A serious question about Taoism and the role of motivation.

[Birch Tree]

Vajrahridaya:

 

Thank you for your very thorough explanation. I will be thinking about it for some time to come. Much of what you had said in your post was also touched on in one form or another by Lama Shenpen Drolma in her talk on impermanence.

 

I also want to thank you for sharing your own personal experiences about when you first began your spiritual journey. I remember feeling that way (the "I'll show them" mentality) when I was in college and embraced Atheism. It was an emotional reaction to my Catholic upbringing, but as I found out--it was a necessary step for me personally if I was to continue on my spiritual path (both me and my sister, Tree04, came to a point where we felt that our Catholic upbringing was limiting our spiritual growth, though our other siblings have remained Catholic). At the time (when I was Atheist), I soaked up the rationalistic views of Bertrand Russell and put my faith in intellectualism--vainly believing that it was rationality was superior to faith.

 

I no longer hold this view, however, but rather I believe that both faith and rationality are important parts of a complete spiritual journey--and I have come to believe that spirituality can be found in this life in a meaningful way. This was one of things that drew me to Taoism. The search for the undefined Tao, with the idea that one can gain spiritual insights by looking inward. These two ideas are very appealing to me. Taoism has also afforded me a chance to know myself--I feel that I have learned a great deal about myself from my daily sitting meditations. However, my motivations have been "selfish" in the sense that I practice Taoism to advance myself further along my own spiritual path. The reason why I started this thread was that the Lama's answer to my question seems at odds with this motivation. However, you have offered me something new to think about--the idea that my motivation should be for the benefit of everyone and that I am part of everyone. I had not considered this before and I think it is an important insight that I will need to consider more fully.

 

Still, I ask you this question in all honesty and respect: if my motivation is for everyone, and I am part of everyone, is that a motivation that reflects pure altruism? If not, will this motivation be sufficient to realize the Tao (or attain enlightenment in a Buddhist sense)?

 

Once again, I thank you for your thoughts. I enjoyed reading your last post (I read it twice to soak it all in), and I look forward to your next reply.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

[Marblehead]

Edited September 30, 2009 by Marblehead

[steve]

I don't have any answers but here are a few thoughts -

 

(Gee, this is fun - I haven't ranted in a while!)

 

Rant on -

 

- Motivation: Your motivation is no more selfish than your Lama's motivation. Why is it more pure to strive "for the sake and betterment of all sentient beings" than it is to seek the betterment of oneself? Firstly, there is no real distinction between all sentient beings and oneself - this is an illusion. You ARE the world. If you strive to improve the world, you improve yourself. If you strive to improve yourself you improve the world. Secondly, selflessness is a sham. Look deeply into your motivation for trying to help others! Is it not because that makes you feel better about yourself in some way? When you help others you feel good about yourself for doing so, when you hurt others, you feel bad - this is equally selfish. It may be a more refined form of selfishness (to borrow imagery from the brilliant Jesuit, Anthony Demello) but it is selfish nonetheless! Be very observant and very honest and you will find this to be true. Finally, how can one really know what others need if one is not first balanced and at peace with themselves? Too much harm has been done by the well intentioned. I'm not saying that compassion is not important, in fact, I believe it is beautiful and that nothing is more important. That does not mean that it is not selfish. What I am saying is that you must first understand, love, and show compassion to yourself. That is every bit as important and pure as doing the same for others.

 

- Dao: What is the Dao? Can anyone define it? Laozi could not and would not define it. It is beyond words and thoughts and images. If it is beyond words and thoughts and images to define, how can we know whether it is permanent or impermanent? How can your lama state with certainty that "realizing the Tao" and enlightenment are different things? Can either be defined? If they can't be defined, how can they be compared? She admonishes you to not throw the phrase about carelessly while doing so herself! Too many gratuitous assertions when it comes to spiritual matters.

 

- Your own personal exploration is infinitely more real, meaningful, and equally as valid as the opinions and explanations of anyone else, living or dead. Keep investigating with an open mind. Beware the explanations and biases of "spiritual" guides, leaders, and (shudders) "experts." They are no different than you. They can only offer you their interpretation of whatever it is that they have been conditioned to believe. Their answers are as meaningless as anyone else's. Their answers will not help you in any way, only your own questions will help. Questions are alive - they keep you investigating. Answers are dead, they trick you into thinking that you understand.

