Otis

How about a new topic: what is the ego?

I hear you, Aaron, and I respect your path and your growth. There is always much wisdom in what you write; I have no intent to dispute that. I thank you for listening to what I have to offer, and I wish you the best on your journey. With continued respect, otis

What you write may be so; I cannot know. I really can't say where Aaron is at. From most of what he writes, I believe that he's probably had several awakenings thus far, at least. This is why I created a recent poll asking the Bums who has had "enlightenment experiences" (as opposed to "who is enlightened?"). Because I think there are many people on this forum who have done a great deal of waking up. I think we have woken up in different ways, and we grasp different insights, which is why a forum for sharing our understandings is so valuable. What I don't think is valuable is coming to the Bums with the intent to teach, but not to learn. Once I have decided that I am "advanced beyond the rest of you", then I know too much to listen, and cannot grow.

Excellent, Marblehead! If there is such a repercussion as karma in this case, it is that: if I live my life not recognizing that the other is equal in worth and importance to me (essentially: "part of me"), then I will live in suffering. If I do see the other as being of equal importance (as being "me"), then how could I conceive of holding on to the money? It is not that the act of holding on to the money brings cosmic punishment, but rather that it reinforces my sense of separation from others, by justifying my importance over them. I do damage to myself, when I choose to make myself special.

I think there is excellent advice here on parenting.

This is my take on Te/De. Human concepts of virtue/morality are usually rule-based, because we have the parental fallacy which says "if I don't tell you how to behave, then you will go off and do something horrible". Whereas I think that the Taoist Te has nothing to do with rules or human concepts. It is merely the act of "courageously caring". Courage is the yang virtue, because we are frozen, imprisoned, if we cannot step beyond our fear. Of course, "caring", the yin virtue, is a term with many meanings, so I'll try to specify. The way that we are with an newborn: gentle, listening, aware, loving, curious, care-full, unhurried, utterly devoid of judgment or hostility, that is what I mean by "caring". IMO, if we took that kind of care with all facets of our lives, then we would not run into hard or sharp edges, nor cause damage to others (i.e. we avoid karma). That is how I interpret "Te".

I just want to start with saying that I agree with almost everything that you write in this forum, Aaron. I'm guessing that we have a lot in common. I am not interested in being disrespectful with you, just in holding up a mirror. I have shared them. On your last couple threads, I've shared my arguments encouraging epistemological humility. Your response to me was: So, rather than actually responding to what I had to add, you dismissed it, by claiming (essentially): "I used to think like you, but now I know better. Why do I claim that? Because I KNOW". Which, of course, is what my urgings about epistemological humility were warning against. There's the danger in considering one's self "enlightened". If you already "know", how will you ever listen to someone else, who has a different point of view? What if someone else sees a piece of the puzzle that you don't, yet? How will you ever hear them, if you've already justified your own opinions as true knowledge? As I mentioned before, I agree with just about everything you've written in the OP and in the Tao thread. I just balk at calling these metaphors "truth". It's not skepticism that I'm urging (a skeptic is one who doubts every belief, except his own). I am urging self-skepticism, a willingness to recognize your own epiphanies as still being stories (as opposed to "Truth"), no matter how certain they feel. IME, surrendering "knowing" is at the heart of living in mystery. How can I live in "emptiness" if I am already "full" with knowing? Just as the "nature of consciousness" is the epiphany you want to share with us, "epistemological humility" is the epiphany that I'm trying to share with you. Peace, otis

Ah, but maybe I have experienced what you've experienced, Aaron, and just drawn different conclusions from it.

Great analogy, Matt. Fatigue may certainly just be your body, asking you to slow down, nothing more complex than that. Good to be able to listen to your body, without forcing an outcome on it. There are some other gifts in fatigue, IME, than just the "learn when to slow down". Fatigue can be used as fuel, as well, although I don't understand how it works. In physical practice, when I encounter deep fatigue, I often shift my attention into the sensation of fatigue, and dance with that. That dance seems to "burn up" the fatigue, allowing me to go further and deeper than I had thought. Of course, I feel even deeper fatigue later, but it's nothing that rest can't take care of, and I soon have more energy than before. Over time, practicing with my fatigue has been excellent for increasing my endurance. If what you're experiencing is chronic, however, then this kind of practice may be counter-productive. Best of luck!

