steve

I think you make an excellent point and I don't completely disagree. On the other hand, those of us who take the martial arts very seriously see it a little differently. Would you ask a 4 year old to study math for 2 years and then give him the equivalent of a high school math diploma even though he can't solve trigonometry problems? Sure, I guess you can and it may make him feel good but he doesn't understand trigonometry. Give a 4 year old karate lessons for 2 years and give him a black belt and can he defend himself against a pedophile or begin to teach martial arts to other children? It's really just a matter of perspective and intention. I think there is a lot of truth to this. I've trained with a number of teachers over the past 40 years. The excellent teachers were all doing very poorly economically. The financially successful schools were not worth my time and I was in and out quickly after seeing their approach and the quality of their senior students. One exception is the school I most recently taught for. There was a time when they did very poorly financially (during the time I was training there) and recently my teacher's son has taken over the program. So far, he seems to be doing an excellent job of maintaining a high quality of instruction while dramatically improving the school's financial stability. We'll see how things are a few years from now by so far so good.

Good stuff - we are in 100% agreement. There are many who grasp at the words more literally and turn it into dogma. You clearly are doing the work to see the truth behind the words in your daily experience. Godspeed!

Thanks for the clarification, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that individuals mistakenly believe this then. I'm currently reading Mind Beyond Death by Dzogchen Ponlop. In this, and in other readings and listenings about what transpires after death, there appears to be a distinct implication of a continuity of "experiencer" going through the bardos after death and then somehow "forced" to reincarnate for another life. An implication that if "I" do not become fully realized, "I" will have to repeat this over and over until such time as I am fully realized. There is reference to preparing for these bardos through multiple practices. There is mention that for fully realized people, the bardos after death do not exist yet for those who are not, there are three bardos after death. What is it that experiences these bardos and is subject to rebirth? It feels very much like a threat, a negative motivation to practice the Buddhist rituals in order to prevent the pain and suffering of rebirth. This is what I do not buy into... We die, the experiencer is no longer, we are pure heartmind. Another organic being arises and is imbued with the essence of heartmind and so on... I don't accept the continuity other than to say we are all "me", we are all the "experience" of heartmind constrained by our organic self during life and free of all that dust and distraction during death.

More or less - I think that the common interpretation of "reincarnation" or "rebirth" is one in which we imagine that there is something coherent of us as individuals that persist after death and is reborn. Whether this is our memories or beliefs or personalities or all of the above. It is also possible to look at the early Buddhist transmissions in a different way, which is the way I "imagine" it. There is the individual human (or animal or plant) and the unique combination of genetics, experience, memory, knowledge, conditioning, and all of that is "stored" if you will in the brain/body. Suffusing all of this and animating it is the heartmind which could be looked at as the source of consciousness or awareness, the spark of life, dependent origination of experience... whatever. I don't want to get into a semantic debate about what to call "it." So when the body dies and the brain dies, what is left? Is there some entity that continues beyond true death that houses memories, beliefs, personality - "me" and my unique make-up? I think not. How would that remain? What shape would it take? How would it separate itself from heartmind? How would it persist and experience the bardos beyond death? I just don't buy it. My current feeling is that once the body/brain dies, "me" is no longer. Heartmind continues. Heartmind is that which "is." It is what allows "me" to feel that I am "me." Every living thing is me, no living thing feels like they are other than me - the heartmind. And every rebirth is the manifestation of heartmind in whatever particular organic form that arises. There is nothing that " causes the rebirth that brings about manifestation as a human and not - say - as a dog or a bug?" simply because there are dogs and there are bugs and there are humans. All arise and all are "me." There is always birth and death and every me is me, the awareness of heartmind manifesting as me in different forms. And the conglomeration of all the me's everywhere combines somehow to form the glory of existence. Every tradition that guides us to heartmind points at the fact that there is some state of being (or non-being, please let's not get bogged down in semantics) which is sullied and obscured by our conditioning, desires, choices, whatever. To approach this "experience" we simply need to let go of these obstacles, allow the dust to settle or the clouds to part and allow the purity of heartmind to shine through. So what sullies or obscures heartmind is simply all of that stored in the brain/body and once that is gone there is nothing left but the purity of heartmind. And we can get glimpses of this and even learn to abide in it for relatively extended periods of "time" with a little practice. But I don't think there is anything that exists beyond death to cloud it. What does persist is the social and cultural conditioning that is passed from generation to generation that causes each "reborn" expression of heartmind to find itself again lost in the mire of samsara. And so the Mahayana tradition asks us to strive for the liberation of all sentient beings. In other words, we must rid ourselves of the yoke of social and cultural conditioning, for total enlightenment to occur. But we also are taught that nirvana is samsara and that tells me that the Buddhists understand that there will always be suffering as long as there is life. The two are Yin and Yang. While we live we can connect with heartmind but we also experience samsara. Perhaps after we die there can be glimpses of samsara within nirvana. I don't know and can't know right now so it's not worth worrying or arguing about that and I simply don't accept such assertions which to me are religious dogma. Sorry to be so wordy but this helps me to sort of work through this stuff and clarify it for myself. Words just don't do it justice but this is the direct experience I've had so until something is compelling enough to make me feel otherwise, that's how I see it....