 

Reality is to be experienced, not understood. That is the message of the Dao and that is the message of the Buddha as I see it. BUT - that is only my perspective. Not something I am suggesting that you agree with or accept. That is for you to figure out for yourself.

 

Rant off -

 

PS - the lama is probably a very beautiful, wise, and intelligent person and I mean no disrespect

 

 

 

 

 

-

Hello fellow Taobums,

 

Recently, I had the chance to hear an authentic Tibetan Buddhist Lama speak. She gave an excellent talk about impermanence. It was a wonderful talk and I found myself (a practicing Taoist) agreeing with most of it. I was fortunate enough to have the chance to ask her a question and I asked her something along the lines of the following (I don't recall exactly how I phrased it, but it was something like this):

 

"Many Taoists, myself included, handle impermanence by looking inward and seeking the Tao--which is permanent. It would seem to me that striving to realize the Tao would lead people to better understand their own true nature and thus make them more complete people. It also would help people come to grips with the impermance in the world around them. Can you expound on the difference between striving to realize the Tao and Buddhist enlightenment?"

 

Allow me to paraphrase her answer (since I don't remember it word-for-word):

 

"Why do you want to realize the Tao? What is your motivation for wanting to realize the Tao? Is it because you want to become wise? Or is it because you want to help others to realize the Tao? It may be possible for you to realize the Tao, but trying to realizing the Tao for selfish reasons or impure motivations is not the proper path. If you seek to realize the Tao for the sake and betterment of all sentient beings, then you generate virtue and your path is pure. Your motivation is the key. When your motivation (in all things) is completely selfless, and you have completely obliterated your self-centeredness, then you attain enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a phrase we should throw about carelessly. This is something that is different than realizing the Tao."

 

I then kindly thanked her for her answer--it has given me much to think about.

 

I have been under the assumption that I should look inward for the Tao, since as Chuang Tzu says: "There is no place that the Tao is not", thus if the Tao is in me that is probably one of the easiest places for me to find it. As I meditate and still the mind, my belief is that I come closer to realizing the eternal. In doing so, I make myself a better person and after significant cultivation I should then look outward to help the world. The Lama's answer suggests something completely different though: improve yourself by improving the world. This means that the process is simultaneously--one need not cultivate oneself first and then look to improve the world. One can improve oneself while improving the world at the same time. Maybe this kind of practice is seeking to see the Tao in the world as opposed to looking inward during meditation?

 

Also, before I had heard her answer, I had never really seriously reflected on WHY I wanted to seek the Tao. Upon truthful introspection, I found my motivation for seeking the Tao quite selfish, at least in the short-term. I want to understand the nature of the eternal, and I want to get to know myself better in the process. I don't think these motivations are intrinsically bad, but they are certainly not selfless.

 

So I ask in all seriousness, what about the role of motivation in the seeking of the Tao? After meditating and thinking about the Lama's answer to my question, I am coming to believe that one's motivation might be important.

 

So, I humbly ask for your serious thoughts and reflections on all of this. I am not trying to start another Taoist-Buddhist border conflict here on the forums, (and I hope that we can remain civil and respectful in our disagreements). My question is a serious philosophical one and I look forward hearing your thoughts on these matters.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

[nac]

Is it not because that makes you feel better about yourself in some way?

This is known as "idiot compassion" in Buddhism: Helping others for the sole purpose of making oneself feel better in some way.

 

PS. Please note that this sentiment is not always compatible with what is actually beneficial for other beings.

Edited September 30, 2009 by nac

[steve]

This is known as "idiot compassion" in Buddhism: Helping others for the sole purpose of making oneself feel better in some way.

Hi nac,

I appreciate your comment but that is not exactly what I mean. I don't mean to imply conscious intent or exclusivity of purpose. Regardless of the intent behind it, there is a component of self-serving behavior at some level, even behind seemingly completely selfless, compassionate, and altruistic behavior.

[Birch Tree]

[Marblehead]

Very nice post Steve. Thanks!

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

I appreciate your comment but that is not exactly what I mean. I don't mean to imply conscious intent or exclusivity of purpose. Regardless of the intent behind it, there is a component of self-serving behavior at some level, even behind seemingly completely selfless, compassionate, and altruistic behavior.

Yeah sorry, that's why I was making an edit.

