steve

Emptiness can also represent total potential without distinction, boundary, or form. I think that's more what Wu Ji as well as Emptiness in Buddhist doctrine is intended to convey. Buddhists and Daoists seem to be fairly quick to remind us that we are not speaking in nihilistic terms when we refer to these concepts. But it's just my opinion and I'm no authority on either Buddhism or Daoism just blundering through some ideas... Thanks for your comments.

Sloppy Zhang's link looks very good (and free). There's also a great book called Becoming the Lotus by Martin Faulks which outlines a progressive series of stretches designed to achieve the posture. I think it's pretty similar to the free link above.

Templetao - sorry to see you yanked your posts. I've enjoyed your input.

I was talking about this sort of thing with my training partner today. I think there are several ways to approach the original question about immortals. Like in any religion, there are those who take the subject matter literally and those who take it figuratively, allegorically, mythically, and so on. So there are those that believe the Red Sea literally parted like in the Charlton Heston movie and there are those that believe that wine turns into Jesus' blood and bread into his flesh when its consumed. Some believe that shapeshifting entails literally physically transforming into an animal. Some believe in virgins waiting for them in heaven. Others look for scientific explanations or symbolism in such concepts. I find it fascinating that there are those who turn up their nose and scoff at such beliefs in others' traditions but are completely comfortable living in a universe of gratuitous dogma in their own, chosen tradition. So is the question - do you believe literally that there are humans who live on forever as the human being they were when they were born, riding dragons and so on? Personally, I try to avoid belief. Belief means that I accept an explanation for something in the absence of direct experience or evidence. Why bother? For me, I prefer to know or not know. And I have no personal experience of people living beyond 110 years old or so and I've never seen a dragon. On the other hand, through my meditation practice I've made certain personal discoveries about the nature of immortality that are very real and obvious to me. Things that I just know deep down in my bones and heart through direct insight. And it has nothing to do with humans living beyond 130 years. So I do believe in immortality and I study and practice elements of Daoism. In that sense, I do believe in Daoist immortals. My beliefs are my own and to try and explain them in detail is probably not worth the time and energy right now. Suffice it to say that my beliefs run more toward the symbolic when it comes to mythological descriptions of Daoist Immortals and yet I do have an understanding and belief in immortality that goes beyond the symbolic. When it comes to anthropomorphic deities? Humans with superhuman powers and so forth? Nope, can't say I believe in that concept. No reason to and no personal experience to base such a belief on.

One of the masters of this area of concern IMO was Anthony Demello - someone I consider a great personal mentor, even though I never met him. He speaks at great length about awareness. He investigates things like self esteem, conditioning, love, happiness, freedom. He was a thoroughly enlightened man and was equally comfortable talking in terms of Christianity, Buddhism, HInduism, and Daoism. He was born a Hindu, later converted to Catholicism, and became a Jesuit and licensed clinical psychologist. He gives a wonderful talk about the nature of our addiction to approval. It begins in childhood and we are trained from a very early age to depend on the approval of others - parents, teachers, friends, lovers, children, spouses --- everyone! And this is a completely learned behavior and has nothing to do with true happiness. It's a very complex subject and way beyond my patience for typing and my expertise to explain it like he does. A few simple points are worth mentioning. No matter what someone else says or does, it remains within my control how I choose to react. In any given situation it's important to be aware that no two people react exactly the same. How we react is based on a complicated mix of factors but is mostly conditioned. We can cultivate certain types of reactions and awareness to the point where we are no longer puppets reacting to a master's strings. This idea dovetails readily with Daoist principles such as those talked about by Zhuang Zi in the beautiful Empty Boat parable. When nature causes us some harm, we don't take personal offense. We respond appropriately, we may be a bit angry, we may feel it is unfair, certainly we'll mourn our loss, and we move on. When another person causes us harm (or perceived harm) we tend to react much differently. We hold a grudge, we tend to be much more sensitive and defensive, we tend to have much more anger and resentment. What is the difference? Another person is simply another manifestation of nature. It all comes down to how we view ourselves as separate from nature, it hinges on the importance we give to the "I" thought that masquerades as the thinker and the doer. If we can let go of our concern with the approval of others and be self aware enough to see what causes us to respond to others in our conditioned patterns, we can truly be liberated. I'd highly recommend listening to Demello's CD set called Wake Up to Life. It could change your life, it did mine. Not everyone responds to his approach. If you're interested in more info, feel free to PM me about it.