Much of what is said and written about Wu Wei in the classics seems to me to be a very lofty aspiration but how many of us actually achieve a total evaporation of self and pure being in complete accordance with Dao and nature? Call it abiding in heartmind or choiceless awareness or unconditioned awareness or buddha mind or whatever. Perhaps one or two people in a generation? Maybe none? We can all express our opinions on that. But even the "sages" or at least those authors who are remembered as Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi (where is the proof of Lao Zi's human existence?) must have known that the vast majority of mere mortals never achieve this lofty goal... So what I think is worthy of consideration is what are we to do as average humans to live in a manner that is "going with" rather than "going against" Dao? One approach I've taken is to look at Dao as my own true nature, rather than trying to project my abstract image of what "Dao" is on the world around me. It is in my nature to think and feel and desire and choose. Much of this is heavily influenced, maybe even completely created, by social and cultural conditioning as well as physiological and environmental factors. We can certainly argue whether there exists a pure state of humanity where all of that conditioning is absent and we are purely a reflection of Dao and nature with no cloudiness on a permanent basis - I'm not yet convinced this does or ever has existed but that's beside the point. So I am a thinking, feeling, choosing, desiring being. Is it Wu Wei to deny this, to fight this? Perhaps. To the extent that I can let go of the conditioning and the preferences, I will do just that although the irony is that this is, in itself, a choice and a desire and, therefore, a departure from what is currently. Anyway, to the extent that there is residual conditioning, can I work with that in a skillful way to approach something that may be considered Wu Wei? I believe it is possible. I advocate that each of us conduct an ongoing and profound examination of our selves. Our motivations, behavior, choices, reactions, and so forth. How do I react to situations and relationships with others? What makes me angry or afraid and where does that come from? And on and on - it's a long and arduous undertaking. And the more I understand myself, the more I can understand my core values - those things that are at the root of my conditioned (and non-conditioned) being. Do I value integrity (that's a big one for me). Honesty? Compassion? Loyalty? Once I am able to get directly in touch with this, I can approach Wu Wei. If I am able to make choices that support my desire to live in accordance with my own core values, that is living in a manner of Wu Wei. I am going with rather than against my own nature as best I can understand and experience it. Then I am much more likely to be comfortable with who I am and where I am going in life. After some time spent doing this work I found that love and compassion tend to arise very naturally. If I can combine this approach with developing skill in acceptance, I am even closer to Wu Wei. When I can be in the present and accept my condition and understand that I need absolutely nothing to change to be here and now and totally complete in this "experience" then I don't need to make choices and the desires take less hold of me. Can I dwell in this state forever and at all times? Not by a long shot. Can anyone? Perhaps, it may be worth a try. But until this state becomes permanent, these other two attitudes of living in accordance with my core values and abiding whenever possible in a state of awareness without preference or choice is a way to approach a life of Wu Wei.

I think that it is individuals who are primarily corrupt. Organizations and institutions by and large are exploited by, or created by, corrupt individuals. That said, there are certainly examples of systematic and organized abuse and/or protection of corrupt individuals in religious organizations as well. If we were to look at the statistics available, some religious organizations have considerably higher incidences of abuse, whether individual or organizational, than others. The question is, how accurate are the statistics? This is touched upon in your link. I don't think any religious organization is exempt but clearly some seem to be worse than others. Thanks for that link.

