steve

I think there's truth to both perspectives. I'm one that is very intense and can stick with something for a very long time. I know many others like me in the martial arts world. I also see many, many folks come and go who jump in with high intensity and are gone in a few months or maybe a few years at most. I think its a very individual thing and I'm not sure there are many rules or clues as to who will stay and who will go.

That's a beautiful story and I appreciate your comments. My choice of word, "arise," was not very skillful. I guess I mean something more along the lines of, would there be consciousness without boundaries? And one could similarly ask would there be boundaries without consciousness? It seems to relate to Daoist theory of mutual arising - Wu Ji giving birth to Tai Ji, undifferentiated vs differentiated.

Interesting to hear the talk of multiple "me's". Not something I've really been aware of or thought about much. Thanks for that perspective folks.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that I'm wanting to define a unifying principle. I agree 100% with you on process. I think I'm more with Otis on "I don't know" and yet in trying to be open and receptive, I do feel things and I think that's what's coming out. Think of Biology for a moment. It is impossible to define an individual living organism without including it's environment. Take away the air they breath, the food they eat, the water, sunshine,... and what do you have? So the illusion of an individual human relates to the thought process (that pesky thought the claims it is "me") and the sensory organs which limit our antennae to just perceiving a limited amount of information from a limited perspective. Take the "individual" organism out of its environment and it is dead. So what truly exists is organismenvironment. If you extend that thinking to an ecological system, there is no such thing as an individual. "The universe does not judge like we do, that is a particularly human characteristic (and so is intent! you may argue). So if a child dies of leukemia, that is not an inhumane act of the universe. It is simply an occurrence without concern for human judgement. So as the universe acts towards humanity, DDJ suggests that the sage should consider the acts of other humans. Because what are they if not just instruments of the universe?" Please take another look. I'm saying the the sage should treat other humans just as the universe treats humanity. I think you misunderstood me and we're in agreement here. Excellent - thanks for expanding that. Good points. The only kicker is the experimental finding that the action occurs before the awareness of intention. So what is intention really? Could it just be our recording of the event. Those sensory perceptions you describe lead to the action and that pesky thought that claims to be "me" jumps in to take credit and act as if "me" was necessary for the response to occur.

With those uses of intent, one can see how it can be related to attachment and, ultimately, frustration or disappointment. True, we are looking at intent a bit differently. So I guess your "intent" is more one of a specific plan associated with a goal that is all put together by the thinking mind. I think that is probably the proper use of the word. I guess I'm just jazzing around, not making much sense. I'm in one of those moods.

Good point about boundaries - without them, life would be pretty dull. Now, I'm not sure that the boundaries are a condition on consciousness. That's a really interesting question. If there is no separation, how does consciousness arise? What is there to be aware of and what is there to know that awareness exists? Hard to put this into words... Hmm, not sure about that. Perhaps it is the very illusion of separation, Maya itself, that is necessary for consciousness to arise. After all, what are we if not the eyes and ears through which the universe is aware of itself? I wonder if one of our Buddhist brothers or sisters will weigh in on this as they are very well versed in theoretical descriptions of consciousness and non-duality and so on.

And we get such mixed messages. We're told, it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. We're told winning is not everything. Bullshit!!! How many NBA teams are lauded for winning second place? How many losers are celebrated in media and given advertising contracts? Our society is in love with winning and winning is violence. To win, you must cause someone else to lose. And that is painful. Our society is exceedingly violent and often in very subtle ways. But it gives lip service to non-violence and love. How many "religious" people are truly loving and accepting? Lots of mixed messages create the dichotomy you opened your post with.

