manitou

Some threads here talk of Knowing, but a type of knowing that can't be put into words. I just finished a book where a guy named Lester Levinson talks much of 'proofs'; the kind of proofs we get internally when our conscious experience aligns directly with some spiritual concept. Although I read the Castaneda books years ago, I still find myself suddenly realizing 'Oh! That's what don Juan really meant!' when an inner experience of mine aligns with what I read then. These could also be described as the 'Aha's' of getting to know ourselves, if the inner journey has begun. Today I'm reading Buddahood Without Meditation and a paragraph jumped out at me that corresponds with the above. "At first, you develop comprehension by relying on training. Later, you develop deeper understanding by eliciting personal experience through examination and investigation. But the situation is such that mere comprehension and understanding of this kind will not bring freedom. By analogy, even though you have food, you will not be satiated if you do not eat it.' It must be taken into our bodies, eaten. We align our actions with our thoughts. We have to walk like we talk at some point. It occured to me that this might be the very process that creates the sense of Knowing that can't really be explained.

I could be dead wrong here, but it does seem to me that what I have read of Confucius doesn't seem to get into the mindset of wu-wei; it does seem to be more behavior-oriented. One of the focuses of the TTC is 'between ugh and aah, how much difference is there?', which says to me that everything is seen in relation to everything else. There is no good or bad - if you ask a soccer mom what she considers evil, she'll say the dope dealer standing on the corner. If you ask the dope dealer what is evil, he'll answer 'the son of a bitch who ripped me off last night'. Is there a right or wrong? It's all just relative to something else. Perhaps I haven't read enough of Confucius to see the wu-wei in it yet. (I am perusing the Confucius thread and commenting, although nobody else seems to be interested - there is some great stuff in there). I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I haven't noticed Confucius talking about Not-Doing yet. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

don Juan would not refer to it as Love, he referred to it as the path with heart.

2:12] The Master said: “The noble man is not a utensil.” [Comment] The noble man is not a technician, to be used by others to do a single job. On another level, his mind is not narrowly oriented by a specific task. The junzi thinks broadly and does not limit himself quickly into a certain world-view, and cannot easily be used as a cog in someone else's machine. This seems to go to the fact that the noble man is not afraid to think outside the box, nor to amend his outlook. His ego is not riding on the fact that his opinion must be right, as he has virtually formed no opinion. This is optimal, but how hard is this to do? It's not that we don't have the means to practice...especially in this day and age. We have access to world news and events 24/7 now - how very easy it is to sit back on the couch and label lawmakers, for example, as a bunch of idiots; particularly those who muck up any progress by forming blocs. But the other side of the coin is that this activity, this calling out of another individual (even on TV) as something totally different than us, is doing us nothing but harm. It reinforces the illusion that we are separate from each other; it makes us seem elevated and makes our egos feel elevated if we can put someone else down. As a personal way of tracking myself (Castaneda's method) I've been paying attention to my thoughts while watching Mitch McConnell or John Boehner doing what they do best.....and it's more telling how much personal work I have to do, because my thoughts immediately go into the gutter and blood shoots out of my eyes when I see either one of them gumming up the works. Back to the drawing boards.... The noble man is not a utensil because he can't be 'used' by another without his consent. His thoughts are based in What Is, and there is no need to buy into someone else's agenda. He is completely his own man.

[2:9] The Master said: “I can talk with Hui for a whole day without him differing with me in any way— as if he is stupid. But when he retires and I observe his personal affairs, it is quite clear that he is not stupid.” The Buddha mindset is one that is open at all times. Last night I was reading Buddahood Without Meditation by dudjom Lingpa and he talks at some length about the openness of the buddhistic mind. As I read, I was visualizing a donut or a tire, suspended in the air with all thoughts going through it. No reaction, no judgment. Just observation of the thoughts. When this mind is adapted, it's as though it's our choice to reach out and grab concepts or ideas as they go by, rather than react to the concept or ideas. We can find our responses, our words, within the great Void without emotion or reaction controlling what we are to say, if we wish to say anything at all. We can just sit and Be and not react to anything, because the inner work has been done and there are no buttons to be pushed any more. Total freedom, because we are no longer programmed to react in a specific way.

