steve

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.

If you mean the value of macroevolutionary theory in my life? Then the answer is a big fat zero. That is not completely true as I alluded to earlier because I imagine it would not be difficult to find examples of practical value of related experimentation and research. But in terms of the big picture - it's pretty much irrelevant. Sort of like the existence vs non-existence of God. Whether you postulate God or not, makes no difference. Or the existence vs non-existence of self - same principle. Buddha used the idea of non-self as a criticism of the Hindu concept of Atman and Brahman to teach people not to cling to such concepts, not because he felt the concept of non-self was necessarily more correct than self. He viewed it as unknowable and a source of dukkha to become attached to such efforts to distinguish between the two. That's the irony about these long winded self or non-self debates. That's exactly what he was trying to get ride of. I think that's what the Heart Sutra is all about, but I digress. What really counts is application of the method. And when there is a better method - I'm all ears.

The "pussies" are not masters. Credentials, transmissions, and lineage mean nothing. The master will rock your world. In the scientific community, most folks use the method as a tool, nothing more. And a very effective tool it is. Don't you think the real criticism occurs at a more philosophical and phenomenological level? How efficient would it be for the "foot soldiers" to spend their time examining the core paradigm? Not a worthwhile use of their time and expertise. Shame - I'm up for it. The last book that rocked my scientific world was Time's Arrow and Archimedes Point by Huw Price. Good stuff! I do get it and thanks for clarifying your argument. Again, the worker bees do make effective use of their talents exploiting the tool. The tool is damn effective. It's important for each of us to focus on our strengths. We can't all know it all. The foundation is best questioned by those with the expertise and inclination to challenge the method itself. As for me, I work in the field every day. It is my tool. I know how to use it to effect meaningful change in my world. I help people to the best of my ability every day. I am blessed with a "right occupation." When I'm done using the tool, I unwind by immersing myself in the spiritual realm for balance, nourishment, and healing. Is the scientific paradigm the best? Apples and oranges. We are saying the same thing but just defining our terms differently. I have adopted religious as a term I use to define someone that you would call spiritual. Why? Because those you call religious consider it a powerful word and I take that from them. I fell in love with Osho's quote about "true religion" and decided to take back the word for my purpose. Kind of like the African-American and hip-hop community did. I have used the term "observant" to connote those you are calling religious. I'm happy to adopt your convention for discussion purposes.

I studied WIng Chun of the Yip Man --> William Cheung lineage in Baltimore for about 8 years. I really loved the training methods and theory. Very practical and effective in the ring. No nonsense fighting training but also the group I trained with was not completely comprehensive - not enough in the way of Qin Na and the like. It was well suited to me because I was not big or strong but I was fast and accurate. I studied some Ueshiba Aikido and I've had a taste of Yoshinkan Aidido. Ueshiba Aikido, IMO, is much less practically applicable in the ring and in street fighting at least until you've spent many years in training. Yoshinkan is much more martial and within 2 -3 years you can make it work pretty well with the right teacher. But Aikido for my $1 is much more elegant and challenging and beautiful. It's a lot like a blend of Taijiquan and Baguazhang. I'm convinced that Ueshiba took elements of internal martial arts he learned while in China and used it to evolve his early, martial style (which was equivalent to Yoshinkan - Gozo Shioda simply continued to teach Ueshiba's pre-war curriculum, more or less) into what most people now think of as Aikido. So it depends what you are looking for. You really should spend some time looking at each and even try both for a while and see what you resonate with. Either way, you can't go wrong, IMO.

I genuinely appreciate your concern, Gold. Thank you Edited for the following - I thought I'd offer a poem to my new favorite master baiter - 'Tis said we dislike in others in what in ourselves we do see And though with that saying just like all other sayings not everyone does agree That we can see our own worst traits in others does make some sense to me They become the reflective mirrors of our negativity In our dislike of others we mostly tend to be discreet But we cannot like everybody that we get to know or meet Are we that any different to the little girl or boy Amongst their many playthings they have one favourite toy For to like everybody equally one would need to be a saint And very few if anyone who are completely free of taint To like some better than others is quite a natural thing And the praises of those that we like we find easy to sing And that we dislike in others what in ourselves we see Is a saying that has some truth in it or so 'twould seem to me. Francis Duggan

Interesting - do you think the criticism a Zen monk receives from his abbott is fluff? Please offer criticism for the scientific method if you feel so inclined. I am very comfortable with it. I disagree with you - I see constant and meaningful criticism among scientists of results and methods. Scientists like nothing more than to criticize each other (especially competing groups). On the other hand, of course everyone gets attached to their methods and paradigms and change is difficult. I don't follow you regarding ignoring real issues. The scientific paradigm is very powerful and consistent therefore its been very slow to change. What about other paradigms? Buddhist, Christian, Daoist, Philosophical, Social - do they change much? I think by their very nature, paradigms are slow to change. PS Please clarify your definition of religious vs spiritual. I equate the two. I just don't consider followers of ritual and doctrine of religious institutions as religious people, any more than I consider someone who reads Scientific American to necessarily be a serious scientist. It boils down to a matter of semantics. We can define religious and spiritual as we see fit. They're just words. My post defined my view of religious.