Just so I'm clear - I have no idea if there is intent like I'm describing outside human experience nor do I believe there is, want there to be, or mean to push the idea. I just feel it's an interesting area to explore. Wu Wei and intent are very interesting bedfellows. I look at Wu Wei is meaning more to "not go against" or "not swim against the current" more than to necessarily act without thought or without intent. We have brains and minds and I think it is in our nature to use our capacity for thought and reason. I think it is going against our nature to try to not use those capacities. So although it may absolutely be in our nature to engage in many physical activities where the thinking mind is not playing a controlling role (dance, taiji [maybe, arguable], driving, sex, ...) and there are times when the mind is simply in the way or a distraction, this does not mean, at least to me, that it is not in keeping with Wu Wei to act with intent and utilizing our full capacities as human beings when and where it is appropriate. I guess what I'm exploring is this. We, as humans, know a quality of thinking and feeling that we label intent. It is partly intellectual but also partly other. Emotional feelings drive behavior, spiritual goals or experiences or states drive behavior, even physical sensations like hunger and thirst and sexual drive create intent. So we are aware of our intent and feel that it is fully and uniquely human. And then we make the assumption (and this is what I am questioning) that we are the only entities on earth that are motivated by intent. Perhaps there is a quality of intent that the sparrow manifests and is intimately comfortable with it. It's just not something we can access. Same with anything else - the sun, stars. We manifest intent, we are the universe, why do we then deny all other creatures and the universe itself of possessing or being motivated by intent. Just something that is way at the back, subtle, that doesn't sit right with me. I would love to hear what my belief system sounds like to others if you ever feel like summarizing it in a post - sincerely, I'm not trying to be patronizing. We think we know ourselves but we never really know how others see us. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what I believe myself! So to address your points. You manifest intelligence and consciousness so the universe is intelligent and conscious. Unless, of course, you insist on considering your self "other" than the universe. Then what are you? Regarding Chapter 5 of DDJ - I don't think this has anything to do with universal consciousness or intent but rather judgement. If we judge the actions of others or the occurrences in the universe we do so from our own human conditioning with respect to concepts like right and wrong, compassionate or dispassionate, and so on. The universe does not judge like we do, that is a particularly human characteristic (and so is intent! you may argue). So if a child dies of leukemia, that is not an inhumane act of the universe. It is simply an occurrence without concern for human judgement. So as the universe acts towards humanity, DDJ suggests that the sage should consider the acts of other humans. Because what are they if not just instruments of the universe? This is equivalent to Zuang Zi's Empty Boat parable. I'm totally fine with the crude facts of reality. I was very a-theistic in my thoughts for a very long time. It's just now there are some things I've experienced that challenge the nihilistic qualities that are so pervasive (unnecessarily so, IMO) in most atheistic lines of thought. Hmmm, I'm have trouble with "perception of a cause for thought." If intent is not a thought, what is it?

I have two dogs - an English bulldog and a Havanese terrier. When the terrier was a pup, the bulldog bit her in the face and fractured her jaw. It was horrific - surgery, Elizabethan collar, taped jaw, etc... About a year or two later, the Havanese got revenge. She was at the top of two flights of stairs barking at the bulldog, baiting her to come up. The bulldog struggles on stairs because she's fat and has short legs but couldn't resist and lumbered on up. Just as she reached the top, the Havanese backed up, took a running leap and body slammed the bulldog. The poor thing rolled downed both flights of stairs like a bowling bowl. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I would never believe it. Paybacks are, literally, a bitch!

Nice list! I can second Tantric Quest by Odier - great book

Here are a few I like, be forewarned I have eccentric tastes in film - Enter the Void - Gaspard Noe Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead and a DMT trip, very long, bizarre, and beautiful El Topo - Alejandro Jodorowsky An allegoric Western imbued with Eastern philosophy and outrageous imagery Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter,... and Spring - Kim ki-duk Set in a Korean Buddhist monastery - brilliant Kung Fu Hustle - Stephen Chow One of my all time favorite martial arts films, I never get tired of it Pan's Labyrinth - Guillermo del Toro Visually and emotionally stunning

I appreciate your thorough response and I would like to take this a step further. It's interesting, as people we are struggling with this idea of intent and make the assumption that lower animals, plants, mountains, streams, the sun, and so on do not have intent. We assume that the universe does not possess or manifest intent but it certainly does, at least through us! Could it be that it is the sun's intent to shine? The eagle's intent to fly? And that is exactly why they do what they do? Or rather the intent inherent in Dao that is expressed through these things. I guess what I'm wondering goes along these lines. Humans manifest intent and are, in turn, manifestations of Dao. Could everything be a manifestation of intent at a level that is so sophisticated, so foreign, that it is not available to us? I know I'm just f-ing around with words and ideas but sometimes I feel like we blind ourselves to the obvious. We have intent - clearly. We are nothing more or less than the universe doing what it does right here, right now, in the space "we" are occupying. We are not "other than" the universe, we are just restricted in terms of our ability to directly experience beyond the boundary of our skin and vision (mostly). So how can we then pretend that the universe has no intent. And if we have or are a manifestation of intent, why not the sun?

Beautiful to watch! Thanks for that

I think he's saying, "My back hurts and it's really hard to pee."

