steve

What is Life? What is Energy? Reason and Discrimination are nothing more than rational thought. How can we refine and improve our abilities other than through awareness of our failings and opportunities for progress? What is Love? What is Compassion? Neither exist other than in awareness. Thoughts have no physical existence. Thoughts are not vibrations. You are playing with words. If you have a thought, it is known. How can you think something and not know it? Do you really think that there are thoughts that no one has thought before? Perhaps, but what does it matter? It is the mind talking to itself. What is the subconscious if not part of the mind? Define "the higher aspects of one's self" in clear terms. I don't deny matter. Not at all. I never claimed that thoughts don't exist nor did I claim they are not useful. They are very useful. This is evolution at its finest. Our skill at thought is what has allowed us to become so successful at surviving and exploiting the earth. Thought exists and is responsible for all of our suffering. An image is a representation of reality, be it letters, words, sculpture, concept, ideology, thought, whatever, it is not reality itself. Every definition of image in the English language includes words such as representation, imitation, physical representation, and reproduction of the reality of the thing. An image is by definition an idol. An idol is defined as a representation, imitation, or physical representation of something as it relates to worship. An image is a creation of man, it does not contain the inherent qualities or consciousness of a being. It may represent limited qualities. No image contains consciousness. By definition, it is a representation, imitation, or reproduction. Then you define image as "soul back of the image" - that is meaningless, please define. You are using the word in it's own definition and adding a euphemism - soul back of, which needs to be defined. Thomas Aquinus did not see the way of Jesus but you do? Puulease. Jesus' scriptures contain truth if you have faith. They are worthless if you are filled with belief. Humans do not approximate God. Humans are a physical manifestation of God. Humans have always been and will always be that. They are not always AWARE however. Through awareness you become God - no approximation about it. Finally we agree - "In order to reach God, you have to give up your human mind." No question - this is awareness. That's what I keep asking you to do. Let the mind go, let thought go, let images go, be aware. Open up to life, insight, inspiration. There is absolutely no love without awareness. Awareness is what allows us to know our neighbor as ourself. That is the only way to true love. Please define "the Love principle." Bullshit - God is not a principle. The human mind can never grasp God, the mind can only grasp it's image of God. If you are grasping it, it is not God. If you have reduced God to a principle that can be captured by the human mind, you are not worshipping God, you are worshipping the arrogance of the human mind. You can only know God by becoming God - on this perhaps we agree. Awareness is not limited to mind. Awareness is Life, Mind, Truth, and Love. Awareness is the sum total of all ways in which the human can be in touch with life, with spirit, with God. We have nothing else. Please define "the Love principle." YHVH are letters, an image, a representation - any other four letters would be equally effective. The I Ching can never explain Nature and Creation, it's simply a deck of Tarot cards. A shamanistic tool. It is an interpretation. It is another representation that allows man to feel more secure in a world where security does not exist, unless of course we are God, then there is no fear. Enough verbal sparring. It's a waste of time after a while. You have your perspective, I have mine. Words, words, and more words. Be well, live, and love.

I had the good fortune to see Evanescence a few years back - great performance! Here's something a little different, but maybe not so much.

You're doing great work! Another addiction you may have already become aware of and one that is absolutely insidious and very subtle is our addiction to the approval of others. Someone compliments our clothing or our country or state, our appearance or occupation and we're happy. Someone else criticizes any of those things and we are sad or angry. We're like puppets on a string. No one has the power to make us happy or sad, angry or excited, unless we give them that power. And this figures in to the same mode of thought - attachment to things, attachment to approval. And if you want a different tangent to explore. Who is it that is addressing and observing all of this? Now that's a question worthy of some investigation. Have fun!

Very nice. I've been doing something very similar recently. My feeling has had a slightly different flavor - why not just smile? Why not just be happy and accept? Good stuff.

It would be very cool to talk to her personally about this stuff. It generally takes a few seconds to know.

I haven't read the book and I'm a far cry from an authority (or even being well read) in Buddhist or Daoist matters. It may well be an absolutely brilliant treatise on the topic. And to be fair, her words did resonate with my experience. But no matter how brilliant or insightful an analysis, at the end of the day words are words. They are a so-so descriptive tool and no substitute for the real thing. Authorities sometimes present their ideas and arguments as if the idea or the argument is the truth and an acceptance of such words is a pre-requisite to the experience. There just seemed to be a bit of this type of attitude in this author, or at least what I read above. Perhaps I'll take a stab at reading more of her work. In reality, it's the other way around. The experience is the pre-requisite to understanding and the words are never adequate. And I don't think you misrepresented her work at all. I just tend to take issue with scholarship when it comes to experiential matters, that's all. It's too easy to be side-tracked by intellect and I find this to be a weakness when it comes to a scholarly approach to this subject matter. I get that from my Shifu and also from my own experience.

