you'll find one that
speaks to you.
Mahadorje: So, does that mean that you do Not think that the Gita is the spoken word of Krishna (and Arjuna)?
Justin: Yes, I do. But the language was Sanskrit, not English. And it didn't include commentary. What Krishna means, for example, when He constantly refers to Himself in the first person has been a matter of endless controversy. Followers of Shankara don't see read it the same way followers of Ramanuja, Madhva, or Chaitanya do. Some think of Krishna as a sage, others think of Him as an avatara, while others (including my own tradition) see Him as God, the "divine person," or Mahapurusha. The text will bear any of those interpretations. One has got to go outside the text, to theology, philosophy, one's own experience, and some tradition, to decide what the "real" meaning is.
Three key terms in Zhuang Zi's chapter 19: Thomas
gu 
xing
ming
three key words from chapter 19:
Innate (GU4, what you are used to), natural (XING4, my nature),
destined (MING4 fate)
"Confucius was seeing the sights at Lu-liang, where the water
falls from a height of thirty fathoms and races and boils along
for forty li, so swift that no fish or other water creature can
swim in it. He saw a man dive into the water and, supposing that
the man was in some kind of trouble and intended to end his life,
he ordered his disciples to line up on the bank and pull the man
out. But after the man had gone a couple of hundred paces, he
came out of the water and began strolling along the base of the
embankment, his hair streaming down, singing a song. Confucius
ran after him and said, "At first I thought you were a ghost,
but now I see you're a man. May I ask if you have some special
way of staying afloat in the water?"
"I have no way. I began with what I was used to, grew up
with my nature, and let things come to completion with fate. I
go under with the swirls and come out with the eddies, following
along the way the water goes and never thinking about myself.
That's how I can stay afloat."
Confucius said, "What do you mean by saying that you began
with what you were used to, grew up with your nature, and let
things come to completion with fate?"
"I was born on the dry land and felt safe on the dry land
- that was what I was used to. I grew up with the water and felt
safe in the water - that was my nature. I don't know why I do
what I do - that's fate."
From Burton Watson: The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu
Possible translations:
GU: innate (Mair), what you are used to (Watson), native (Graham),
"le donné": what is given (Jean-François
Billeter)
XING: natural (Mair, Graham), nature (Watson).
MING: destiny (Mair), fate (Watson), destined (Graham), "nécessité"
(Jean-François Billeter)
Jean-François Billeter in "Leçons sur Tchouang-Tseu" explains that the Taoist is not automatically natural: he starts out with ordinary experience (GU) and learning to be natural (XING) is in fact a highly developed skill, like learning a martial art. Finally the skill is so natural that it becomes unconscious, like a pianist that doesn't consciously think of how to place his fingers on the keyboard. It becomes as it were just meant to be, destined (MING).
So Zhuangzi's naturalism is not simply to follow nature, it
is something much more sophisticated, it would not at all have
been the natural thing to do to swim beneath that great waterfall.
It is bringing nature almost beyond itself, reaching one's complete
utmost potential as Billeter sees it. Very far from 1960ies hippies
dreaming of Taoism:-)
Thomas
To see Thomas' "Daoist
Questions" web page go to: http://www.geocities.com/hrt236/dao.html
Taijiquan and "ti dao": embodying the dao, Louis Swaim
I cultivated an interest in Chinese thinkers at a very young age. When I learned about something called "T'ai-chi ch'uan," it opened up a whole world for me, yielding the possibility of understanding what had up until then been abstract "concepts" in very palpable, tangible, tactile ways. When I met my first sifu, he demonstrated to me once and for all that we learn with our bodies. The more I've studied Chinese thought in conjunction with taijiquan, the more it has become clear to me that the whole category we term "philosophy" really doesn't apply in the Chinese context. Again, as I've stated above, in the Western Platonic/Aristotelian/Cartesian mode of engaging the world, there is a fundamental duality expressed as subject/object, body/mind, etc. Hence "thought" and "action" are practically polar opposites. I don't think this is the case in traditional Chinese systems of thought, where thought and action are considered to be correlative partners.
As an illustration, let me present a notion found in many traditional Chinese texts from very early on. This is the notion of "embodiment." The character is "ti," and it means precisely the organic physical body. We find it, for example, in the phrase "tidao," where it means, "to embody a way." This is often found in a daoist context, but is not limited to Daoism (and here I will just avoid the categorical controversies of religious/philosophical Daoism, these being Western categories that are problematic in the Chinese context.) An English equivalent for "tidao" might be "to realize," which essentially means, "to make real." But within the context of a cosmology that does not recognize an oppositional dichotomy of real/unreal, the notion of "to make real" is an absurdity-everything already is real. So "tidao," "to embody" is better understood as "to play out, to practice, to do" a "way" in one's physical body.