 

The sentiment of helping others for the sake of easing one's own discomfort is not always compatible with what is actually beneficial for other beings. Eg. some monks release great hordes of freed animals into environments which are unsuited to them. "Self-serving" is present in real compassion as the intention to truly help all beings, including oneself.

Edited September 30, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

Hi NAC,

 

Please consider that Steve's post must be viewed from a Taoist perspective, not a Buddhist perspective. Words are sometime a horrible obstacle in preventing understanding.

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

Hi NAC,

 

Please consider that Steve's post must be viewed from a Taoist perspective, not a Buddhist perspective. Words are sometime a horrible obstacle in preventing understanding.

 

Happy Trails!

You're probably right, it's nearly 5 AM and I'm suffering from an extreme lack of sleep at the moment. I've been ignoring my De recently.

 

PS. Yeah, if you are "the world", then "helping yourself" is helping everyone. It needs to be rephrased to fit the careful and exact definitions used in Buddhism, but I understand what he was getting at.

Edited September 30, 2009 by nac

[Birch Tree]

Hi steve f,

 

Thank you for offering your thoughts. I have to say that everything you stated makes a lot of sense to me. If I may, I'd like to start with some of your last points and then work my way up to the beginning of you post. I must say that the experiential aspects of Taoism are one of its attractions to me. I have found much in my own personal self-searching and within my daily sitting meditations. This brings me to your second to last point, which is in regard to the realness of one's own personal experience. I am wondering if this is at odds with the idea that there is no distinction between oneself and others. Certainly, one's own experiences and perceptions define reality--I would definitely agree with this. Still, if I am the world, then is there any conflict between my acceptance of my own subjective reality and the objective idea that I and the world are one? I don't ask this question to quibble, but I ask in the spirit of honest curiosity. For me, this has still been a difficult point. As I wrote in my response to goldisheavy, I still have trouble seeing no distinction between myself and others around me. Perhaps this is a result of the poverty of my own spiritual growth, but I am not sure how I can bring myself to this conclusion, at least at this point in my spiritual path. Certainly, if I can make this leap, then your next assertion flows naturally and makes perfect sense: "If you strive to improve the world, you improve yourself. If you strive to improve yourself you improve the world." If you don't mind my asking, I would greatly like to know how you came to conclusion that self and others are one. I have heard others (some on this thread) who have stated something similar. I think this is a crucial idea, but I'm afraid that I'm not quite there yet.

 

That said, this simple phrase you wrote is priceless: "Questions are alive - they keep you investigating. Answers are dead, they trick you into thinking that you understand." There is much truth in this.

 

Lastly, I also agree with you that the Tao (Dao) is undefined.

 

Thanks again for your thoughtful "rant"--it was probably the most thoughtful rant I've ever read. I hope to hear from you again soon.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

[Stigweard]

[William Douglas Horden]

Permit me a short excursion before returning to the subject at hand, please.

 

A Rabbi of the mystical persuasion some centuries ago was asked for the secret of life, to which he replied: "Everything is God. Live well. Die easy."

 

I see there's a new book out by Jay Michaelson entitled, "God Is Everything: The Radical Path of Nondual Judaism".

 

I doubt that any of the early spiritual traditions of the Old World grew up without being influenced by the others. Any more than the same could be said of those of the New World. (In both cases, the exchange of traditions seems to have followed well-established trade routes.) Even then, the migration of early explorers from the Old World into the New means that that the ancients of Northern Asia and the Americas must have shared a common mother culture. Which was indisputably one of the animistic/shamanic/mystical world view, and which holds that all matter has a spiritual counterpart, just as material human beings do.

 

It is no surprise, then, that all these great mystical teachings have a profound rapport with nature. The Sufis openly proclaim, "Form Itself is the Beloved".

 

Once, when I was 19 years old and just stepping onto the path, I had a dream that a small coiled "serpent" with drooping mustaches was trying to bite me. It leapt repeatedly at me (I was, of course, somehow back in my parents' living room), trying to kill me with its venom. I danced and whirled around the room, trying to dodge it and then, picking up huge, heavy, weighty, thick, massive, books and throwing them at the spry, lively, quick, leaping serpent. Which of course, had no trouble avoiding being crushed. At last, it leapt a perfectly executed leap and managed to bite me on the little finger of one hand. I shook and shook my hand violently until it let go and raced off toward the bathroom. I followed and watched it disappear back underground, down the drain of the bathtub. I slumped against the wall, sat down, realizing I was going numb and that paralysis was about to set in before I died.