I'll add a comment that is something that bothers me about Buddhist ideology as well as all others. The ideology or conceptualization of reality seems to be given more emphasis than the experience of awakening. I personally feel this runs contrary to the fundamental message of Buddhism. Just as Christian doctrine and interpretation of scripture are emphasized as the foundation of Christian awakening, Buddhist doctrine and scripture does the same. That is, you must see the world in this way or else you will not achieve awakening and relief of your suffering. I call bullshit. Perhaps handing someone a conceptual recipe can be of some limited assistance in putting their feet on the proper path but offering any particular ideology or method as an accurate and correct interpretation of the nature of reality is imprecise and inaccurate. It is reality that comes first. The words and concepts are a clumsy and limited attempt at expressing reality through human thought. When we do our own work of thoroughly understanding and experiencing ourselves and connecting to the universe through our own heart and mind and spirit, then we will know reality. Then we no longer need the words and concepts. So as much as I like this post, Scott, the author seems to attached to the intellectual argument. She has too much belief in her argument. She needs to trade that belief for faith. Faith that when she opens herself up totally to the truth through awareness of everything that is going on both inside and outside of her, then she will know the truth. And the truth is not possible to capture in a method, ideology, or concept, even something as elegant as dependent origination.

Very tough questions. I don't think we can put thoughts in our kids' heads nor really mold them with our thoughts. Our actions, on the other hand, speak loudly and clearly to them. Rather than teach them what to think and how to act, demonstrate how a man with compassion and integrity leads his life. Show them this in your every interaction with them and even when they are not there. That is the most effective way to teach our children, I believe. It may not seem so at first, but years later you will know. A few wonderful guides in the form of books are - Summerhill - AS Neil A radical view of education which shows us the power that is within our children The Happy Child - Steven Harrison A non-dual view of education The Parents' Tao Te Ching - William Martin An application of Dao De Jing to parenting - brilliant! Check out Blasto's recent thread here - http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/18532-a-parents-tao-te-ching-a-new-interpretation/

Magnificent words. Very close to my heart, my experience, and my efforts at parenting. Wonderful guides for my inconsistent and faltering efforts. Right now I'm embracing the experience of my daughter's first significant relationship with a young man. In fact, I hope to get to meet him in the next few days. Thanks for the great posts Scott.

I am glad that Anders, the aspiring mystic, still feels it is worthwhile to write from time to time _/\_ I liken enlightenment to God occasionally peaking out at herself in the mirror and giggling. It really has nothing to do with you and me and yet it is nothing more or less than you and me. More importantly, I spent a beautiful day with my daughter today - coincidentally in the shadow of Ranier.

You're on a roll Scott! Good stuff. I agree with you Maitou, so much foolish arguing about ideologies. All ideologies are wrong. The ideology is never more than an incomplete approximation of reality, biased by cultural, geographical, and sociological idioms. Nothing more than human thoughts trying to capture something beyond it. Thought is limited and needs to learn to yield to awareness.

I've been terribly impressed with the value of 8 Brocades. I don't know if we do similar variations but there is enormous physical benefit from the practice.

I think you're right on the money with this comment. Religion=tribalism. Humans are inherently tribal - religion, race, geography, politics. Perhaps it has been a survival benefit in the past. Now it tends to be primarily a source of conflict. To teach a particular doctrine is to teach that other doctrines are incorrect. There is inherent polarization and violence in that. Good or bad? That simply depends on your personal perspective. I personally see no end to conflict and violence as long as there is division.

Welcome back smile. Can we learn from everything and waste nothing?

I tend to believe that much of what we experience doing this stuff is unique to us as individuals so to say that one particular form is "more effective at xyz" is probably a meaningless statement. I'm especially skeptical when such a claim comes from a lineage holder or relative of the founder, etc... I personally believe a lot of what we experience is also generated by our expectations and preconceptions so what we feel is influenced by how credible we feel the system of form is. It's a slippery slope. Nevertheless, all things being equal, I think most people get more benefit from simpler forms.

I also think that different concepts in Daoism refer to different possible aspects, explanations, or states of the system. I think the Daoist philosophers realized that they can't capture the reality of the thing in words and concepts (ref: 1st chapter of Dao De Jin). Nevertheless, they did come up with a (wholly inadequate but very insightful) approximation of reality that can be comprehended by the mind. So the wuji/taiji distinction is somewhat reminiscent of the Buddhist concept of dependent origination. Wuji is the void in which all things exist and out of which all things arise. Perhaps wuji is even the state that all things remain in whereas the antennae we call human senses tune in certain frequencies that creates taiji (mutual arising of complimentary opposites). Wuji is everything and nothing. It is inherently paradoxical, not meant to be entirely rational as existence is not entirely rational - thought simply expects it to be and tries to force the irrational to have a rational explanation. Dao, to me, is a more active concept. Something in motion - the way of things, the way of looking at things, the way to move through this life, etc... Ultimately it's all just words - the Daoist would suggest to just be, not think too much.

RAOTFLMFAO!!!

