Keith108

That part of Tommy's reply struck me, as well. I think your initial response, and this one really hit the mark. _/|\_

Still not clear about what a life force is, but it sounds like a nice idea! Live Words and Dead Words During a Dharma speech, Zen Master Hyo Bong said, "In our practice there are live words and dead words. If you attain live words, you are the same as the Buddha and eminent teachers. If you are attached to dead words, you never get out of the ocean of suffering. Live words and dead words are the same as dust in your eyes. So I ask you, how do you get the dust out of your eyes? Tell me! Tell me!" Hyo Bong was silent for a few moments, and then hit his Zen stick on the table three times and descended from the high stand. 1. Live words and dead words: are they the same or different? 2. How do you get the dust out of your eyes? 3. Which are live words: silence or three hits of the Zen stick? COMMENTARY: Who can save Hyo Bong? If you want to save him, you must use a hammer with no handle. Seung Sahn, Whole World is a Single Flower: 365 Kong-ans for Everyday Life with Questions and Commentary by Zen Master Seung Sahn and a Forword by Stephen Mitchell (pp. 332-333). Tuttle Publishing. Kindle Edition.

What is "the life force"? Honest question.

See also "hopium".

Folks love their own story. Me too... The first sentence in quote says it all. It can't be understood, only experienced. The Dharma helps give a framework to point us in the right direction. If you understand dependent origination, then not-self becomes self evident (pun intended!) One more step is necessary though. _/|\_

Practice and find out!

Koans are interesting, in that any kind of thinking doesn't help. It's a "lock and key" kind of practice, where the teacher is the lock, and you are the key. Wrong key and the lock doesn't open. Being stuck is a wonderful thing...it's where the magic happens. _/|\_

Ghost of Christmas past Karma planted, and fruition No escaping that!

Thanks for the response, Doc. Some really solid points made! My question was very specifically about Daoist practice, I suppose even more specifically about Neigong, so I appreciate that portion of the response especially. For readers of this thread, my background is Zen Buddhism, and I have a very strong daily sitting practice, as well as doing regular retreat work and twice weekly Sangha practice. The specific practice I do does not involve visualization. I was just curious why some Daoist lineages diverge on the topic of visualization.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Neirong. If the mods feel the post is more appropriate somewhere else on the forum, please feel free to move it there. Actually, there are lots of ways to incorporate visualization with strength training. But, that's a different topic, I suppose. My question was specifically about Daoist practices, which was answered in the previous quote (demanding, difficult, etc.). Since I don't know the specific qualifications needed to make this judgement, I will just leave this alone. Seems a little over the top though.

Prolly rather talk about stuff the Jewish folks invented.... Anyway, Nathan Brine makes some points that resonate for me in this one:

Hi all, I did a search for this, but didn't really find what I was looking for. I notice some systems are pro-visualization, while other seem against it. I was wondering what the reason for this was, and also what are the pros and cons of using visualization in our practice. Thanks in advance! Keith

The words "no-self" set up a dualism that isn't there. Better is "not-self". For instance: From here. Interestingly, there are two other translations offered, both rendering anatta as "not self". "No self" is simply not a useful translation of anatta. If the five agregates are not self, then what sees, hears, etc.? That can only be discovered through direct realization. _/|\_

bells and whistles, farts marvelous activity now, where is my fan?

Thanks for the kind words, Bob. Dukkha (dissatisfaction), is one of Buddhism's Three Marks of Existence. The other two are Annica (Impermanence), and Anatta (not self). Stirling brought up the oft used "maybe so" story that is parable about life being in constant flux, as with your brother's jail experience. I used the word "dissatisfaction", instead of suffering. Life isn't a constant stream of depressing suffering. There are plenty of joyful moments, it's just that they don't last. That's impermanence. Nothing lasts. So, our life becomes a constant chase to find some kind of lasting happiness. And, it's exhausting. There is also the constant need to prop of the idea of self. This idea has only two jobs: find lasting happiness in world where that is impossible. And to not die. This idea is very pernicious, and leads to all kinds of mayhem and yes, suffering. So, these three "Marks" taken together, either moment to moment, or lifetime to lifetime if you like, constitute samsara, which is the problem that Buddhism addresses. It's really not as depressing as some make it. For me at least, it is very liberating. Understanding the issue is the first step to overcoming it. _/|\_