dwai

divine bubble bath the scholar warrior at war break all shackles

It depends on the intent behind your practice, imho. The style of Taiji I practice involves practicing single forms repetitively. The long form is done to test whether flow can be maintained through transitions. Emphasis is given to single form practice (the style is called Temple style tai chi). The intent encouraged is to make the practice a nourishing practice, with circulation of chi with the flow and finally drawing it into the lower dan tien at the end of the practice. For the first several years we are not taught transference of power. I have noticed that during practice sometimes little animals are attracted. They will stop and sit and observe me practicing, which I become aware off after a while, usually when transitioning. I have had rabbits, squirrels, feral cats, birds stop moving, and sit around. My teacher said he's had similar experiences too. The forms are the same as anyone would practice I guess. For instance brush knee twist step, grasp sparrow's tail, tai chi stance, raised hand, playing pipa, snake creep's down. I would assume that if the intent applied was martial, the result would be in these animals not staying but scattering. But that's just my interpretation.

life branches skyward breath roots in earth breathing through heels nourishes it

Okay...you win, we lose. You happy now? Go in peace my Brother...

What's even more amusing is that this "Daddy" came to the rescue each time, especially when the 10 year old was questioned on his experiential knowledge...that too with evidently fabricated "evidence". But no worries...these are all learning experiences in the decoupling of Ahamkara from the Jiva. It's only a matter of time before the aatman is realized... Keep working at describing Consciousness and meditating. You will find the answer yourself. Vedanta (Upanishads) are called the Jnana Khanda of the Vedas. You need to learn about Vedic scriptures to understand this. And your concepts of Indic history were suspect. I hope you weren't offended that I took the liberty to correct your misconceptions on the Vedanta thread.

there is only one destination you can choose to jump off at the oasis chasing a mirage if you want

where did they begin? was only water first with desire came being not-being

unknowable it is words can't describe it one has to be to know

True...but not in complete submission to the framework (or raft if you may). Experiential knowledge is most important

rising and falling interconnected in the nothing If I don't exist then who's watching?

I have to agree. Philosophy helps in analyzing, understanding the experience. Nothing can beat Direct experience.

Well said. Yoga is Union. Union of what? It works at all levels of duality, just the same as Taoist systems do. The aim is to transcend duality. The goal is to transfix the mind into doing a repetitive action such that the split between subject, object can be created. This in turn leads to inquiry which leads to letting go of the "self" (or simply dropping the self -- getting out of the way as my teacher likes to say). Hope this doesn't turn into this vs that slug-fest. It's all good...they are all good ways...to each his/her own. It depends on what level you want to practice Tai ji at. My teacher says Tai Ji can be practiced as a martial art, a healing art or a system of self-nourishment. They intent in form practice is different and the applications are slightly different. Martial-type focuses on discharging where are nourishing practices focus on re-claiming/cultivating.

You still don't get it. It is all relative to the categorical framework. Dependent Origination that you guys love so much. That's another implication of it. Truth-claims (even if it claims no-truth as the truth claim) is dependent on the framework. I stopped posting because it's pointless. You cannot convince me that I am wrong and I cannot convince you that you are wrong. Only way Truth can be accessed is by dropping these frameworks of categorization.

Doesn't that make the truth a reality? Anyway...I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I don't know anything and shouldn't have been debating here in the first place. Best Regards, Dwai

I could say the same to you dear Thunderheart. You just don't see that what you think is your dogmatic adherence to a categorical framework called Dependent Origination, which you try to superimpose on something that is non-phenomenal, no-thing, without a beginning or an end. Whether you reached Turiya or not, whether you reached Nirvikalpa Samadhi or not is something no one can verify but you. I too reach Turiya in meditation. There is no way to describe the experience. It simply is the gap between thoughts rising and falling. That's all...any attempts to analyze it leads thoughts to rise. Why this overwhelming need to prove that Buddhism is the best? If it is, it will show on it's own. You or your friends don't have to go and evangelize others. Your attempts at undermining other traditions and trying to establish the primacy of yours over others is indicative of a deep-rooted insecurity in the veracity of your tradition. I wish you well too man. Just because we don't see eye-to-eye about philosophical discourse doesn't mean we should dislike each other. I do take exception to your dismissive attitude towards Hinduism. That Hinduism you claim as having been part of is a miniscule fraction of Sanatana Dharma...so you were in no position to speak the way you did. I note your apology and the statement that you love Indian food (why that should matter in a philosophical discourse is another matter). I hope you are sincere and with that spirit I accept your apology. And I guess I like Buddhist food (Buddha's Veggie Feast is one of my favorite meals at the local Chinese restaurant) Anyway. I think I have spent enough time and effort here. I need to continue with the novel I was writing and practice.