Well said - I'm more concerned with the method of science than the conclusions in most cases. Conclusions come and go, theories change and are replaced by new ones. The method makes it all possible. I'll freely admit that I don't know all that much about evolutionary theory and specific evidence and experimentation but I respect and have confidence in the method. I've looked pretty carefully at the existing ID evidence and methods. The evidence is conjecture and the methods are gratuitous. It puts me in mind of a great book - The Question to Life's Answers by Steven Harrison. In it he talks about the fact that questions are important, answers not so much. Because the questions keep us thinking, working, creating, and so on. The answer is dead - "I know that, next"

[removes hat while bowing deeply] It is truly a pleasure to have made your acquaintance on this forum as well, my dear.

As always, hagar, your 2 kroner are worth at least a dollar! I just want to emphasize your last point because that's something I resonate with. My own experience with meditation has led me to look at Qi in a much different way than I used to. And it goes against the grain of most in the community. I don't think it's a quantity of something. I don't think we can contain it within our bag of skin so to speak so that I own more and you own less. I think it is more an interaction of our awareness with the physical/energetic manifestations that exist within and around "us". Qi is already always there. Perhaps it is more or less concentrated here or there? Certainly this is always in flux. Can the bag of skin or energy body "contain" it? That is, restrict it's flow or dictate is presence, absence, and concentration? So I just like to share that to me, Qi is something we can sensitize ourselves to but not contain or restrict. And perhaps as we are more sensitive to its presence, we are better able to manipulate it or its manifestations in some way [edit - or at least feel like we are]. And maybe I'm just doing reverse anal breathing (ie talking out of my ass) but I thought I'd put it out there... Hilsener!

Thank ralis - I don't know if you've read what I've written about approval in other threads but I certainly respond well to it even though I'm trying to kick the habit! I value your opinions highly and greatly appreciate the acknowledment. _/\_

Interesting tool and concepts - thanks for that. I will try it. I usually tend towards Otis' approach and surrender to the feelings inside and allow myself to feel them fully and work through them. Your suggestion is an interesting alternative. I'd like to go off on a tangent for a moment about our use of language. I'm thinking with my fingers here. It seems a relatively widespread convention to refer to alternative states of consciousness and awareness as "higher" and I decided to jump on this simply because you wrote the word so many times in your post. When we say higher, it sort of connotes something that is "outside" because it is "above" and "outside" connotes "other." When most of us, I think, would agree that the "higher" state is something "we" are ultimately contained within as an itegral part. So this is nothing more than semantics but I find it noteworthy that our very language constantly reinforces the idea that we are somehow separate from some state of being we hope to achieve. And, of course, when we use the word "higher" we also continue to tell ourselves that we are somehow inferior to this other state or being. We are constantly working against ourselves in this way. Just something I felt likely chewing on... thanks for reading (if you bothered!)

Health care

I couldn't agree with you more. Two things led me to further inquiry in the "spiritual" realm back in the '80's - one was my martial arts interests and the other was my exposure to three books: 1. The Dancing Wu Li Masters - Gary Zukov 2. The Tao of Physics - Fritjof Kapra 3. Carlos Castaneda's ouevre As a young "scientist" these books opened my eyes to the connection between the scientific and spiritual realms and the fact that both are simply using their own language and methods to help us experience and describe reality. And that both are nothing more than approximations with their attendant strengths and weaknesses. Edit - somtimes I write nonsense and need to edit...

Have you ever worked in a scientific environment? I have my whole life and I've never seen more criticism. Everything a scientist does is subjected to rigorous and uncompromising criticism on a regular basis to maintain integrity. It is the norm, not the exception. I've seen it in physics, chemistry, math, medicine (especially medicine) and so on. I'm not denying the flaws you are pointing out in scientists but I don't think it's due to a lack of criticism. Maybe they are subjected to so much criticism and have learned how to deal with it so well that many think they are beyond reproach. PS Truly religious people, IME, are very intelligent and not so wacky. It's the folks who don't think for themselves and don't really look critically at reality who allow themselves to be hypnotized en masse by popular mythology that your first sentence applies to. IMO, those folks are not at all religious - just observant (or brainwashed). True religion is the uncompromising internal and personal search to understand the truth of our being - everything else is politics (paraphrased from Osho). It takes an intelligent and driven person to do that work. Although we could certainly call them stupid and wacky for wasting time trying to figure out the ineffable!

I think it's important to segregate the two. Both are important in my life but if we introduce empiric experiences and conclusions derived from inner work, we will compromise the integrity of the scientific method. They really are apples and oranges. I don't think it's necessary to value one over the other. Hopefully there will be more interaction and overlap of the two spheres as both fields continue to advance but not at the expense of the integrity of either. Each are too valuable for that, IMO. We do see more and more scientists participating in disciplines like meditation and so forth and I think we will see progressively more interaction of the two groups in the future - prickles and goo as Watts would say.