What could be simpler?
Louis Swaim is the author of Fu Zhongwen: Mastering Yang Style Taijiquan, North Atlantic Books
The false divide between religion and philosophy: Bill Hulet
(The following is in response to: the section on apophasis and philosophy)
Well said, Raymond. I would add one more point, however. The
big
purpose of meditation, IMHO, is to aid the philosophical process,
as you
define it. Sitting (ie: "mind fasting") serves several
purposes. The first
is to quiet the "internal dialogue" to the point where
one begins to be able
to see the different elements of consciousness. The second is
to develop
"mindfulness" so one can see them for what they are
in their totality. The
third is to begin to tap into the flashes of intuition that allow
one to
understand the different things one sees. As you might imagine,
these
three elements are totally intermingled with each other---the
distinction is
conceptual, not actual.
As well, these three elements are both very useful for the
process of
philosophizing----and are present to a limited degree in the philosophizing
process. So, in effect, the distinction between "philosophy"
and "meditation"
is less clear-cut than the original question by Thomas seems to
assume.
And if you look at the origins of both Western and Eastern philosophy,
I
believe that you will see that originally there wasn't a clear-cut
distinction.
Plato talked about "contemplating the forms" and Zhuangzi
about "mind-
fasting".
I believe that modern religion and philosophy have fadishly,
and wrongly
created a divide. The former has done so by discrediting spiritual
practice
in favour of "faith" and slavish submission to revealed
texts and ecclesiastic
hierarchies. The latter by a infatuation with logic and grammar
to the exclusion
of all other forms of philosophizing. I believe both tendencies
have been in
great decline for the past 40 years. It is only because the majority
of scholars
and religious we have had access to in our short lifetime had
their formative
influences during the heydays of "faith-based theology"
and "logical analysis",
that our notions of the strong distinction between philosophy
and religion exist
at all.
(Bill Hulet occasionally posts under the name of Owl Clan Recluse
on the internet discussion board Tao
Speaks)
Good and Evil, a Confucian interpretation
In the following James Booth (Qui Fangxin)
presents the Confucian perspective on good and evil, and indicates
some contrasts that may exist between the Confucian and Daoist
view. The excerpt is from an internet discussion.
Qui Fangxin:
Sorry to 'confuce' matters further but the Confucian understanding
of good and evil appears to be more forthright than the Daoist.
Not that I hasten to add that that somehow makes Daoism 'flawed'
in comparison to Confucianism, however, I see Daoism's approach
to perceive of such matters relativistically in that the human
individual and collective interpretation of 'good' and 'evil'
will not be the same as a raccoon's, a stars or the AIDS virus'.
I personally don't feel that 'society' or 'civilisation' are wrong
or bad in and of themselves in as much as they are an extension
of the human psyche and its needs. But then again I'm not a Daoist.
The 'status quo' is the Mean that balances and preserves society
from its own potential extremities. IMHO it is the principle or
the collective nature-in-thing that governs society and regulates
it from descending into either mindless chaos or authoritarian
tyranny.
Evil may indeed become an abstract concept of relativistic value
but the common, Human consensus has arrived at an understanding
of things and events that are detrimental to the health and well-being
of us as a species. We as individuals can accommodate ourselves
as we largely do on a day to day basis into this consensus without
placing too great a harm upon our individuality.
For more on the Confucian perspective by James Booth go here:
Confucius
24 ESSENTIALS FOR STUDENTS
Liu I-ming 1808 tr. Thomas Cleary
#1
See through things of the world.
If you cannot see through
the things of the world,
You will sink into an ocean of suffering.
How will you get out?