Funny how nobody ever wants to talk about cleaning up one's energy or history. Too much work, maybe? An admission that we're needing a little inner work? This is just never talked about on this forum. I've brought this up from time to time and folks pass over it like it's just not there. As far as i can see (and having worked the 12 steps for 31 years) the inner 'work' of trying to find my own character defects (although I know there are some who will challenge the word 'defects') is the singularly most important part of attaining any clarity at all. It's by wringing ourselves out andd tring our best to remove those characteristics that impede vision - selfishnesses, arrogances, mean-spiritedness, the urge to undermine another to gain stature for self ---there are so many subtle things we do to separate ourselves from Others - generally because we need to feel elevated because down deep inside we know we're deficient. Although this flies in the face of the Taoist concept of 'All That Is' is just fine as it is, this is true as well. But when our minds and heart are motivated to remove impediments to joining up with the Oneness, the only way to do this is to inspect our inner selves. Maybe all the folks on this forum have already done this, and it's so basic to them that it's not even worth mentioning. But I sort of think lots of folks on this forum haven't done any self-examination at all. We come to knowledge, it seems, by first aassuming it's gotten through the brain. We read, we listen, and once we compile a little knowledge the darn Ego kicks in and we become legends in our own minds. Once we see ourselves as a teacher of sorts, more often than not the mind shuts to receiving knowledge from another. this is my natural state; my Ego will sit up on its high chair and think it's running the show and how very blessed the world is to have my wisdom in it. I wish I could say otherwise, but I can't really. But what I can do is see that for what it is, merely Ego, and take the steps necessary to sidestep it, to tame it, to put it in its place. However, I do need it to keep from driving into oncoming traffic. As we all have on this forum, I've read accounts of master after master who has only gotten to their place in life by a combination of the outer search and the inner search. They must work in concert, apparently. What a nearly impossible set-up this is for us! It's a real Catch-22, this path to the full monty. apparently it's all in the Balance between Knowing and Humility (which is what we are capable of obtaining if the inner work is done). I just don't see how humility is reached without self-realization, which is only gotten by going within. And without humility, we have nothing but hot air.

And the funny thing that the Tao, viewing us all as straw dogs anyway, wouldn't care one bit if they practiced human sacrifices. The only caveat would be that those prone to sacrificing others would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. We're all one entity and those who caused the sacrifices would only be killing themselves in some cosmic way; that being their mindset, they wouldn't be capable of total alignment with the cosmic powers that be. if in fact that was what they were looking for.

Wonderful stuff, VMarco and Steve. Belief and Knowledge are two entirely diffferent things. and to 'hope' is to try and pin down a particular manifestation in the future - a direct conflict with accepting All That Is. All I know for sure is that It's All Good. It's all a Manifestation, and it's all not really even happening.

Interesting, TruthSeeker - your reference to the Tao of Physics. Almost as though the analogy could be extended to the particle vs. wave phenomenon. It's as though we're sitting at the intersection of time and space. A particle takes up space, a 'wave of probability' takes up time. I'm not quite seeing the direct analogy but somehow I sense that it's there, the connection to micro/macro.

I too have spent many hours with the don Juan teachings. To me, it is the same as a third eye. I certainly envy his ability to dream and even admit others into his separate reality.

I couldn't agree more on the Christian thing - and my personal opinion is that if Jesus was a true historical figure he was no doubt an enlighened one, assuming that he said the things he was supposed to have said on the Sermon on the Mount. If that proves to be false, that he wasn't an actual figure, then to me it doesn't really matter who said to be 'in the world but not of it' - that seems to be the common thread of the thoughts of a master of any tradition. It boils down to understanding that this is of our mind, that this seeming reality is a type of illusion, and that to find that which we seek it seems to involve an inner journey; to realize that we are all but actors on a stage, playing a part (maybe we can attribute that one to Elvis); to realize that in the end run there is only one Authority on any of these ideas, regardless of the tradition; the ultimate voice is within us all and equally accessible by all, assuming one is willing to search.

