steve

I think you can make the point well before you own 90 of anything. It still sounds like bs to me.

Ditto - I think he had some very serious psychopathology yet some of his writings (talks) were still truly insightful. I once worked at an inpatient psychiatric facility. One of the patients was a paranoid schizophrenic. Ironically, he was also a psychiatric nurse. When he was psychotic, he was extremely frightening - I never let him get between me and the door! When he cleared, he was a brilliant psych nurse and really was able to help alot of the other patients. It was fascinating to see the transition. When he was discharged, he asked me for my phone number - I really liked the guy but didn't give him my number... My point is that Osho may have been pathologic (whether clinical or criminal or both) yet many of his writings remain extremely helpful, at least to me, particularly with respect to understanding some of the classics, like Zhuangzi and Liezi.

There is no enlightenment and we are all just nuts.

 

L

That's probably as close to the truth as you can get on paper!

I've been thinking a lot about this quote, and it really makes me wonder who, if anyone, I would be willing to follow to the ends of the earth (so to speak). Honestly, I think if a fully recognizable Jesus showed up at my door tomorrow I would have a hard time because I would be reluctant to follow anyone who says "Here, let me do all the thinking for you."

 

Seriously, when I hear stories about these so-called gurus, I can't help but think how do you know who's good and who's bad? How do you know who is really concerned with your spiritual enlightenment and who's in it for a buck? How do you know who really is enlightened and who's just nuts? At least I'm reasonably certain that I'm not going to tell myself to drink poisoned Kool-Aid or burn down my own house while the ATF is battering down the door.

 

Thoughts?

These are excellent questions! I'd highly recommend you consider looking into the work of Jiddu Krishnamurti. I'm currently reading "To Be Human." According to him, and many others of like opinion, there is no advantage to following anyone for very long. Then you are simply thinking like they think rather than awakening. It's like a door that a teacher can point you toward but you must open it and experience what's beyond. Krishnamurti implores you to "doubt, question everything that I say.." and "test everything in practice in your own life..". Another guy with similar ideas, though somewhat differently expressed, is UG Krishnamurti. Here's a link to a very good site filled with his works. Notably, all of his writings are freely downloadable and reprintable with no copyright concerns. That, in itself, is telling... http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/index.html

PS I don't think the two Krishnamurti's are related...

That is horrifying! The astrological basis for religion is fascinating (I've seen much of that before). The case for a 911 myth and a financial cabal working towards world domination aren't new but have never been presented as convincingly for me. The God Who Wasn't There is a very interesting film that uses some footage from Zietgeist - http://www.thegodmovie.com/index.php. It focuses solely on the religion piece.

Thanks for posting that link - I will go the way of Swami Nirmalananda before I get the chip implanted!

Revolution!!

 

Anyone actually experienced it yet ?

Me!

An ongoing experience with the chronic illness of a loved one led me to try therapy for the first time in my life about 6 months ago. I was led toward an ACT practicioner by a friend who knew of my meditation/taijiquan/Eastern philosophy interests. It has been a revelation. It integrates perfectly with my meditative practices and my experience of my self and my personal, developing, philosophy, which has a decidedly Eastern bent. It has really shown me another level of self-realization that I had not yet experienced. Whether it is the system, my therapist, the process of therapy, my meditative practice, or a combination of the above is impossible to say (probably the latter). It has really made a difference in my life. I'm not trying to say that I'm "cured," whatever that means or that it's a quick fix to anything, but to anyone looking for a better understanding of themselves or for assistance in facing their suffering, I highly recommend it, particularly if you have an interest or background in meditation/mindfullness/Eastern philosophy. None of these are a prerequisite, however, as ACT includes training in mindfullness and meditative pracitices. I don't think that simply working through the workbook would be anything like the experience of working with a therapist but the book I mentioned earlier has been very informative and helpful.

 

 

I've been trying to think of evil female gurus, but haven't come up with any. There must be some out there.

 

 

How close does JZ Knight come?

Perhaps not evil...

Yes, that's what I meant, freeform. I think most of can unnerve people by seing through their persona. but we dont, because it's 'impolite'.

 

I'd like to see Jermey Paxman interview M. Winn, as well. And Lama thunderbolt.

Now that would be interesting....

I'd also like to see Ali G have a shot at them...

Excellent points Cloud and Todd!

