steve

Same goes for me... Not to my knowledge but I'm not a scholar of the classics, culture, or language> I've studied the more accessible classics and most of my Daoist "knowledge" and interest is in practice. In my cultivation practice and discussion with my Shifu, there has been no mention of a specific "ego" entitiy by name but what is referred to frequently are all of the things that are distractions from being in accordance with Dao - all of the psychological and emotional baggage, conditioned patterns of behavior, and so on... These are the boundaries, the very dividing lines that "separate" us from Dao in our minds. All this is clearly recognized and much cultivation work, even though not directly concerned with working with this stuff, is indirectly addressed at liberating us from it's hold on us. This is a natural consequence of the meditative and physical practices. I think that the view I've gained from Daoist practice (and my limited knowledge of the classics) is that the Daoist does not view a separate self but rather holds a view that Dao manifests as living organisms that can be described through certain behavioral and observable characteristics. The basis for existence goes back to Wu Ji = Tai Ji = manifestation. This does not mean there is separation or distinction between those three "levels", it is simply human conceptualization of different facets of existence. What is Wu Ji if not the equivalent of Buddha's (shudder) emptiness? What is Tai Ji if not independent origination? It is exactly the same thing whether the Buddhists and Daoists on this forum like to admit it or not. Any argument to the contrary is just empty justification of nothing in my view. They only differ in subtle language and cultural nuance. We can name things (you, me, flower, mountain) but that is not the thing. It is not the thing because there is no thing. Reality is marvelously continuous and whole, the Dao is unbroken, it fills all and is nowhere to be found, it is people who like to carve it up into digestible pieces. Boundaries are creations of our mentation. So we can name ourself and describe the "person" or the "ego" but I think there is fundamental acceptance of non-duality in Daoism, at least if one takes the time to do the work personally. Trying to experience non-duality through study, analysis, or debate is not effective, that is what the cultivation and meditation part is for. At least that's what I've taken away from it. That represents the best of my subjective objectivity...

Hi realfastcat, I'd like to welcome you and say that this is one of my favorite first posts ever. It is a pleasure to have someone join us with the type of attitude you bring. Many of our members could learn a valuable lesson from your words.

I follow the drama on TaoBums about as closely as I follow soap operas on TV - not at all... The level of drama is inversely proportional to our collective level of maturity and personal growth. Yawn...

There was a time when I was concerned about world and local news. After realizing the depth of corruption of information (both intentional and resulting from unintentional forms of bias) I began routinely looking at multiple sources when reading an interesting story. I routinely looked at BBC, NPR, NY Times, Al Jazeerah, DEBKA-File, and occasionally others in Europe and Asia. Ultimately I realized that there is no such thing as a reliable or unbiased news story. It all depends on the unique confluence of information, geography, culture, and politics. I've completely let go of following news for about 3 years now. Some gets to me from other people and occasionally I'll read a paper or listen or look at media but very rarely. My life is better for me without it. I spend more time on things that are meaningful to me and I rarely find that there is anything important I miss that would have an affect on my life.

Jiddu Krishnamurti - There is no path through all of this shit. UG Krishnamurti - Enlightenment is shit Stig - this may be my only opportunity so I'm going to take full advantage of it. I had no idea you are so full of shit!

Each day I like this forum more, I rarely bother with the other. This is my refuge.

The Classics are full of discussion of that which gets in the way between man and Dao. To me, the implication is that this is the "objective" self, the self that is separate from Dao, that is - the illusion. And that returning to Dao and Wu Wei are about letting go of that illusion by letting go of all of those things that get in the way. Subject and object disappear and what remains cannot be named.

Welcome Mendelssohn. I am also a fan of Zhuang Zi. It's my feeling that most religions have a beautiful, profound, and simple core. At their core is a unique language for pointing the seeker toward the truth, toward reality, in a way that is determined by their cultural, geographical, and temporal characteristics. On top of this is piled all of the distractions, misinterpretations, corruption, and baggage of generations of misguided, well-intentioned, or opportunistic people. So Daoism is full of wisdom and beauty but there's plenty of chaff as well. Don't let that keep you away.

I just wanted to be able to look at this again...