I think GIH gave a great and succinct answer to "what" it is although I don't completely buy all of it, see below. There are many methods and practices that are designed to guide you to direct "experience" of heartmind. I use quotes because heartmind is not experience per se. It is pure being absent one who is experiencing and absent anything that is being experienced but these are just words. The Advaita Vedanta technique of abiding in the question "Who Am I?" is particularly effective - see Ramana Maharshi. More contemporary non-dual writings can be effective (Sailor Bob Anderson, Steven Harrison). Jiddu Krishnamurti and Anthony Demello both have "non-methods" that help guide one to this "state of being" And certainly myriad Buddhist and Daoist methods. A good friend recently gave me a set of CD's called Radiant Mind by Peter Fenner. He was an ordained monk in Tibetan Buddhism but for some reason left the monastery and returned to lay life. I just started listening to the CD's and so far he seems to be doing exactly what you are looking for - assisting the listener and getting in touch with the heartmind directly. I can't speak to his credibility and I've only listened to the first of 7 discs so far but you may want to check it out. I have trouble buying into what I consider Buddhist dogma when it comes to things like what is referred to above. Once the body and brain are gone, does the individual continue to exist? I know the TIbetan tradition (and others) believe so. I know that there are claims of such by reincarnated "souls" and folks who have "died and come back" but to me this is unsubstantiated dogma. Until I have direct experience or compelling reason to accept otherwise, my view is that the memories, experiences, preferences, personality, and all that which makes us distinct individuals is a reflection of the "hard-wiring" if you will of the brain/body and is a consequence of genetic memory, direct experience, anatomical and physiological characteristics, etc... When that is gone through true death (not just a 15 minute, transient "death") "we" are pure heartmind absent any individual characteristics. This makes the most sense to me. Disclaimer - I have one foot in both the Western scientific and Eastern spiritual camps. This certainly informs my viewpoint. A new and unique manifestation of heartmind occurs with each rebirth and develops a unique expression of heartmind, genetics, anatomy, physiology, cultural and social conditioning, etc.... Might there be fragments here and there that are expressed giving rise to the dogma that espouses reincarnation? Possible but I'm not completely convinced - just my $.02.

To get my black sash in Wing Chun one requirement was to fight the Shifu until he was satisfied I was ready - no spectators. He beat the crap out of me but was skillful enough to leave just marks, no real damage. I did manage to get in a nice punch to the face and cut my knuckles open on his somewhat buck teeth! When I studied a Japanese style many years ago (Shorinjiryu Kenyukai Karate), the black belt test was all in Japanese, lasted about 6 hours, and was very tough. Lot's of stuff we'd never seen or learned before the test as a way to get us to think on our feet. The tricky thing was that you didn't know it was conducted in Japanese until you got there! Fortunately I was always on the intense side and studied some language, history, and traditional sayings and so forth on my own so I did well on that part. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Baby black belts... I guess it's good that it helps keep the schools open in tough economic times... I wouldn't do it nor would I send my kids to such a school.

Sounds good

Nicely said. I would not consider a young child to be mature enough, either psychologically or physically, to earn a black belt in a martial art. My "definition" of someone deserving of a black belt is someone who is able to demonstrate proficiency in the basics of the art which would include basic applications. In addition, I've always been an advocate of including some assessment of maturity, stability, and responsibility. This is quite nebulous, granted, and yet important, IMO. The issue is one of economics only. To pacify parents, one must show them something tangible to keep them bringing their kids in and paying their tuition.

It is not a contradiction or quotation, IMO. It is because "knowing" when enough is not based on knowledge. It is not based on facts, memories, ideas, concepts, and the products of learning. It is a knowing in the bones, in the heart mind, it is direct knowing through awareness. It is connecting with something other than the conditioned mind. It is returning to the source.

I agree with you. Sages are also often compared to fools and simpletons. And once we have lived with the experience of all of our conditioning and suffering and desires, in order let all of that go, it feels to me as if we are ignoring these impulses and thoughts and seek sort of a state of ignorance. Semantics perhaps.