Sorry for the very wordy response... but here goes:

Perhaps one point at issue here is the definition of enlightenment. In your arguments, it seems to me that enlightenment must be a state of complete transformation. A single, quantum, permanent, unvarying event or state. Buddhists would have us believe that this is possible and was exemplified by Buddha. Daoists would have us look at the Immortals and the existing recluses and wayfarers living only for cultivation, and so on... Many yogis might qualify, etc... Is this a state that exists in life? U.G. Krishnamurti, from what little I know of his work, would probably say no. I used to believe that enlightenment was a state of perfect understanding. Now, I'm less convinced. Perhaps that's because I'm just scratching the surface, perhaps not. In my experience, it is a stepwise process of awakening and realizations. Is there an ultimate, perfect state of enlightenment that may occur during life? How could that be determined? Are the enlightened gurus and teachers that much farther along the path than you and I? How to measure that? I would agree with you that there is a tendency toward compassion and empathy as one becomes more aware and awake. When I began to cultivate, I lost my taste for meat. I'm not a strict vegetarian but meat is usually unpleasant for me now. My sense of responsibility to others and compassion have also grown. I believe that such qualities do develop as a by-product of cultivation and, presumably, the further along the path we are, the stronger these tendencies will be. My ability to detatch from emotional motivations in my behavior and my recognition that attatchment to desires is the primary illusion have developed. THese will undoubtedly continue to develop with practice. The issue is, what is the definition we're using for enlightenment and do human weaknesses, persistent illusions, earthly desires, aberrant behavior, psychopathology, addiction, and all the other bad boy traits become exclusive of the possibility of enlightment? Can we achieve perfection? Is that the prerequisite to being considered a guru or enlightened? My current answer to these questions is no, that could certainly change but it's where my head is at right now. Is J Krishnamurti more or less enlightened than U.G. Krishnamurti? How do they compare to Swami Nirmalananda who starved himself to death when he felt it was his time to go? Is Alan Watts less enlightened because he enjoyed alcohol and sex? Is Osho less enlightened because he was a megalomaniacal, greedy, selfish, abusive, exploitative, addict? What about Gurdjieff who was sexually exploitative but felt guilty about it? Osho is the extreme, Watts is more subtle, JK and UGK very sublte distinctions. My point is that when we become enlightened, we are still enlightened humans. I'm not convinced that we can go beyond our humanity in life. I don't know that I believe that, even as enlightened humans, we can expect to be able to completely shed our human traits, desires, and weaknesses. Some do a much better job than others and those are the examples I'd truly like to follow and refer to as enlightened. Does that mean that the others did not reach and experience a deeply profound connection with the lifeforce that they could pass on or use to exploit others? Are we to link a specific pattern of behavior to our definition of enlightenment? As humans we tend to make such distinctions and judgements but that's really all just illusion, anyway... isn't it?

I think that there can be a dramatic difference between spirtiual awakening/enlightenment/insight, whatever you want to call it, and self awareness/psychic health. I think that you can be pretty out of touch with your emotions, motivation, or have significant psychopathology and yet achieve or channel a profound level of insight or connection. Why should it be that awakening brings with it a particular morality or code of ethics? Beyond awakening, we are still human until death, period. If we have a fucked up psyche, that may continue despite waking up. If we believe that the Dao does not judge, has no particular morality.... why should enlightenment be associated with any particular type of morality or human behavior? Osho, Gurdjieff, Crowley, Sai Baba, all examples of profoundly insightful men with personality disorders/mental illness/drug addiction... In addition, assuming someone has advanced or heightened awareness or insight, they will be much more likely to pursue a path of preaching/guru-hood/spiritual leadership if they have some degree of ego-need or megalomania. After all, the way of nature/Dao is the way of finding the lowest point, not the highest. Wu dei is not consistent with expousing one's spiritual accomplishments, even under duress. In my own experience, meditation and growing insight have not only not lessened my psychological stress, but have made me much more acutely aware of issues in my life that are painful and unpleasant. Cultivation and mindfullness are very valuable and useful to me and have helped me to deal with emotional suffering but I really don't see that they've changed my fundamental nature all that much.

Osho - Mohan Chandra Rajneesh:

Enlightened mystic or corrupt con-man....

Perhaps a bit of both?

Is there a difference?

Does it matter?

Let the games begin...

 

 

Is anyone interested in a more detailed discussion ?

I am.... I'll start one.

I think that it's just another facet of the experience that power corrupts...

He started as a visionary with (presumably) good and altruistic motivation. His initial movement in India was radical and visionary. His teachings were illuminating and insightful. Ultimately, he demonstrated that we are all imperfect and subject to human weakness and frailty. It really is sobering to see someone you admire from afar up close... I've seen it in many people that I once admired... I'm trying to learn to admire their positive qualities and accept and love them in spite of their failures.