Exactly - that is why there can be balance in a homosexual relationship. We are all capable of Yin and Yang aspects. A successful relationship (regardless of gender) balances these aspects. True that same gender couples cannot reproduce (other than with laboratory intervention) but there are plenty of mixed gender couples that can't reproduce or choose not to as well.

Well, for misspelling your name for one thing! Thanks - it is easy to take offense and even easier to offend!

Excellent post vortex. I though I'd add some of my thoughts to the mix. Wu Ji = 無極 Wu = on, absence of, nothingness Ji = central pillar or beam, roof, ultimate, pole (as in Earth's pole), extreme or terminus Wu Ji refers to emptiness, limitlessness, infinite, without pole (ie without polarity), and literally means without a central beam or roof, or even without extreme. In my interpretation, Wu Ji refers to void or emptiness in a manner completely analogous to that in Buddhism. It is the aspect of existence where we are unable to actually identify or quantify any absolute or discreet substance. It is reflected in modern physics as we are increasingly unable to identify and concrete building blocks of nature other than forms of energy. It can just as easily be looked at as a positive affirmation of non-duality, non-polarity, analogous to the Vedanta perspective. Tai Ji = 太極 Tai = supreme, greatest, biggest, large, furthest Ji = as above Tai Ji is usually translated as Supreme Ultimate, however, the connotation here, IMO, is polarity. Ultimate referring to end or terminus or pole and Tai Ji therefore referring to extreme opposites or opposite poles, polarity. One pole is named Yang and the furthest pole apart is Yin. Tai Ji is the opposite and polar nature of existence. Tai Ji is the balance and interplay between the polarity of existence. And Tai Ji also relates to the totality of existence, the fact that both poles are inextricably linked together. They can never be without each other, they quite literally define each other. So in Daoist cosmology we're taught that Wu Ji gives rise to or gives birth to Tai Ji. I think one common mistake we make is to think of this in Newtonian terms. Our minds naturally think in terms of cause and effect and time. But I think it's a mistake to think as if at one point in time, earlier, there was Wu Ji and at some point afterwards there is Tai Ji. In my interpretation, Wu Ji and Tai Ji coexist always. There is an underlying aspect to existence that is void, that is there is no stuff, no concrete building blocks of existence, emptiness. This is the nature of existence absent the sensory experience and interpretation of living awareness. And concurrently there is Tai Ji which is the distinction that is associated with that very awareness that evokes beauty out of wave forms and substance out of energy. So Wu Ji is always there underneath, and Tai Ji is always the overlay created by our awareness and discrimination of Yin and Yang. And there is alway Yin and Yang, never one without the other. That's clearly shown in the Tai Ji diagram. So in my estimation, Wu Ji and Tai Ji are identical to Emptiness and Interdependent Origination. The subtle differences are a consequence of language and cultural differences. Any major differences, IMO, are simply a reflection of misinterpretation.

So you are saying that you, as a man, are 100% Yang. There is no Yin component to men and no Yang component to women.