I don't know if I can answer the question but I can share my experience. Healing others is an enormous responsibility. I find that the majority of people in the field are very sick themselves and really in no position to truly offer meaningful help to others. First, do we really understand what is going on in the other to have some idea of what they need? Second, do we really understand what is going on in ourselves to know whether and how we can provide that? Third, are we honest enough with ourselves about whether what we are doing will truly help and whether the person really needs what we have to offer? I have found that my own mindset and approach to helping people is critical to how much I can help them and to how the work affects me. There were many years when I would allow myself to get sucked in by the sickness in those I was trying to help. And by this I mean their neuroses, wrong ideas, dysfunctional conditioning, and so on. And also, it is easy to become affected by their pain and suffering. It's easy to get wrapped up in the business aspects of this - profits, expense, stress, and so on. Not only this but it is easy to create one's own pathology while trying to help others. This occurs through many paths such as insecurity, arrogance, incompetence, over confidence, and so forth. All of these things, and many others, tend to lead to loss of personal "energy", degradation of health, and ultimate dissatisfaction on the part of healer and sufferer. Eventually, I reached a place where I recognized the gift that I had been given. I have a skill that I can share with others that can enrich their lives. I realized that I could offer this to people with a sense of giving rather than taking. I found out how to sit with someone and open myself up to what they need. To calm myself inside and just be with them for a bit. If I can be tranquil and comfortable in myself, I can be so much more effective. And their problems and anxieties and anger and fear are theirs, I don't have to take them on. They come with their baggage, I do what I can to help them, but I don't have to take it on myself. If they are unable to let it go, they leave with it and I remain, undisturbed. This approach has affected me profoundly. Those who come to me for help, if they are at all aware, see the difference. They feel it. And I feel it. I am much more gratified and enriched by my work and much less stressed or adversely affected by the nature of the work and by their pathology, be it physical, spiritual, emotional, or psychological. I think it is too easy for us to look at what we do with a limited perspective. So the acupuncturist is very focused on the needle and meridian. The energy healer is too focused on manipulating energy (could there be a more ambiguous term?), the surgeon too focused on the anatomical and physiological perspective, and so on. To simply open up and experience the other and oneself without being completely immersed in and distracted by our concepts and paradigms can make all the difference. To just be with the person and connect as a fellow human being and allow that to guide us is very valuable. To get there it is critically important, IMO, to look first at oneself. To see what our values are. To see how we interact with those we are trying to help. To understand what it means to be in a relationship with these people and to learn to be comfortable and at ease with them and loving. Then I think we can be enriched by our work rather than degraded by it. It takes time, patience, and a genuine desire to look deeply at ourselves and commit to perfecting what we do. Anyway, I hope that helps in some way.

I'll make a comment about ignorance and Daoism. Ignorance is generally defined as lack of knowledge or a condition of being uninformed. And yet, this is essentially the condition that Dao De Jing advocates - ref Chapter 48 In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired. In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped. Less and less is done Until non-action is achieved. When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering. And yet how can we come to Wu Wei and Dao without awareness of what it is and some idea of how to get there? So I think this is a worthwhile topic to explore. Practicing Wu Wei and approaching the condition of a sage requires that we first acquire knowledge, conditioning, desires, and all of the baggage and distractions that help us develop the experience and wisdom of life and that we then learn that we need to drop it all. We need to first become adult and become jaded and disturbed and violently disgusted with where social and cultural conditioning take us before we have the personal insight and power to rebel and drop it. A child is not a sage but an adult, who has had the experience of living in the world, can become a sage by becoming "child-like." So we need to first come from a place of ignorance to knowledge and then return to a state of, maybe I'll call it, "informed ignorance" where there is knowledge which is suffused with the understanding that the knowledge is the obstacle. Just some improvisational thoughts... As far as Buddhism goes it's even simpler: Buddhism=ignorance Just kidding! Just kidding! I couldn't resist.... I actually have a lot of respect and love for the tradition and it's followers. But I'll let our Buddhist scholars address that beautiful tradition.

Very important insight, although one can also say, ironically, that it's is of no importance whatsoever! Because, if it is important, that implies wanting something or striving for something.

Powerful stuff Aaron. I'm very happy that you have come as far as you have bearing such a heavy burden and that you've found a way to accept and love. It has also been my experience that trauma can lead to profound self examination which is the foundation of understanding and awakening. Pleasant experiences make life delightful. Painful experiences provide the opportunities for growth. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to share your story and wish you the best. The Book, along with other stuff by Watts, had a profound effect on me as well.

That's not accurate - PM me if you want more info.

In another thread there was a brief discussion about whether existence renews itself in every instant or is continuous. My own experience suggests that awareness is continuous until choice enters, until thought enters. When I sit in awareness, there is continuity. There is no interruption, there is just being. When thought arises, there is separation from that continuity, from now. A return to now after thought passes gives the illusion of discontinuity. So it is always now. It does not renew. Just some thoughts for discussion if anyone is interested.