Do you really want to be like him ( I dont know how seriously you meant that ).

OH, I don't know, 90 Rolls Royces, more Rolexes than wrists, more women than Snoop,, it's a start...

I rarely have time to do anything at work but work. Sometimes I have a short break to read a little or check out a forum online. Two days ago I got to read a chapter in "The Sex Lives of Cannibals" - pretty good book so far but I'm only to chapter 4.

If you're having back and shoulder issues, you may want to consider standing meditation. Moving around and stretching are important but I think standing can help both areas as well. I'd start with the basic wuji posture - feet shoulder width or so and hands in front of kua with shoulders very slightly internally rotated so that the tiger's mouths (1st web) face eachother. Suspend crown of head, slightly tuck chin, sink chest, relax shoulders and elbows, slightly tuck pelvis to elongate and loosen lower spine, slightly bend knees, and balance over bubbling wells. If this is all well known to you, forgive me...

Is Osho the bloke who took everyone's money and shagged everyone in sight of his rolls royce?

 

or am I getting him mixed up with some other guru?

He was implicated in a lot of shady stuff, including murder, tax evasion... I think he did some jail time. He drove Rolls Royces and wore very expensive jewelry. I've heard he availed himself of the charms of many of his female disciples. Some of his disciples were apparently pretty nutty as well and it's tough to know how much was his corruption vs his disciples' vs trumped up charges in an attempt to discredit him. He was very threatening to the establishment during his heyday. The wikipedia has a nice overview of his controversial and short life. Nevertheless, his writings on Dao are very insightful. When I'm a guru, I wanna be just like Osho...

Funny you mention Osho cause i also had that vision come to my head when i 1st saw Lama Dorje's students getting spontanious movement.

 

Have you read any of Osho's books on Tao?

Nope, what books?

Osho's disciples transcribed many of his talks. He has three books devoted to Daoist works to my knowledge. When the Shoe Fits and The Empty Boat are both devoted to commentaries on selected parables of Zhuangzi (Chuang-tzu). Tao: The Pathless Path is devoted to commentary on excerpts of Liezi (Lieh-tzu). I find Daosim to be where Osho really shines. His interpretations and expositions on Daoist thought, stimulated by Zhuangzi and Liezi, really resonate with me. He sometimes contradicts himself and his life betrayed his human weakness (like all of us). His style is very distinctive and puts some people off. He filters Daoism through his own culture and approach which, although very anti-establishment and anti-religious, can be as dogmatic as those he criticizes... My favorite is When the Shoe Fits - highly recommended!

Anyone familiar with Acceptance Commitment Therapy?

It's a form of psychotherapy which incorporates a very Eastern (Daoist, Buddhist) perspective of self and living. It's very cool to see these ideas brought into the mental health arena. There's a book (really a workbook) called Get Out of Your Head and Into Your Life which was authored by Stephen Hayes that works clients through this approach. The basic idea being that traditional analysis and attempts at modification of emotions and emotional responses is often not terribly effective in reducing anxiety, depression... and modifying behavior. Instead the approach is to accept these emotions as part of oneself and disconnect them from behavior and self destructive thought patterns. This is done largely through mindfullness training and developing a meditative mindset (ie the type of unattatched awareness we cultivation through meditation) . Behavior is then linked more to values (hence the commitment part), rather than conditioned emotional responses. Three components of "self" are discussed - the conceptualized self (ie the story of myself replete with emotions, expectations, memories...), the continuously aware self (that which is experiencing the present moment and that which was present in previous moments, the perspective of looking out through my eyes), and finally, the observing self (that which is aware of the continuously aware self, the one-self, something akin to the dao, it is indescribable or definable, only experiential). For anyone interested in this stuff, it's worth checking out.

I'd agree that apprehension seems to me to be more time-constrained, that is - related to a future event or expectation.

Fear is more broad and general - not necessarily linked to any future or past event. Fear is more about immediate threat avoidance, apprehension more about future threat avoidance perhaps.

These are very loose and subjective distinctions - there's a lot of overlap.

My favorite spot is the beach, any quiet beach, and the best time for me is sunrise. Unfortunately, I live > 3 hours away so that's a vacation treat for me!

Two friends of mine are organizing a Qigong for Peace event in Columbia, Maryland on Saturday, September 29th. If anyone is interested, please send me a PM and I'll get additional details to you.

are you enjoying your journey into Taoism?

Very much so! It is so comforting knowing that you are eternal, just using your body for awhile, then returning to your source. Everything just seems so natural.