I don't know about Marbles, but I value your opinion! Another way to interpret what you just said (the same way really?) is that Daoism, like all other religious/spiritual traditions, is simply about trying to figure out what reality is and how to be a genuine human being. Which takes us back to topic - are we objects or subjects? And it may be interesting to discuss but I think that for each of us the sum total of our life experience determines which we feel ourselves to be, there will be no convincing, only description.

Yes

"Real - not artificial, not imaginary. So anything real would include all things in their natural state without having been manipulated by any one or any thing else. The new-born babe? The uncarved block? No, the block has already been changed from a tree to a block. Uncarved wood would work though, wouldn't it? The uncarved wood could be a piece of dead wood from a tree or a part of the living tree itself?" I was just responding to this. I'm not sure why you are making a distinction between natural and unnatural when it comes to real. It's sort of related to why we try and make distinctions between our everyday human behavior and some idealistic vision of what we think natural behavior should be. Why do we insist on thinking it should be differnt than what is? I find that puzzling.

It's more Hindu than Buddhist actually and, in fact, arises as a consequence of any form of self examination, including Daoist. And you can't isolate Marblehead from his environment, it seems like you might be able to because Marblehead is mobile and is surrounded by a bag of skin and some cool antennae, but it's an illusion. Cut off from it's environment, Marblehead would quickly vanish and would never has existed in the first place.

This is a loaded question and as you begin to delve into meditation you will make all sorts of wonderful discoveries - or, like many, you may just get bored, give up, and go on as before. One could say that the purpose of meditation is to achieve or realize a condition from which there is no need be any different than we already are at that moment. I practice two major types: One is a Daoist method that involves very specific mental exercises and integrates extremely well with activities like Taijiquan and Qigong but also becomes very applicable to many activities in daily life. The other is very much what anamatva describes below and I intersperse this with the Daoist techniques (in fact it is a commonly employed technique in Daoist methods). This is an excellent approach that I find easy and effective. First sit comfortably. It can be anything as long as the spine is upright and balanced. If sitting in a chair the thighs should be relatively parallel to the ground. Lotus, Burmese, or half lotus are fine. Comfort and stability are all that count. Then just sit. Thoughts will come and go - mostly come. Don't fight it. Just notice them. Try not to add anything to them intentionally, they'll be busy enough without your help. Notice when you are in the thoughts rather than watching them and simply go back to watching. And you can also pay a bit of attention to how it feels to be in your body and to any sensory input (sounds, vibration, smells) but just notice, no need to add commentary or editorial. And just sit and do exactly this. Sit, feel yourself, notice the thoughts as they arise and depart, and you're doing it. Start with 5 minutes and gradually work up to 20 minutes a day. That's a great start.

Yes, I agree 100% regarding the open awareness as opposed to focus. It's hard to put into words. It can be focused or diffused but it certainly must be an opening. I read Bruce Frantzis' meditation books and one thing that I think he misunderstands is the difference between water and fire methods. He implied that fire methods are hard and closed and tight and focused. In fact, the quality of opening attention is the same as in water methods. Forgive my ignorance - what do you mean by the Jing area?

Excellent post.

Objective - where does the mind end? At the eyeball? At the sight of what is "out there (which is actually in the optical cortex)? Or at the "external" object itself? Somewhere in the air in the middle? When you have a sensory experience of something, are "you" separate from it? Can you put your finger on the "you" that is having the experience? Real - is a car not real? A barbecued steak? Why is unmanipulated more "real" than manipulated? Before man, dinosaurs where there to see the tree. Before dinosaurs, trees were in relationship with each other and whatever other living (and not living - perhaps) organisms were present. Sure, their level of awareness is different from ours but they do exist in an environment and interact at some level with that environment. I guess one could imagine what would the universe be like in the absence of all awareness of any kind. But we do not exist in a universe absent awareness. We live in the kind of a universe which is suffused with awareness. We can't know if there was ever a time when awareness did not exist in the universe. And there is no reason that it must be human awareness - have you thought about that? It comes back to whether the tree that falls in the forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it. The answer is no. Sound does not exist in the absence of an ear and a brain. Only disturbance in the air exists. You are trying to excuse yourself and all of humanity from being complicit in this wonderful mess we find ourselves in. And just because you feel that the universe existed before you were alive and will go on when you are dead doesn't mean that awareness didn't exist. Awareness remains. I guess a reasonable question is - does awareness arise from within the brain, is it locked inside of the skull and skin and sensory apparatus, or is it elsewhere? Where does it come from? How to find it. That's a tough one but be very careful, it's tricky. When one brain dies there are still many others. And the quality or stuff or activity (no words are correct) that is awareness is more or less the same for all aware things (or at least let's just stick with people for now). And all living things with awareness are "me". Nothing feels like "him" - we are all me. So as long as there is life, there is awareness. And as long as there's life there is "me." Is there awareness without people? Of course. All living things are aware, all are me's at some level. Without all living things? How to know? And just because an animal may not have the same type of internal dialogue we have going on does not mean that their conscious awareness does not participate in the birth of the universe that is ongoing at every instant. I don't think use has anything to do with it.