Comments:
Seeing through the things of the world does not mean that one should divide up the world into spiritual and worldly. Where you and the snapping turtle share the same harmonious functioning and share the same essence which is the undivided, the moment of the beauty of everyday natural functioning fills the heart and the self-limiting concepts that cause one to miss the miracle of being each moment are seen through. When you do not see that your own thoughts are what is causing the division you sink into an ocean of suffering. The ocean of suffering is the misidentification with self-limiting or dualistic ideas that cause you to see the world as divided up, into higher and lower, good and bad, right and wrong, worldly and spiritual., What Liu's words really point to , is that one has to see that all of life is what in Tibetan they call a Bodhi Mandala; the very place of enlightenment, and that mundane and sublime are just ideas. Seeing though the "things of the world" is just to accept all things as the Tao and let things be. Fame and fortune, profit and loss, glamour and soap operas are all experienced like mirror images of ones own concepts about life. When you find the ancient way of the Tao and discover it shining in your heart of hearts, it lights up all things and guides you in all actions to always follow the light and in doing so your own reflection and the reflection of things is neither worldly or spiritual, sacred or mundane but is in the deep love of Tao that fills everything and all things are a reflection of that and one with it. The deep and profound love of the Tao is the answer to this riddle of how to see through the things of the world to avoid suffering . People misinterpret this to mean seeing things in a dualistic way; that you have to subdue your lower nature and stay away from the mundane things of the world. In truth seeing through things of the world does not imply value judgments but is just common sense. When you follow the way of the heart you naturally do good things without having to struggle with your "lower nature" to do so.
The way of Sages is ultimate power. It rights all wrongs naturally and returns ones very being to the Real of wide open unlimited possibilities. It is not meant to be a battle ground between those who think that discipline and structure is necessary in practice and those who have little use for rules and guidelines for practicing the way. Both approaches are just two sides of the same coin. The Way allows for both approaches used interchangeably as one needs them and are to be let go of when they are no longer of use. Learning to see though the things of the world is to see things as they really are and not divide things up. It is in learning to accept what comes and release what goes without clinging to anything that causes suffering so you always see the infinite, which holds to no fixed rules but is always that which rights all situations and circumstances and brings peace, and is the way of the heart, which is experienced as the love of the Tao. And in this you are unlike people with worldly minds who are buffeted around by their own self limiting ideas and self destructive tendencies and can't see though them, so they can't see the infinite way shining right where they are. Seeing the infinite way is seeing through things of the world. And seeing through things of the world is seeing that the Infinite Way is all this; it is in seeing that all of the ten thousand things are it. All One in the undivided perfection of being that we really are.
Applying the first of Liu's essentials is simple. Live in the single way. Do not divide things up. See through the things of the world to the essence. Do not replace one set of worldly ideas with another set of spiritual ideas. Do not set things one against another. Seeing things, thoughts, people, places and events as they are is to always see that your own intrinsic nature and the intrinsic nature of all things is one with the Tao. Ones own true nature is discovered by looking within and having an empty mind and a full heart; empty of limiting concepts and full of love for all things as an expression of the ever undivided Great Way of peace that all beings seek and is the meaning and purpose of life.
Suddenly a snapping turtle appears on the bank
thoughts naturally reflect the beauty of it
Nothing divided.
One miraculousness.
Mischievous children may not see it that way
and lost in the world may even try to kill the turtle
So from the place of loving kindness
and benevolence for all things
you coax the turtle gently into the water
to protect it from harm
Is that not seeing thought the things of the world?
Beyond good and bad--
Right action
Beyond right and wrong--
Just this"
Liu' gave people candy
to chew on
What can we do
if mischievous children use it
to throw it at each other
instead of enjoying
it's sweetness
In the woods
a crabapple tree
is covered with blossoms
it's fragrance reaching to the highest
heaven
You happen to come upon it
while on a walk in the woods
If your mind is busy dividing things up
and you are angry about some past event
you may miss the beauty of it
but if you are empty
the heart is full of it
and your love of the Tao knows no bounds!
By letting your love of Liu's love for the great way guide you, you have the essential ingredient needed for practice that transcends the words.
Lui I ming Said:
"The Tao is simple and convenient. There is no need to seek afar, for it. It is right at home. Transform yourself, and there you have the soul restoring pill. Change your outlook and there is the real shore of the Way. The reason the spiritual treasure does not appear to seekers is that they themselves will not allow it to do so - What a pity that they themselves will not allow it to do so - what a pity that people spend their lives in sidetracks.
"The Tao is unique, without duality-- why do deluded people divide it into high and low? The great Ultimate is originally a name for complete awareness'; ultimate sincerity... If you do not understand this and seek elsewhere, you will get involved in sidetracks, wasting your life in vain imagining."
That is essentially what Liu is saying and if you truly understand his first Essential for practice, the rest takes care of itself.