a convoluted thread! From my perspective, going back to the monkeys for a moment, covering their mouths, eyes, ears. If we shut off all our senses - we don't hear anything, smell anything, make any noise or think anything - then all we are left with is this hulking warm creature that dwells inside us. All it 'feels' is its contact to gravity - the feel of weight on the bottom of our feet, or buttocks. It is this hulking warm creature that we all possess - it is the same in all. Without thought, we appreciate nothing more than the hulking warm feeling of it being contained within our body. This to me is close to nothingness. I think Jesus knew what he was talking about when he said 'be in the world but not of it' - this is the detachment that the buddhist, the taoist, the sage, the master, the shaman looks for. And to achieve the capacity for true compassion it necessitates doing it from a perspective where self is not in the front seat. I agree that it is not a feeling - that it is a verb. We choose to be lovers. And to be a true lover, we must tame the wild animals inside us - the peacock, the lion, the pig, the hyena, the monkey....all of them. The hardest person to love is usually the ones we are closest to - our kin, sometimes even our spouse. Those who know us down to the bone and who can push our buttons at a moment's notice. I think the trick is to file down the buttons so there are no longer any to push. It is only after the buttons are removed and the selfishnesses are removed from our own personalities that we achieve the kind of clarity to know how to 'love' another. It takes a very lucid person to see what it actually is that another person really needs - one can only see this from the Oneness mindset, and in order to get to the Oneness mindset it has to be done with our own contortions removed. How to remove them? By an intentional internal process. Or, it can be unintentional; only the Spirit (or Tao) will be leading the way, in and out of situations that will knock the tar out of that particular character defect; over and over until we get the message. Or...the easier way is to do it willfully and develop what they call the Christ Consciousness to view ourselves as we really are. Looking at ourselves without getting defensive and justifying our wrong behaviors, or blaming others, usually our parents. To understand wu-wei is to know that there is a force in charge that knows better than we do how the proper alignment should be. Call it gravity or mutual attraction. In any event, in order to tap into it we need to keep our hands off the object of concern, and trust that it will resolve without our hands on it. When the situation requires an action from us, it needs to be done with the most loving (and truthful) heart possible; if we can get to pure love and pure truth, without putting our own needs and desires first, then we are well on the path to enjoying the wu-wei in our lives.

[1:16] The Master said: “I am not bothered by the fact that I am unknown. I am bothered when I do not know others.” Fame or adulation is not what the Master is looking for. The fact that he may see something incoherent in another person is an indication to him that there is something within himself that is incoherent and needs further study. By conquering self and knowing one's own self to the core, all others are known. We are all One, despite the differences in our circumstances and histories. When the commonalities of all men are found within one's self, they apply to All.

TWENTY Deep thinking generates knowledge. Idleness and carelessness generate worry. Cruelty and arrogance generate resentment. Worry and grief generate illness. When illness reaches a distressing degree, you die. When you think about something and don't let go of it, Internally you will be distressed, externally you will be weak. Do not plan things out in advance Or else your vitality will cede its dwelling. In eating, it is best not to fill up; In thinking, it is best not to overdo. Limit these to the appropriate degree And you will naturally reach it (vitality).

Hi Truth Seeker - welcome to TTB's, you're a fabulous addition. It does seem that Life has its own timing, as to our life events and what we learn and when. As to a personal level, I've just decided to go for the Full Monty on all this stuff and I do take it real personal. I think it's about aligning our inner selves with the wisdom that has come before us, and the Direct Knowledge that we become capable of tapping into. There are many side paths of distraction.

TWENTY THREE For all the Way of eating is that: Overfilling yourself with food will impair your vital energy And cause your body to deteriorate. Over-restricting your consumption causes the bones to wither And the blood to congeal. The mean between overfilling and over-restricting: This is called "harmonious completion." It is where the vital essence lodges And knowledge is generated. When hunger and fullness lose their proper balance, You make a plan to correct this. When full, move quickly; When hungry, neglect your thoughts; When old, forget worry. If when full you don't move quickly, Vital energy will not circulate to your limbs. If when hungry you don't neglect your thoughts of food, When you finally eat you will not stop. If when old you don't forget your worries, The found of your vital energy will rapidly drain out.

[1:15] Zi Gong asked: “What do you think of a poor man who doesn't grovel or a rich man who isn't proud?” Confucius said, “They are good, but not as good as a poor man who is satisfied and a rich man who loves propriety.” A wonderful thought. Being able to transcend the apparent inequities of life is a great feat. A poor man who is satisfied anyway has found that his happiness is found not in temporal things, but in his being-ness. a true king. The rich man who loves propriety doesn't need to be proprietary - instead, he realizes the golden mean and lives by propriety because he is in true balance. He no longer needs to demonstrate his riches by flaunting them.