That was the intention. Qi is certainly the beef of Daoist medicine in many ways... Why would that not be Wu Wei? All living things survive by eating others. Death is everywhere whether it be through the agent of murder, accident, survival, or natural disaster (think of ZZ's Empty Boat). Humans are subject to illusion and delusion, how do we know that is not our natural condition? How to know it is NOT Wu Wei? This is what I was alluding to in a comment to Taomeow on another thread. We think that there is some state that is other than what currently is for each of us. And we are always trying to be or do something other than what is right now. How to know what is Wu Wei and what is not? I don't think it is so obvious, easy, or trivial... And Wu Wei might just be this, always and forever.

Yes, I understand that and didn't intend that this was representative of all Christians or sects. Just shared my experienced with an enlightened follower of Jesus and an unenlightened institution. Forgive my unskillful wording.

I was never impressed with or related to the Christian scriptures until I got into studying the works of Anthony DeMello, a Jesuit and psychotherapist from India, now deceased. Perhaps the unique combination of Hindu/Buddhist Indian background, Jesuit mysticism, and psychological training was the reason but he was clearly a deeply enlightened and liberated sage. He saw deeply into the nature of truth and existence through the scriptures and I was able to see the truth in scripture myself for the first time (not that I am or have ever been a Christian). He was never afraid to bring his knowledge of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism into his talks and generally played down too much religious thought and talk unless cornered by the "religionists" as he called them. It actually gave me some hope for the future of the Church until I discovered that Joseph Ratzinger (currently pope) decried and banned all of DeMello's work as heresy while working as the official censor of the Catholic Church. He subsequently eased his position but reading about that made me realize again the depth of corruption and ignorance of the institution. Like all religion, the institution cannot be enlightened or provide enlightenment or meaningful guidance, only individuals can do that.

There is also the aspect of whether we are masters of ourselves or subject to the whims of others. I don't want to get too bogged down in typing right now but, in brief, we can try to be aware of how we react to others and see through the illusion that they have the power to cause us harm. It takes some serious work and is multilayered, but the bottom line is that it is possible to achieve a state of being where no one can cause you to suffer, regardless of what they do. I know that it is very easy to come back with horrible examples of how this is ridiculous but not matter what, it is within one's grasp to accept what the universe puts in ones path, whether the agent of that obstacle is human, animal, natural disaster, or otherwise, and to accept and be content and fulfilled with one's lot. This is spoken to in Zhuang Zi's parable The Empty Boat. It is alluded to in the DDJ Chapter 49 (and others). It is also pointed to by the famous Christian admonition, to turn the other cheek. We can get into it more if you'd like. There is no greater proponent in the English language of this than Anthony DeMello - nominally a Jesuit from India but functionally a consummate Daoist sage, IMO. PS Taomeow mentions the practice "To know thyself" - DeMello's message was awareness , to strive to be aware of everything within and without.

What makes you suspect we are not?

Of course and yes, it is most definitely another discussion. Show me the Qi!

Why is it that the desire for friends and a lover makes you suffer? Is it because you don't feel comfortable being in relationships with others? Have you been hurt? Are you intent on isolating yourself for a reason? I don't think the desire to have relationships should necessarily be a source of suffering. Look into why that is the case - it's a place to start.

I agree with you. What I meant to convey is that Qi is very fundamental in cultivation, very basic, and hence worthy of examination for Daoists. And really what I was getting at was focusing Marbles on Qi since it is a good example of something that may be difficult to appreciate as "objective" that is fundamental to Daoist thought, practice, and philosophy.