I have to disagree with you completely. I think that you misunderstand what Lao Zi is telling us. If you have spent any time in meditation I don't know how you could make a statement like: "Human is not part of nature but human has to deal with Nature." Human is a manifestation of Nature - what else could human be? Are you saying that there is all of existence, and then there is Human? Dao is not two, it is non-dual - human is part of Dao. We feel separate for several reasons - 1)That pesky thought that calls itself "I" - it hijacks the other thoughts and claims the role as thinker and doer. In fact, it is a thought like all the rest. It just has a unique "tag" that makes it feel different, just like memories, dreams, and so on, have tags that allow us to identify them as different from visual and auditory input and so on. 2)We are mobile and surrounded by a bag of skin and have a sensory apparatus that makes us feel separate 3) We are surrounded by air and the air is invisible to our eye, so we feel separate. In fact, we are nothing more or less than the entire universe, doing it's thing right here and right now in the space "we" occupy. The separation is an illusion. In referring to Dao, Heaven, Earth, and Human, Lao Zi acknowledges our feeling of separation and the complexity of the many levels and aspects of existence. He breaks them down into very general categories but the boundaries are your creation, not his. The entire thrust of Daoist cultivation, thought, and Dao De Jing is the inseparability of Dao. Wu Wei is simply allowing our confusion to get out of the way of allowing the universe to "do us" as it naturally will without fighting it. Tai JI is the human experience of creation, of Yin and Yang. And the experiencer is ad inseparable part of the experience. Human awareness and Nature are front and back to each other. Without nature, humanity cannot exist. At the same time, awareness, sensory perception, and interpretation are what allow the beauty and experience of nature to be evoked from the otherwise unintelligible jumble energetic fluctuations (this is Wu Ji - void, nothingness, emptiness; it gives rise to creation or becomes manifest when there is awareness to create distinction between Yin and Yang). Just some ramblings... No offense intended Chi Dragon. Maybe it's just the language thing...

Notice that I emphasized the word should. Should does not exist in nature. What exists in nature already is. Should is what happens when you disagree with what exists and attempt to impose your preference on the other. There is homosexuality - it exists. Should means that you are making a judgement and what exists is in conflict with your judgement. Here is an example of how nature may foster and give rise to homosexuality. I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is homosexual or bisexual. I hold no opinion on whether it is good or bad - it is neither. As far as I'm concerned, if two or more people choose to develop a relationship out of love, camaraderie, trust, friendship, or anything else, that is their business and their gender and sexual choices are not my concern. So we are in a situation where the human race has very effectively crowded other species out of existence and threatens its own existence through overpopulation as a result of technology. I think that the species on a macro scale has intelligence and it would make sense to me that homosexuality increases in frequency in a setting of overpopulation to slow down reproduction and lessen the competition for resources. It makes perfect sense teleologically. From a relationship perspective, Chi Dragon, there will always be an alternating balance of dominant and submissive, aggressive and passive, and so on. This is irrespective of gender and is present in any relationship. From a physical perspective there is alway the penetrator and the penetrated, the pleaser and the pleased, the active and the passive, and so on... and this can easily occur irrespective of gender.

Good point Little1. I should know better as I am unable/unwilling to discuss much about my own school of practice. I made an assumption that may or may not have been accurate and certainly wasn't skillful. Tian Shi - I hope you will accept my apology. _/\_ There was no need for me to get defensive on hagar's behalf. He's more than capable of responding as he sees fit. Litt'e1- Thanks for pointing out my faux pas.

Very valuable perspective. We can get tunnel vision and focus only on the martial side of Tai Ji Quan. I'm the first to emphasize how important it is to understand the martial principles. That said, not only does martial focus develop martial skill; it also insures proper adherence to the principles which also yields benefits when it comes to the healing and cultivation aspects of Tai Ji Quan. It's certainly easy to brush off the health and spiritual benefits but I agree with you that these are the benefits that are the most valuable in the long run. These benefits are not only limited to ourselves but everyone around us. My good friend and practice partner probably is the best martial Tai Ji Quan guy I know (with the exception of my teacher of course, and probably his son). Recently, however, he's really turned his focus much more toward the healing benefits and he and his clients are benefiting quite a bit. Thanks for bringing out that important point templetao.

Yeah man, a little earthquake on Wednesday and Irene tomorrow! Dao is rockin and rollin the East Coast this week...

For me, the Xin Xin Ming is a wonderful example of Daoist and Buddhist similarity and is one of my favorite writings. Traditionally attribute to the third Chinese Zen Patriarch Sengcan, but possibly written later, it's a must read for anyone interested in Chan, Zen, or Daoism (IMO)... It's readily available for free online such as here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/fm/fm.htm

You're correct that form and pushing alone aren't directly combat applicable, however... Form and push hands are actually critical to developing the skill you need to apply Tai Ji Quan for combat purposes. No other way. If you look at the classics, you'll find that Tai Ji Quan is based on some basic requrements - zhan, nian, lian, sui, bu diu, bu ding (stick, adhere, connect, follow, don't separate or resist). If you are not doing these things you're not doing Tai Ji Quan. These skills come from form and push hands. Actually, all forms of Tai Ji Quan teach this at the level where combat applications are taught. It's not unique to Chen style, it's the foundation of all martial Tai Ji Quan. It's more obvious in Chen style because it's incorporated in their forms. Yang, Wu, Chen Pan Ling, Guang Ping,... don't show it in the forms but rather teach it in solo and two person drills.