To each his categorical framework. I am trying to transcend mine, are you yours? Why do I stick to my guns? Because your guns don't make logical sense to me. You don't see it...but that still doesn't change the lack of logic on your part. I am responding to each of Xabir's posts, because his are the only ones which show some sincere humility in them. I have also shown you that Dependent Origination is dependent on Superimposition for it's origination. Also, I have shown that consciousness is not a phenomenon. You guys don't get it...Again...if something is not a phenomenon, it cannot possibly dependently arise. It is, has been and will always be. Simply be.

That is the problem. Words are inadequate in describing something that is only possible via direct experience. You are saying emptiness is this, emptiness is that. I am saying emptiness is emptiness because it doesn't have any phenomena in it, nor is it a phenomenon. The moment you start describing that which is beyond the realm of objective inquiry, and then claim it to be an Universal Truth, you will cause contradiction and absurdity. Your Universal Truth is only universal vis-a-vis the lens of your categorical framework. That which you claim as Ultimate Reality is ultimate only within the limitations of your framework. Change the framework and you have a different "Ultimate Reality". No matter how close you get to the "Ultimate Reality or Truth", as long as a framework is employed, it applies a limitation to the "real thing", even to the extent of saying that which is real is not really real. Shankara's calls this upaadhi (a limitation of the psycho-physiological markup of the inquirer) and it is a property of superimposition. Superimposition is when a categorical framework is applied to something that is beyond frameworks or objective inquiry (the Ultimate Truth). All you get is a view. This view is real in a relative sense, but not Ultimate, since it is only an image/reflection. In other words, NO RELIGION or PHILOSOPHY or METAPHYSICAL CONSTRUCT CAN CLAIM that their view is the best view or that their way is right and everyone else is wrong. That is because in order to make a truth claim, they will have to apply a categorical framework. The limitation of the framework IS the framework and the truth that is found is a relative truth. Phenomenon is important to Categorical frameworks, because only phenomena can be inquired into objectively. The Ultimate Truth is beyond phenomenal/objective inquiry because it is not an object or a phenomnon. So if a Buddhist claims that "MY WAY IS THE BEST WAY OR THE PERFECT WAY", that is the delusion of that Buddhist, since all he can do is apply a categorical framework and create a superimposed view (super-imposed on Ultimate Truth, which cannot really be objectively inquired into). So, in effect, Tao, Brahman, Shunyata are all the same. The view of this no-thing, non-phenomenon is what some traditions claim as truth, while others concede that it cannot be analyzed, inquired into objectively and therefore is not the "Ultimate Truth".

What enables you to put this insight into words?

That IS the point. If it is an object of your consciousness, you can describe it. If it is an object of your consciousness, it is a phenomenon. Matt, read what I posted in response to xabir's insistence that Dependent Origination is not a Categorical framework and not a result of Superimposition. If you had to learn some form of epistemology to gain knowledge of something (be it anything), it is a categorical framework. And Categorical framework is a direct result of Superimposition. So you have to superimpose to get to understanding/realizing Dependent Origination. What that means is that all the things that you claim are true vis-a-vis dependent origination are infact only valid so long as that framework is used. Try it...if you don't apply the rules that show you that things are dependently originated, then you cannot show that things are dependently originated.

What is Advaita Vedanta trying to say? It is in agreement. Categorical framework has to be transcended. The framework will only take you up to the point beyond which only experiential knowledge works. No description, no explanation, no words can encapsulate that experience. Any attempt to do so will be a view of that experiential knowledge and any description an attempt at duality and superimposition of a categorical framework. So that which can only be directly experienced and cannot be described, but which is the basis of every view, framework, knowledge claim, phenomenon is what Advaita calls Brahman. It is not a "thing" or a "process". It is not physical or mental. It is not something that rises and fades away as phenomena do. That Directly experienced Knowledge is always there. The seeker has to become it...there is no other way. You need namarupa to understand what it is you cannot ascribe either nama or rupa to (name or form). Once that realization occurs, there is complete and unfettered, undifferentiated experience of being that truth. That is non-dual realization.

Do you or do you not need to learn epistemology called the Theory of Dependent Origination to realize that everything is dependently originated? If the answer is yes, it is a Categorical framework. For what else is the role of a categorical framework but knowledge acquisition and development? If the answer is no, then how do you know? You see...Namarupa is primary precondition to knowledge. Namarupa is a result of Superimposition.

But it still is a framework of categorization and you had to learn it to apply it. Thus, you are superimposing. And the limitation of the framework is the framework itself. Dependent Origination will only make sense when someone uses it. Otherwise it is simply BS. That my friend is the limitation of frameworks, and why they have to be transcended.

You hit the bell and I hear it. But what do have to do to identify that it is the bell. If I don't know what a bell is, what is sounds like, etc would it register? I don't think so. If it did, I would immediately start categorizing it. How do you know it is dependently originated? Do you "JUST KNOW" it, or did you have to learn about a categorical framework known as the Principle of Dependent Origination for you to say that it IS dependently originated?