[1:2] You Zi said: “There are few who have developed themselves filially and fraternally who enjoy offending their superiors. Those who do not enjoy offending superiors are never troublemakers. The noble man concerns himself with the fundamentals. Once the fundamentals are established, the proper way appears. Are not filial piety and obedience to elders fundamental to the enactment of ren?” [Comment] The word ren (仁), is one of the most fundamental concepts in Confucian thought. It has been translated into English as “benevolence,” “altruism,” “goodness”, “humaneness” etc. It is a difficult concept to translate because it doesn't really refer to any specific type of virtue or positive endowment, but refers to an inner capacity possessed by all human beings to do good, as human beings should. It is what makes humans human, and not animals. In earlier iterations of this translation have gone through various transitions: at first I attempted to use a unified English rendering throughout the text. I then pursued a strategy of leaving untranslated, as ren. Now I am presently leaning in the direction of translating the term variously, according to the context, but at present, remnants of all three strategies remain in the text. I intend to eventually sort this out. In the Chinese “essence-function” 體用 paradigm, ren can be understood as the innate, unmanifest source of all kinds of manifestations of virtuosity: wisdom, filial piety, reverence, courtesy, love, sincerity, etc., all of which are aspects, or functions of ren. Through one's efforts at practicing at the function of ren, one may enhance and develop one's ren, until one may be called a noble man, or even better, a “humane person.” In the Analects, to be called a “humane person” by the Master is an extremely high evaluation, rarely acknowledged for anyone. 『1-3』 子曰。「巧言令色、鮮矣仁。」 It seems to me that the ren (developed here by such practices as familial piety) are a little more difficult to exemplify here in the West. Not many of us practice familial piety any more - in my own family's case, our mother is in an assisted living facility. No doubt the way of familial piety would be for one of us to care for her ourselves; but it was at her insistence that she go into the home, not wanting to burden anyone. This is still not the way of ren - to let others care for our parents. It seems to me that a very good way to promote ren within (although the word wasn't used in the above paragraph) is to become a more humble creature. The idea of 'giving up one's own life', in a sense, to care for our elderly parents, would be the extreme act of humility, and I can see where this act alone would go far to promote humility within. We set all our priorities onto the back burner in order to care for the parent. I was reading elsewhere (perhaps further in Confucius, can't remember) that there is so much more involved than merely providing food and shelter for the elder - it also involves being mindful of our attitude when we're caring for the elder. What expression do we wear on our face? Do we telegraph to the elder that this is all a bother, although we're doing it anyway? This seems to me to be the crux of it - are we doing it with a loving heart? That would be the test, and a loving heart would be the very thing that would forge the humility and remove the 'offending of elders', which the passage also alludes to. It seems that there are many paths to altruism and humility. Certainly being a good son or daughter and maintaining familial piety would be a very viable path; over a long period of time, it would suffice to knock the tar out of the ego by not putting ourselves first.

thanks, Eternal Student and Dawei -

Seems like both Mencius and Xunzi are dual. To have belief in a character being good or evil inherently means acknowledging good vs. evil, or dualism. Lao Tzu - or the middle way - Taoism would say man's character just Is. The Analects are incredible. Each precept is worth 10 pages of wonderful discussion.

What about tinnitus, my friend? I've had it forever, but it's getting so loud it's ridiculous. Physical cause was probably repeated exposure to shooting ranges years ago - but is there a spiritual component to this as well, in your estimation?

One man has this attitude and the one standing next to him doesn't. Who should we believe? It's completely our choice. The only question is why we choose the mindsets we do.

but yet you keep asking. Yes, the liberation of a group of people would be to love and forgive their captor, at a certain level. To continually harp on injustices done is merely to keep them stuck in that victimized mindset. No liberation there.

Hi Marbles - I've noticed the love/compassion words sneaking into your missives of late.

I have a 'library' of old dog-eared metaphysical, shamanic, buddistic, yogi, taoistic books that it will grieve me to leave when I do make my final exit. What to do with such a treasure? When I walk through the hallway where they live you can almost feel the glow. I just can't imagine a Kindle in such a loving way. What an incredible library it would be if all TTB's had their books in the same place. Wow. Steve, if you read this....what does the new avatar mean?