-- One in the Tao
Zentao (Zentao has a website on Daoism at: Tao
Speaks
The Bodhidharma, by Cinabrius (Pablo Ignacio Ianiszewski Flores)
Bodhidharma (Pu-Ti Ta-Mo in Chinese, Bodaidáruma in
Japanese) was the 28º patriarch of Mahayana Buddhism in China.
He was not Chinese. He born probably in India or Ceylon circa
+470 and died in 543 (?). Because of his Indian origin Chinese
people say that he came from the west. He was a great Master.
Ta-Mo was born as a prince, became pirate and Buddhist monk. When
he arrived at China by sea, the first thing he did was to try
to find some sincere disciple to give him the ''heart to heart''
transmission, the Supreme Dharma transmission, the final understanding
of the Buddha Nature. So he thinks the Chinese Emperor was the
right man to teach. That Emperor (I don't remember his name right
now) was a famous protector of Buddhism. When they meet each other
the Emperor asks Bodhidharma how big was his merit and good karma
because he built so many Buddhist temples and monasteries all
around China. Bodhidharma looks at him with his knife-eyes and
said: - Zero! - Then he understands that this man was not ready
at all. He runs out from the palace and began far away his famous
''9 years retreat facing the wall''. Finally he meet Hi-K'o, who
became the second patriarch of Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism in China.
He was a barbarian in the Chinese eyes, because he came from the
West, the west of the ''Central Land'' (Zhong Guo: China).
Jenni Siri: my spiritual beliefs
I think that it is significant that many individuals in modern times have flexible belief systems. Some might see this is a disadvantage, while others like myself think it is more authentic to admit that no individual can have a definitive knowledge of what we call the spiritual realm. Jenni Siri's view exemplifies this authentic modesty in her view of sprituality.
I have had very little sleep this week and kids baseball/softball
games in the evenings in the freezing cold wind... just got home
from Hannah's double header in a town pretty far from here, so
if I don't make a lot of sense, sorry! LOL...
Here goes... what many call God, I usually call Spirit. I feel
it runs through all things both visible and non visible, whether
created or uncreated. It's neither masculine or feminine but can
be perceived as either. I don't believe in 're'incarnation but
I believe in incarnations... I don't think of other lives as linear
but rather like songs on a CD, all exist simultaneously although
we usually only perceive the one we are conscious of in this life...
to perceive them all at once would be sort of like trying to listen
to all tracks on a CD at once... so we focus in on and give our
attention to this one.
I believe I have a HigherSelf or Oversoul who I am a part of and
we are a part of Spirit (like the life/identity Jenni is a leaf
on a branch that is my Oversoul on the whole tree that is God/Spirit/whatever
you want to call it) also believe that the knowing of all that
is, is inside all of us, just as an acorn has all the knowing
of a whole tree. I see us as all connected, different views and
perspectives out of the eye of God or Spirit, which I see as infinite
and constantly being created and recreated.
Now the more unpopular believe that I have... LOL...I see creation
and our lives happening for the enjoyment and experience of them.
I don't believe in growth or evolution of our soul in the same
way that many do because I see that as linear and I don't believe
in a linear progression outside of the physical and our physical
consciousness. I believe that if we can awaken to it, we are all
already perfect so evolution is only perhaps degrees of recall
of something we all already are. It would be like we are the whole
clock but we find ourselves only remembering and perceiving one
hour at a time, forgetting that it's always 11:00 and 6:00 and
2:00 as well as it is midnight and noon. I feel that part of why
we perceive evolution is because we are only seeing through a
perspective of limited awareness, and I also believe that this
is by choice... sort of like an actor focuses on the scene that
they are in while they are in it... even though they know the
whole script, they aren't thinking about other scenes while involved
in one in particular.
I also see diversity in unity, everything can be perceived as
separate yet it's really all one. There is a beauty in perceiving
the separateness though which to me 'is' creation. I don't think
without separation there would be creation, and just as we separate
music into notes and recombine them into melody's, so I think
it is with creation... infinite arrangements for our enjoyment.
Some say, "my life isn't enjoyable, war isn't enjoyable etc..."
I use an analogy of the movie Braveheart to explain that just
as there are scenes, very graphic ugly war scenes in the movie,
they are there as part of the whole which is a perfectly made,
directed and acted movie... overall it's very enjoyable and each
part that went into the whole contributed something to it to make
it a perfect film.