Good stuff, Aaron. As I mentioned in your earlier thread, this is a very compelling metaphor for me, as well. But I do stop at calling it a metaphor, for the same reason that I mentioned on the earlier thread. My 1st-hand experience of the universe ends at my own borders (wherever they are). None of my experience of the world takes place outside of me, so I see it as fruitless to project my experiences of consciousness or unity on the world, just as fruitless as to project my experience of "God" on the world. I hear the ancient statements about unity as suggestions to the ego. The ego, by believing in separation, feels alienated from life, so it is useful for the ego to surrender the concept of separation. And, it is very clear, on an a priori level, that I am NOT separate from life. There is no part of me that is not part of my life, or vice-versa. I and "my life" are one and the same. That's as far as I'm willing to go, in terms of proclaiming unity, because beyond that, I cannot know. I think it's enough, however. Since I am the same as my life, then I realize quickly that there is no point in resenting, fearing, wishing, or trying to control that life. Every contraction, every dislike I have, is just me turning against me, because my life is me. I don't avoid hate because of the cosmic connection between me and another; I just stop hating because hating is just poisoning myself. I don't open my heart, because I believe in an invisible bond with another, but because opening my heart also opens my life. Again, I'm not disputing your view, because what you're saying is the most appealing world-view I know of. But I do think that "world-views" (especially ones about the absolute) are inherently misleading, and end up missing the point. It is not "what's out there" that matters, but only "how I relate to it". With respect, otis

You keep making this same point. Scientists are humans too, with biases, sloppiness, etc. And it's all true, no doubt. But you keep ignoring that science, although flawed, is still the single best system we have for generating opinion with the least possible bias. Science has evolved toward eradicating (as much as possible) the effects of bias on the results. Doesn't mean the bias isn't there; it's just less there than anywhere else. So you're continuing to make a backwards argument, claiming that science is broken because of sloppiness, bias, etc., when science is clearly the least broken opinion-creator we have. It's every other input of opinion that you should be really concerned with (including Taoist tradition), because the influence of bias is much much higher. Of course we should not make a religion out of science, but then I don't think we should make religions out of anything else, either. My credo: believe as little as possible, but make sure that what I believe makes as much sense as possible.

One of my big epiphany moments was about 6 years ago, when I realized that my beliefs, up until that moment, were relatively arbitrary, were due mostly to the circumstances of my life, and were not particularly special or true. At that moment, I also realized that I had complete freedom to experiment with new beliefs. Because of the circumstances at the moment, the most attractive new belief to play with was the Law of Attraction, and manifestation. For awhile, I took on that belief as a new reality, and I watched it seem to work! There was real power in trusting, in moving forward without worry, in engaging the world through a smile. And I still believe in that path (the smile, trust, no worry part), but I have pretty much surrendered the rest of the Attraction part. Not because I have seen hard evidence that it doesn't work, but because my subsequent epiphanies have been about giving up beliefs. The squishier the belief (even if it often seems to work), the more important it was, to let it go. I recognize as important to hold on to as little magical thinking (and as little preference), as possible. I'm glad that I've surrendered the literal belief, because I feel like I subsequently would have missed half the truth. Because the Law of Attraction is so aimed at trying to get what I want, it obscures how important it is to love the parts of life, in which I don't get what I want. IME, it is during those times, that I need most to be focused on what's in front of me, rather than what's in my head. (Maybe this is a misinterpretation of LofA; don't know). It is presence that I seek to cultivate now, because it is always here, and is my connection to immediate experience. I choose now to be agnostic about "how the world works", and rather just stay attentive to the path, rather than trying to oil the wheels myself. I do see the imagination as a very powerful organ (with its own Siddhis), but I don't see it as "mine" to use. It is another part of my brain, and I let it do its business, with as little controlling as possible from the volition and other parts of my brain that I call "me".

I'm not saying that I am separate from Tao, just that I cannot describe Tao, but only my experience of it. As a blind man explaining an elephant, I can describe the ear that I'm touching, but I do not pretend that the ear is the whole beast. This is likewise 100% true when discussing myself. I cannot tell you "who I am". I can only give you my experiences of what I've noticed about myself, and how the world has responded to me. If that is true of myself, which I am absolutely not separate from, then why should I pretend that I can tell you "what Tao is"?

As for my own opinion on "what is Tao", I think that Aaron has put forth a very beautiful metaphor, that seems to resonate well with my experience and what I have read in Taoist and Buddhist texts. That said, I have to agree with Everything's caution about using "is" or trying to define the mystery. It is not a question of heresy; as Aaron has said: that doesn't exist. But I think "the Tao which is spoken is not the true Tao" is a warning to us, not to mistake our experiences of Tao for Tao itself. I can NEVER have the experience of Tao (or any experience whatsoever), without also having the obfuscating influence of ME. There is always me in the way, so I can never truly distinguish when I'm experiencing Tao, or I'm just experiencing myself, experiencing Tao. Even when the experience feels so genuine, so absolute, that I begin to imagine: this is Truth, itself, that's just another experience. How can I ever determine, within myself, the distinction between "more true than I've experienced in my life" and "actually True"? Internally, they are the same, because the experience of truth can never rise above being an experience, nor can my conclusions rise above comparison to what I have previously known. I do believe that the epistemological humility that Lao Tzu was advocating is every bit as important to the following of one's path as meditation or cultivation. It is, I think, equivalent to "Beginner's Mind" or "emptiness" in Zen. So yes, I think it's fun to tinker with metaphors, and thereby explain how we experience Tao. And I think that Aaron has put forth a very beautiful model to think about. But to mistake "my experience of Tao" for "Tao itself" is every bit an error as saying that "my experience of Aaron" is the same as "Aaron himself".