I get the point you are making. What about a slightly different perspective. Is there "intent" inherent in the natural order of things? Either in humans or at some other level? If so, could intent be in accordance with wu wei either at the human level or other?

Thanks for your response - I pretty much knew it was just a semantic thing and that your message was meaningful. Just wanted to take the opportunity to make a point about language.

I've seen Wing Chun guys show extremely well in full contact Lei Tai competition going up against a variety of other styles where joint locks, sweeps, elbows, knees were permitted (but no ground fighting beyond the take down and a single, immediate follow up strike). Now these are amateurs, mind you. Not UFC pros. IMO, it's not the art but the individual, teacher, and training methods although some training methods are certainly better than others. I agree 100% with your comments about the value of close range and ground skills. Also, Yoshinkan style Aikido is quite a bit different than Tomiki and Ueshiba styles. I believe it's proven itself in the street in its use by Tokyo law enforcement groups although I'm not sure if that course at the Yoshinkan hasn't been watered down as it's become so popular. I agree with your comments about Aikido and judo. Here's a vid of a US Wing Chun guy fighting a Japanese Karate guy (not sure which style): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oi9fwWj8NU

And it's not just the extremist groups, it is the tribal nature of humanity in general. All of our tribal instincts (religion, politics, geography, and so on) have the effect of polarizing us as a whole and creating conflict. Identifying myself with a group sets up a dynamic that deepens the divide. I am a Muslim and my people need me so I will vote in such a way, and contribute to such causes. And I am a Jew and I am an American and so on...

I agree with both of the above. Meditation caused me to become more sensitive to many things. I became more intolerant of some things (people's behavior, particularly unkind behavior or words). I could no longer derive any pleasure from the suffering of anything so I gave up on of my favorite hobbies - fly fishing. I'd much sooner catch a fish to eat it than for entertainment. I stopped eating meat for a few years, and so on... So I think that these challenges come up for us, not only when we begin meditating, but continually as we approach different insights and levels. I think this is why having an experienced teacher or guide is so valuable in the beginning.

I'll start with thought and thinking. What does it mean? Thinking is the manipulation of images and symbols. All content of thought is a representation, image, abstraction, or approximation. It's very useful and very effective but it's not reality. And once we create this image of reality, we feel comfortable substituting the image for reality. Action, on the other hand, is an interaction of "me" with "my environment." It is interaction or relationship in reality What's social harmony? Is it abiding by social rules for the sake of co-existing with others? Or is it recognizing the common bond we all have and choosing to consider the environment to be as important as oneself? And if this is the case, could this arise out of personal harmony? Because what is personal harmony? Again, it is the recognition of the value of being in balance with the environment because one can never have tranquility if one is out of balance with the environment. And that's precisely because we are the environment. We're just a seemingly bounded piece of it. We're what the universe is doing in the space occupied by "me" right "now." Thoughts are just the recording of the happening and comparing of those recording to prior recordings and projecting the recordings into the future, all observed by the thought that declares itself as "me." So to me, actions are more important than thoughts and social harmony and personal harmony are the same thing. Beginner's mind - the question is infinitely more valuable than the answer.

I love it - beautiful and elegant. It perfectly captures the Hindu foundation from which Buddhism arose, the Buddha's caution and reform of the Hindu concept, and teaches us the meaning of meditation. Thanks for sharing that! Edit - I'm referring to the Dzogchen verses, I haven't had time to look at the video yet

Apech - Thank you for your intervention. Irrespective of the moderators' decision I have no interest in participating any further and will simply take advantage of the ignore function moving forward.

Whatever little intellectual value you bring to the table is negated by your ugliness for me. You're simply not worth my time and energy. Rather than go behind your back as you've accused me recently, I will appeal openly to the moderators with this post to hold you accountable for violating the forum rules against insults with your above comments. Goodbye.

If you have an opportunity to learn it, the Shiba Luohan Qigong set is very powerful. It's one that I practice. It can be practiced as a very hard, martial exercise, or a soft, yin, internal exercise. This set is also said to have been taught to the Shaolin monks. I'm not familiar with Yang Jwing Ming's set. Could it be related?

I would very much like to meet your teacher (and you for that matter!) One of the neigong exercises I've been practicing is tian-di-ren and I recently had an insight/experience very much like what you describe where I was able to reconcile tian with di with myself as conduit. Words are very weak but your description of Shen and Yan Qi are very interesting and also resonate with some of the work I'm doing. Thanks for that insightful reply.