Well, this is missing a whole lot but it's enough for now and
I'm growing very sleepy. But I mustn't forget to add that I also
have a high honor for all things of this earth, the plants, animals
and endless beautiful landscapes. To me, this is all part of Spirit
which we too are a part of. As far as practicing any particular
belief, if I leaned in any direction at all, aside from being
thrilled by finding the common threads in all beliefs, I'm involved
with Shamanic Drumming and journeying similar to Siberian Shamanism.
Jenni Siri is one of the hosts of Come Together Community
Alan S.: You can't pervert the reality of Tao
I don't believe you can pervert the reality of Tao.
It is.
Any talk of it is inherently true and inherently flawed. One who judges the accuracy of this truth is undertaking an incredibly difficult task. Even the greatest teachers can be found to be flawed, if they could not, then they would not be human. Should we deny our humanity? Should we deny that any vision of truth is seen and thus distorted through our particular lense?
You can learn as much from a whore as from a sage. A whore does not seek to define herself, does not avoid the low and dark corners where others will not tread. How many false sages are there? Who has heard of a false whore?
Alan S. occasionally posts at: TAO SPEAKS
Hi, Guys. If you could imagine how diminished I have become in the past few weeks, physically, and in my so-called "Practice", you would be appalled. Nonetheless. The old brain still seems to be with me, and while that lasts I would like to offer some of my opinions about the problems people encounter with the terms "God" etc.
First, imo, there is the implication of personhood, as Cloudwalker points out -- needn't be white or male or have only 2 hands rather than a thousand, this implication diminishes the concept, for, at least as I see it, the great and mysterious and nameless Dao is absolutely transpersonal, and has no attributes as such. How can we resist talking about that Which we love? But of course it's not more profound than the conversations of sparrows on a telephone wire, or my muscovies in the yard, so EARNEST and EMOTIONAL, and IMPORTANT, but I believe, fortunately easily forgotten -- then repeated as if it were something original, earnestly, emotionally, importantly, all their lives.
Maybe they're having a conversation similar to ours. The "Singularity" is No Thing, yet it is real, more real than anything. "Its existence is a seeming." We feel like, and are, fools, whenever we keep babbling "Dao", like a word a baby would come up with, or a Lamb, or a fawn. That's good, because when we say "Dao", WE KNOW THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, and that makes it a better terms than "God", for example.
When people say "God" they think they know what they're talking about, they have some kind of mental picture. "God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, Who made all things and keeps them in existence." A box to keep a concept in that is not any more boxable than an octopus or a jellyfish. To go on, it does seem that this No Thing, this Null Point, that only seems to exist, does in fact generate the cosmos, including this universe and all prior, parallel, and subsequent universes, and that's terrific, because we can talk about that. There are some things we can apparently know, at least about this universe, its structure, its laws, its amazing beauty.
"Always, with desire, I behold the manifestations." And the cosmos, as far as anyone can tell, seems to generate Qi, a similar but far from identical concept to Grace, which can indeed be accessed, if not understood, by meditation, by prayer, by focus, intent, Practice, determination unwavering, "facing a wall for nine years", "not negligent, nor forceful." This gives us something worthile to do.
BUT if we desire to know the Dao, the very Singularity, the Reality which goes into existence and out of it and back again, always returning, if we want to access It, Merge with It, Participate in It, See It, Know It, there is a way, also called a Way, and it has nothing to do with intellect, but only purity of heart. Which is why long life is a value, if a limited one, because some of us (e.g. me) are inherently stupid and dull, and take forever to clean the house that is this shanty life of ours, and we have to keep starting over, and therefore I for one am grateful to be alive and renew my preposterously sincere vows and, so often, start over.
Thank you for your patience. I realize I really get didactic when I get going, and that many of you will see things differently, for we are brothers and sisters in Dao, never clones. May all of you be happy. May you be healthy and holy. May you prosper in your individual Ways. And may you live long and learn. Sincerely, Sister Kate
Sister Kate posts at: TAO SPEAKS
Prayer, in my
opinion, does not affect the eternal. Prayer, however,
does change our relationship to the eternal. We are affected by
it.
The power of prayer cannot draw spiritual "energy" to
us. We must go
to it. The power of prayer releases the false perception of control
that normally prevent us from realizing the eternal state we are
immersed within. When we open to it, the spirit is dispensed by
grace. Without that offering of thanks, there is no receptacle
to
receive it. In the physical universe energy is a commodity that
is
bought and sold. Not so in the eternal. Prayer is the preparatory
state of making the offering that brings us into alignment with
the
eternal. No divine channel is required.
James Clark hosts a website on mysticism here: Mysticism
start: here