Hey Aaron, Do you know of Peter Russell, or his work? He's a philosopher of consciousness, and comes to very similar conclusions to you. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789&hl=undefined# This video lecture is pretty long (over an hour), but it's beautifully elegant and wonderfully mind-blowing. The first half is especially convincing, leading up to the idea that consciousness is in everything, that there is some degree of consciousness in all matter. The second half involves a bigger stretch, but it still makes a very elegant argument to get to your conclusion: that consciousness is all there is. It's a very refreshing talk, and quite worth the time investment, so I highly recommend it.

I don't think there's any question that there are limitations in knowledge, whether it be Godel's Incompleteness, or the limitations of having 5 senses and a point of view. But this is not something that science denies, nor something that should refute science. This just says to all of us: be extremely careful when we choose to tag our opinion with the special flag "knowledge". Don't hold too tightly to any truths, and make sure that the truths that we do rely on, are as reasonable and repeatable, as possible. I don't see these limitations as being a reason to doubt science per se, but rather to doubt ALL of my beliefs, to keep my perspective fresh and unconstrained by unnecessary belief. Science, at least, thoroughly tests its hypotheses, whereas most theories enter my consciousness from much less thorough sources. So, true, we should not be fundamentalist in our allegiance to science, for fundamentalism is always self-blinding. But that doesn't mean that science isn't still (by far) the best game in town, when it comes to the question of knowledge.

This is what really stood out for me, and rang of truth. The path, as I experience it, is "being human". We can discover more and more of our selves, or we can just stick with what we think works, but in either case, it is not about being other than human. The impediment in the path is "knowing", because that is when we stop surrendering to the path, and start living a fantasy.

I don't really believe in "proper practice". Proper practice, IMO, is what works for you, right now. So it's changing all the time (and is cyclical like a sine wave). Because Yin practice (surrender of self, dissolution of boundaries) feels so liberating, it implies that it is the right practice. But IME, it is equally important to practice in the uncomfortable Yang realm (what hurts, what irritates, what freaks out). In dance, when there is resistance to practice, the resistance itself, becomes my practice. Where I feel impediment, is where I put my attention. The dance centers in the irritation, in the soreness, the fatigue, the spasm. If practice gives rise to frustration, then maybe make the frustration what you meditate on. If impatience is gnawing at you, gnaw back. These emotions are not to be avoided, any more than anything else. Give them a chance to be your dance partners, your beloved beings, for awhile.

Thanks, Kate! I'm not quite sure how to translate , but it's clearly a good thing. Natural tantric? Thank you, but I doubt more so than anyone else. If it weren't for my practice of authentic dance, started in my early 30s, I would never have been led to play with parkour, starting at 38, and then these explorations, a year later. So I'm just waking up to my body and its connection with the physical world, after spending my youth with the fear of injury and the tyranny of muscle spasm.

Agreed, Manitou. Teenagers are the most likely group to experiment, but are also the least likely to get something positive out of it. My experience and relationship with weed as a teenager was totally different than when I became re-acquainted with the plant, in my 30s. Of course, all of our drug policy is based around our fear that teenagers will use. The birth of Republicanism: the fear that my kids are going to do the same things I did, when I was young.

Absolutely agreed that being altered does not necessarily deliver one to "truth". But what the plants offer is still profound and potentially extremely valuable: they allow me to be something other than "me". They do not deliver me to the "right" perspective; quite the opposite. They teach me that there is no such thing as a "right" perspective, and that humbling my sense of "right" is one of the best things I can do for myself. They teach me that there is joy and inspiration in unexpected places, when I stop being myself. They also teach me about my fears, about my self-consciousness, about my illusory stories about "people" and "the world" and even "myself". They help show me that my beliefs up to this point are largely due to accidental causes, and are nothing special. They show me that those beliefs stand between me, and freedom. They reveal that my beliefs in human hierarchy are exactly what keeps me trapped as being "lesser than". And that all I need to do to be free of the burden of "not being good enough" is to stop putting myself above others. They give me new perspective on my emotional storms, seeing them as weather, and not as my programming. They help me realize that my senses are capable of much more than I ever ask of them. They give me perspective on my consciousness, exhibiting the fragmented and often contentious nature of the various parts of my brain. They help suggest a way out of that inner conflict, by learning to accept. They help me forget myself, for awhile, so I have the chance to live for a little while from somewhere new, somewhere unexpected. They help teach me to live as energy, in the unknown.

Dance is something I need, but what I long for is: blossoming. Waking up every part of me. Growing toward the sun. Living an adventure. That is my deepest longing.

Great share!

Does that mean you judge scientists, based on their politics?

LOL! Better get packing! And don't worry Manitou. I've got plenty of weed to share.