Very nicely put. I feel much the same! One criticism of Daoism and Buddhism that I've encountered is that they are so impersonal. That they lack a "personal relationship" with God or that they lack a concept of God. For me it couldn't be more the opposite. How can I feel closer to "God" than the realization that I am one and the same, that there is no separation other than the illusion arising from our transient time on Earth? How can I have a more personal relationship than with myself/ourself? It certainly is a comforting and natural feeling.

Back to your question, it's not a glossary, but Eva Wong wrote a pretty good overview called Taoism for Shambala publications that can serve as a basic reference covering devotional aspects, cultivation aspects, philosophical aspects, historical aspects... If you're not a book addict ( I am!), you can probably find the majority of the material on any of a number of nice websites devoted to the topic.

Method: Meditation.

When I first started practicing Dao meditation, I asked my teacher if he could recommend a particular translation of Daodejing. He said no. I asked if that was because he never read it in English. His reply was something like - there is no need to read, just sit, reading is for scholars, now practice... (in his mouth, the word scholar is less complimentary sounding than usual...).

Are you saying Wu De?

 

In all of Lao Zi's Dao De Jing, meditation is written all over it. In the essence of his teachings is to be still

in heart and mind. That is an outcome of meditation and contemplation. If one has proper contemplation of their experiences, then they will attain stillness of heart and mind. This is what Lao Zi is saying, to be still in mind.. how to be still?

 

No desire, no fame, ambition. Just do what you do according to conditions, and you live your life accordingly in society. If you want to change society, be the example for the people, but do not hold onto fame and fortune.

 

This is cultivation of proper views. Proper mental postures. Sitting by the lake, soaking in the scenery is concentration, but it is concentration on forms and conditions. Lao Zi is saying though you have these things and they are good,, labeling them good is equivalent to stepping on it with a dirty shoe. Saying it is beautiful is to make it ugly...etc

 

Meditation is within his writings through contemplative methods. Directly pointing to the meditation technique is not going to be food for thought, and let a proper mental posture take root unless the mind meditating already has a good mind of virtue and moral.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

I agree 100%. The questions being asked in this thread's opening and follow up questions seem to be focusing more on specific techniques:

 

Im alittle confused on what type of meditation practises was taught or what type of meditation was practiced by Lao Tzu.

 

 

 

Does Lao Tzu mention running the micro orbit or this is not in stillness meditation as you are now using INTENT and forcing or guiding the chi around the body?

 

My comment was more focused on the lack of specific methods or techniques discussed in Daodejing. Achieving wu wei in one's daily life certainly appears to be the way of the sage in Laozi, as you so nicely put it, Lin. This does not necessarily mean that Laozi felt this could be achieved or needed to be practicied through seated meditation, standing, qigong, taiji, or any other specific method that is currently in vogue. None of these are mentioned in Daojejing to my knowledge. Certainly, the principles in Daodejing are consistent with meditative practices and can be applied to seated meditation, taiji... My comment is more to clarify that we really have no idea if Laozi (assuming he is a historical character in the first place, which I believe, he was...) practiced any particular style or method of meditation or did he simply feel that one needed to cultivate wu wei in everyday life?

I find it interesting to see all the discussion on Laozi and his meditation techniques. To my knowledge there's next to nothing about meditation practice or technique mentioned in Daodejing. He apparently despised the cultivation that was common in his day aiming for prolonging life or achieving "immortality." As is clear through his work, he believed in wu dei, going with nature. He believed that one should live his natural life to the fullest and die a natural death. It's likely that he practiced some form of meditation but I'm not aware of any documentation of that. Is anyone aware of oral traditions handed down documenting specific techniques attribute to Laozi? I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

I don't own a TV. Haven't for years.

 

The only show that interests me when I'm around other people's TVs is Iron Chef.

I liked the original Iron Chef show. Chef Morimoto has a killer restaurant in Philadelphia. My son was a huge fan of his and we went there for his birthday and he got a photo with the chef... It was fantastic. I caught the American version once and didn't like it. The only show I watch regularly on TV is Top Chef - it's a stupid, melodramatic, cooking competition but, for some reason, I dig it! Other than that I do like to watch movies from time to time and I normally watch them at home on DVD rather than pay the ridiculous prices to sit in a movie theater listening to cellphone ringtones...

My son was over a few nights ago and we watched Curb Your Enthusiasm - his favorite show - it was really funny. My kids like to watch the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, the History Channel, and my son likes the mixed martial arts shows on Spike.