Oh my goodness gracious - I nearly choked on my tongue. Of all the people to make this accusation. You cannot possibly tell me that you don't see the irony in this. A creationist (or ID subscriber - whatever label you prefer) is telling scientists that they have tunnel vision and discard evidence out of hand, ignoring it or explaining it away with frivolous, superficial arguments and excuses? I'm not saying it doesn't happen (it absolutely does) but you and your "scientists" and apologists and creationists and Intelligent Designers are the Grandmasters of this! You guys try to discard and ignore an entire theory that has been subjected to the rigors of the scientific method for generations, let alone evidence. Come on now! You've got to be joking! And I do apologize if I'm being hurtful but I just can't help myself.

Hmm, sorry I didn't answer that the first time. It's a tough question. I think that the evolutionary theory has little direct impact per se on my life. That is, whether the theory existed or not, I'm not sure how different my life would be currently. On the other hand, if I were to spend a bit of time looking into the history of scientific development, I imagine that I could find examples were Darwin and subsequent scientists involved in studying evolution have influence or inspired other work that has had profound effects on current scientific methods and technologies. I'm sorry I can't offer more specifics than that but I genuinely can't think of anything terribly specific and don't have the time to spend looking into it right now. How about you?

How would we ever know if "you" or "I" were no longer present as witness? Who would be there to know? I respect the direction your heading and I've spent many hours with Vedantic inquiry. I think that as long as we are alive we are aware. Or let me say, where there is life there is awareness. There are senses, there is thought, there is presence or consciousness, or whatever you want to call it. I certainly agree that the "I" behind it all is illusory. It's just another one of the thoughts that stakes a claim as the thinker and conspires with the senses and process of thought to create the illusion of a "me." Nevertheless, absent the "me" there remains thought and sight and smell and touch and so on and so there is awareness. Allowing "ourselves" to disappear into that awareness is no different than the process you are describing of allowing ourselves to disappear into Taiji or anything else. And disappearing into awareness encompasses all possible experience - movement, non-movement, thought, non-thought, sight, sound, and so on. In fact, this is an exercise I've used with my Taiji class from time to time. Having everyone simply stand and be and talk them through a guided meditation of surrendering to awareness. I find it to be the easiest way to disappear. So I sort of think we're saying the same thing. Awareness does not have to be the action of anyone but it remains nonetheless, until we die.

Awareness - to be aware of everything that is going on in you and around you. You do not have to do anything. You do not have to seek anything. And yet you are open to everything.

He's human. He was an alcoholic, a womanizer, and a great thinker and teacher. Now that he's dead we'll never know who he might have responded to your challenges (or my own). I would bet that he'd fair pretty well one on one if we had the opportunity to sit down with him. I agree that he's not perfect - I'm certainly not a Watt-ist. I think he was extremely well versed in each and borrowed elements of each to synthesize his own metaphysics (as well as drawing an awful lot form Hinduism). This

Hi Gold, I would like to use your post as a jumping off point for what I feel are important considerations and a chance to pontificate (you know how I like that!) Why do you/we feel forced to drop morality? Why let anyone force us to do something that goes against our grain? Who is doing the forcing? Why should we give them that power over us? We always have the ability to choose to give up or not give up that power and when we do we are like little monkeys on a leash, dancing at our masters command. They insult us or hurt us and we re-act based on their values rather than act according to our values. I know that there are many examples of when it is very tough not to do so but does it really have to be that way? It's paradoxical - when we refuse to give up that power (ie act in a "moral" manner when others are treating us in an "immoral" manner) it appears on the surface that we are weak and the other is strong. But the truth is that learning to not give up that power over us creates enormous strength. The strength of the martyr, the strength of a Gandhi or a Mandela, the strength potentially to change the world. I know I'm aggrandizing a bit, but it really is terribly liberating. So in a chess game, I give my opponent a second chance and he takes advantage of it. He refuses me similar consideration and I lose the game. What have I lost? A game of chess. What have I gained? The ability to return love for hate. That, my friend, is the power to save the world. What is the power to win without giving my opponent the same consideration they showed me? That is what is destroying us as you point out. Can we be moral in the face of immorality? Can we return love for hate? I think this is what can rescue society from the breakdown you mention. That is the message of Buddhism and Christianity and other traditions (maybe not the institutions but the scripture and intent). It's certainly not easy and it's not new but then again, neither is the perception that society is corrupt and on the brink of collapse. It's particularly tough when I feel like I'm the only one trying and everyone is exploiting my good intentions. Not sure I can do it consistently but lately I've been trying and it seems to work. Is it worth the effort? Can it be successful in the long run? On a large scale? I don't know but I think it's worthy of consideration. The ideal (ie Buddhist and Christian doctrines of metta and love) always gives way to human nature but is it possible for human nature to change? The only way to know is to try, here and now, one step at a time.