:standing ovation: IMO, it's more about the teacher and student than the style.

I would echo with a big, fat NO in general but there are exceptions. This was learned through experience I once had the unfortunate experience of getting into a debate with a rather fundamentalist <enter name of religion of your choice>. After a lengthy discussion, he was quite upset, broke down and told me that his belief was all he had to keep him steady. It was heartbreaking. People aren't always ready or interested in the truth. And are we really skillful enough to make that decision for them? It's a slippery slope... Similarly, Anthony Demello talks beautifully (as does Stuart Wilde) about what people need at any given time in their life. Wilde talks about people needing to hit rock bottom to learn a lesson or break through their cocoon and begin growing. Demello talks about being conflicted between fostering spiritual growth (which often requires a lot of pain before we wake up and make profound changes) and providing psychological support (he was a Jesuit, a spiritual advisor, and a psychotherapist from India) which mainly involves easing pain and suffering. Easing the suffering can prevent or delay spiritual growth... So the only time I do this is 1)when asked by someone I think is open enough, 2)when interacting with close friends who share this sort of stuff with me regularly, and 3)perhaps if I really saw that witholding some obvious support might be unhealthy for someone (but do I really have the authority and expertise to make that call???). Also, here on this forum I think that our presence and participation implies an interest in pursuing insight and growth and engaging in spiritual matters so I do think it's appropriate here. Nevertheless, I think it's critical that we develop a way of approaching this with eachother that is not only challenging but collaborative, supportive, and compassionate. That's just my opinion. Others differ on that last point quite a bit...

RAOTFLMAO!!! I knew there was something I liked about you...

Wu Ji and Emptiness? Tai Ji and Interdependent Origination? Zuo Wang and Za Zen? Buddhas and Daoist Immortals? I think this thread has great potential - thanks Seth.

I find the Buddhist and Daoist perspectives to be very similar and very complimentary. I don't really identify with one or the other, I use both where applicable to further my own understanding and practice. I'm happy to have both around. I find a few individuals to sometimes be annoying but not the philosophy or practice per se. That said, I've been spending most of my online time in the Taoist Discussion Forum and I think our members have done a great job at respecting the intent in that area.

It's a little commercialized and I have no personal connection but I really like the approach of Peter Fenner. http://www.radiantmind.net/ I was recently given a copy of a set of his cd's by a friend and really like the way he presents the material and guides the learner into meditation and awakening.

Even if the participants have the same gender there will Yin and Yang aspects to the relationship and the physical activity.

I think that the "first obstacle" will probably vary from person to person as meditation is very individual. For me, the first obstacle I can recall was thinking that I was not doing it correctly. There is a natural tendency for thoughts to arise and carry us away. After a while we expect to be able to control that and I found myself questioning whether I was doing it correctly because I wasn't seeing the progress I expected. This led to frustration and impatience early on and that took a while to come to terms with. It was easy for me to get onto the cushion and dedicate time to the practice... in the beginning. Making the time and staying consistent has been a real challenge for me at some times, not so much at others. But this was an obstacle that arose later, when the initial novelty and excitement had worn off.

I agree with you there. At the same time I do understand how having a familiarity and understanding of cultural, social, and language factors can have a big impact on how we interpret things. For example, I'm not a native Chinese speaker but I do some translation for my Shifu and it's fascinating to see the differences in how the Chinese and American mind work based on the structure of language. I don't want to get into it too much but the nature of alphabetical for symbological writing has a profound affect on how we approach meaning. Cultural and social factors can have similar impact on how we interpret and percieve things. I'm guessing that is Miro's point, at least in part. Miro - please correct me if I'm wrong.