I think this is a good thread and I'd like to speak to this point. It was relatively recently that I came to recognize the value in my life of cultivating love and compassion. Not from a religious sense, not for attainment, but for my own health. I have a very high stress job and deal with very unhealthy, unhappy (and often unpleasant) people daily. I have a very hectic schedule and a few years ago would have said that I "don't have the time to do this" as you refer to. I was wrong. It has nothing to do with time. It has to do with perspective and choice. Taking responsibility for our actions that hurt others can occur after the fact or in the moment. If I enter into each interaction with the simple thought - I am going to foster a loving and compassionate exchange - it can happen. I can take a moment to smile warmly, introduce myself, sit down, say something kind or funny or in some way take a moment to make a connection. I can look at the person as myself and see that they are looking for the exact same things as me - security, respect, validation, understanding. I can offer my full attention and genuine interest for whatever time we are together. Little or no extra time is needed. In the long run it saves time. At first it is inconsistent, awkward, and not always effective. With a little practice it becomes second nature and much more skillful. And not only does the other feel better, I benefit enormously. I am enriched by the experience and develop meaningful relationships where they didn't exist previously. And when I encounter people who are unresponsive, nasty, abusive - I know it is their baggage and their pain and I can let it go. It bounces off me or passes through me as if I'm not there and they are stuck with it but I'm not. It happened this morning - I walked away smiling and relaxed and the other came and went with their anger and frustration. You can't help or please everyone and eventually, with this approach, it's easy to tell the difference. So I agree that taking responsibility is important and I prefer to cultivate a method for doing this in advance of any offense rather than in an attempt to do damage control. As you say, it doesn't always work but it's tougher to make amends than to be preemptive.

I'm a big fan. Have you seen the film Genghis Blues? Excellent documentary. Here's a good website to check out - http://www.fotuva.org/music/theory.html And a few videos: Here is Kongar-ol Ondar Here's an amazing Tuvan singer, Sainkho Namtchylak, who has gotten into some pretty progressive stuff, this is more traditional: The great Huun Huur Tu - I saw them in concert about 2 years ago - sick! And my favorite song - Kongurei http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVfzQVlVAUA&feature=related

That is a brilliant insight. Dammit! Now you one-upped me again! I gotta start thinkin' real hard... There was a time when my heart was completely hardened toward such miserable creatures. I used to feel enormous anger towards them. There is still anger there but there is also an enormous sadness. I can't imagine how terrifying it would be to be in their shoes. Most of them were victims of abuse and many are tortured by their crimes. Often these are overwhelming compulsions, akin to sexual fetishes, which are extremely difficult to control. I still feel anger, loathing, and hatred for them, and compassion. I also feel that compassion is not at odds with punishment. Punishment is an expression of compassion, for the victim, the criminal, society, and humanity in general.

They have the courage of the brain-washed fanatic who would "martyr" him/herself for their religious beliefs - I don't respect that type of courage. I respect the type of courage that can tolerate differences. At a funeral, they are viciously attacking the bereaved family of strangers, when they are at their most vulnerable. They are making very hurtful accusations simply for media attention. Not only is it disrespectful, it is reprehensible. I don't understand why this family doesn't sicken you and yet their critics do. That might be worth thinking about. I believe that they are bad people. They are attacking innocent family members who are trying to mourn their loved ones for no reason but a forum for their fundamentalist fanaticism. They don't need love, they need reprogramming. You should watch the youtube video in which one of the members rants for a while. This is Jonestown type stuff. Where is all the Kool Aid when you need it?

Thanks for your insightful comments. Yes, this is basically what I was trying to communicate. I do think that there is a fundamental direct experience of [inset preferred word] that is the spiritual core of all religion. How it is interpreted and communicated is variable.

After reading all the great stuff on this thread and the one in the general forum, I thought I'd offer my own amateur translation/interpretation: The Sage has no mind that can be called his own, Therefore, his mind reflects the true nature of humanity He returns kindness for kindness, And offers kindness in return for unkindness. For he is a living manifestation of the virtue of kindness. He is faithful to those who are faithful, And he offers faith to those who are unfaithful. For he is a living manifestation of the virtue of faithfulness. The Sage lives and breathes in our world, Allowing his mind to remain simple and natural. As far as you and I can tell, He is as a child.

Perhaps you are taking too literally the idea of the sage having "no thoughts" and what is implied by "of his own". The Sage means one who is a manifestation of Dao in the flesh - a conduit of Dao. So the Sage doesn't cloud the expression of the nature of Dao with extraneous, conditioned, or biased thoughts, preferences, desires, longing for approval and attainment, and so on. The Sage is the closest thing to a human expression of nature but it is in our nature to think, so there will be thoughts. It's not so much that he has no thoughts of his own, it's that his thoughts are the thoughts of Dao, they are the thoughts that arise in the absence of those unskillful things that cloud our clarity. And what does it mean to be "of his own." Who is he? Is he something apart from Dao? The Sage is a living manifestation of Dao so there is no one apart to have thoughts other than the natural thoughts that arise from Dao. And I wonder about the implications of "the common people" - could another interpretation be "all of humanity" or "the genuine nature of people" or something like that? Or is he saying, let go of lofty philosophical and intellectual ideas and goals and desires and just be concerned with doing a good job at work, finding the next meal, supporting your partners, and yourself? Just living without the distraction of over-thinking things, trying to hoard and succeed and so on.