When it comes to martial arts, no question - simple is better. WIth Qigong, I don't think there is anything inherently more effective in a more complex form or system. On the other hand, there are some combinations of movement and breath that provide benefits that are difficult to reduce to simple patterns. Certainly, a simpler Qigong set will be easier to perform in a properly relaxed, balanced, and aware fashion. In this sense, simpler is better in Qigong for most practitioners. For the more dedicated student, there are complex exercises that will achieve results that simpler forms can't reproduce. One experience I've had with this is in the Shiba Luohan Qigong - relatively complex and physically demanding. Nevertheless, I can't say there is any set I prefer to the Eight Brocades and that is somewhere between easy and moderately difficult (at least the variation I pratice).

There's a wonderful book called How to Grasp the Bird's Tail If You Don't Speak Chinese. It's a study of the Yang Style characters broken down into radicals. Very good stuff. I'm not sure if I'm interested in publishing the product of countless hours of work on a forum. Let me think about that. I'm fairly selfish about who I share this material with. Generally I reserve it for students and fellow instructors who I think are dedicated enough to appreciate it. Nothing personal - just how I feel about it.

Sounds like a blast! If i'm ever in the area, I'll give you a heads up.

This could be a very long response but I'll try to stay focused - I. Do you teach the meaning? In my styles (Taijiquan, Xingyiquan, Baguazhang) the name of each form doesn't do much for me and I don't make a big deal out of it with the students - the names of the forms are mainly descriptive (Yang Style Long Form, Chen Pan Ling's 99 Forms, Seven Star Linking Form, Stable Body Pounding, etc...). It's a little different from the Japanese form names. Each individual posture, however, has a character (Hanzi) that can provide insight, especially in Xingyi (splitting, pounding, smashing, etc...). In Taijiquan, there are often two or more postures that look identical but have different character names. This generally implies that there are differences in terms of how the posture is applied and that is something I'll emphasize. I've always asked my teacher for the Hanzi to describe the various forms I've learned. I've then translated them into English and pinyin. If I have a diligent student who asks me for my translations, I will share them. Most don't ask so I don't bring it up. I've learned an enormous amount from the process of translating and studying the characters but has it really improved my proficiency and skill in the arts? Probably not. My teacher would probably tell me the time would be better spent practicing. II. Methods to transmit forms - We generally teach forms first. This is done through demonstration and imitation with lots of drills along the way. The students must be very proficient in forms before beginning their serious training of applications (especially true in Taijiquan). I will often use applications to illustrate proper posture and movement in the form but very little application work for the first few years. Once it is time to work on the martial aspects, the applications are taught as a set of martial drills emphasizing the basic techniques of the style. These techniques are drilled for years to achieve proficiency. They're then expanded on with more complex footwork, combinations, joint techniques, and throws and so on. I encourage students to get together as often as possible before and after and between classes to work on this stuff. It takes endless practice to master as I'm sure you know. Most don't bother to practice enough outside of regular classes and that's fine. The ones that do are the creme de la creme and it shows in their technique. They usually become future instructors.

This

We have nothing more than awareness. Everything else is an image created by thought. Thought is nothing more than memory combined with conditioning and experience. Whatever thought creates is within the realm of the already known. So thought creates an image and any image thought creates must therefore limit the reality it is trying to approximate. What is an image? An image is an idol. You are worshiping an idea, a rational argument, a fervent hope that you can understand and experience the truth, an idol. The greatest Christian theologian, Thomas Aquina, his Summa Theologica I believe, summed up his life's work proving that there is no concept, idea, word, or group of words that could every come close to approximating God. The ecstatics recognized that it was only through opening up to pure awareness and experience of that which is beyond thought that God could be known. Your are telling us that "the mind is the only true illusion" and then your are using words, images, concepts - creations of the mind, to try and explain God. We can see, smell, touch, taste and feel God in every aware moment. Everything else is thought, internal dialogue, our brain's arrogant attempt to classify, categorize, and capture everything in language. What you are doing is making God as an image (ie in the imagination) of Man. Perhaps the words should be "Man is made AS an image of God" ie "in God's imagination" but even then we are creating an anthropomorphic deity which is simply not the truth, just a feeble attempt of human thought to grasp the ineffable. You are welcome to think about God - it is a wonderful exercise. If you can live through awareness, you will become God. Read Anthony Demello - brilliant Jesuit theologian, philosopher, psychologist, and spiritual guide who helped me to see truth in scripture and also helped me to see the limitations in most theological arguments. And many of his arguments are rooted in the work of Jiddu Krishnamurti - a man who brilliantly investigated the nature of thought and the mind and the images it creates. Or not, it is up to each of us to choose what we do and think and believe. Namaste

Empty words, though beautiful. Scripture is beautiful as allegory, meaningless as fact. I have no doubt that you will ever run out of words to defend your point of view. And I have no interest in trying to get you to see mine. You asked for my perspective and I shared it. If the image is the thing, I would suggest that you eat the menu, rather than the food. Drink the letters w a t e r, rather than the liquid. Pray to your image of God while I live mine in every aware moment.