 

Forty years ago and I remember it like it was yesterday. Within a year, I came to recognize the serpent with the mustaches as a dragon, of course. Another year and the rest of the symbolism became clearer. My reliance on books was a necessary evil: I was raised in a culture without the master-teacher tradition. But it held the inevitable risk that I would miss the living reality and become enamored with the dead description. It was the transition point: the "me" before Taoism confronting the "me" in Taoism.

 

So like a true Wayfarer (I mean, Tao Bum), I started to travel. Eventually getting to the Galapagos, to see the place where animals have no fear of people. It was true. You could walk right up to the animals and they looked at you like, "Yes, can I help you?" Blue-footed boobies doing their courtship dance on the top of your hiking boots. Etc.

 

I, personally, have never had any motivation other than a burning curiosity and an insatiable addiction to nature.

 

Which is why I love Taoism above and beyond all the other traditions I have encountered.

 

Because it loves Nature.

[Marblehead]

Hi Birch Tree,

 

In the event Steve is unable to make a timely response (I saw he is off the board now) I will make this one short statement.

 

The reason you see what you think is an inconsistency is that the concepts of 'wu' and 'yo' (that is, our state or condition) come into play here. In 'yo' we are in the state of the Manifest, the physical world. Here is where there is 'oneself' and 'others'. In 'wu' we are in the state of the Mystery, the spiritual essence. Here is where there is no 'this' and 'that'.

 

During our daily activities we move between the two - somtimes concentrating on the Manifest, othertime on the Mystery. Most people who are at peace with themself have a harmonious mixture in their life, living for themself while living for others at the same time.

 

(That wasn't as short as I had planned on it being. Hehehe.)

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

(That wasn't as short as I had planned on it being. Hehehe.)

 

(Peace with oneself is not all that matters though. Both sides, or rather, all sides of this issue are important.)

Edited September 30, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

That was beautiful William! Thanks for sharing.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

(Peace with oneself is not all that matters though.)

 

Nope. But it is very important none-the-less. (Especially at my age. Hehehe.)

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

Nope. But it is very important none-the-less. (Especially at my age. Hehehe.)

Yup.

[Easy]

Edited October 1, 2009 by Easy

[William Douglas Horden]

Birch Tree,

 

I believe you mentioned that you'd picked up a copy of "Original Tao" by Roth and were about to start it. What a happy coincidence, no? And after finishing Cleary's "Secret of the Golden Flower". Two of the most instructive books around imho.

 

Here is an interesting line of thought from Original Tao.

 

Verse XIV

 

The Way fills the entire world.

It is everywhere that people are,

But people are unable to understand this.

When you are released by this one word:

You reach up to the heavens above,

You stretch down to the earth below;

You pervade the nine inhabited regions.

What does it mean to be released by it?

The answer resides in the calmness of the mind.

When your mind is well ordered, your senses are well ordered.

When your mind id calm, your senses are calmed.

What makes them well ordered is the mind;

What makes them calm is the mind.

By means of the mind you store mind:

Within the mind there is another mind.

That mind within the mind: it is an awareness that precedes words.

.........

 

footnote 55 on page 221 clarifies that this "one word" is "Way". There is resides within the calm and well-ordered mind in a special place called "the mind within the mind".

 

Therefore, this oldest of Taoist texts seems to recommend a practice of sitting calmly,

breathing regularly, "squaring up" the limbs, and holding the word "Way" in "the mind

within the mind". In this manner, we "make a lodging place for the vital essence" (jing:

which is interesting because in this ancient text, jing is given cosmological status and

repeatedly identified with Tao itself).

 

It is also interesting to note that this mind within the mind "precedes words".

It is axiomatic that it's essential to quiet discursive inner speech.

But this statement points to something even deeper--not just quieting "words"

but finding the place within you that exists before language....

[steve]

Hi Birch Tree,

I really appreciate your kind words and sincerity.

I don't know that there's much I can say to help or to explain the paradox here.

There's a level at which I know that we are one and there is the reality that my own awareness is limited to my personal sensations, perceptions, and thoughts.

For what it's worth, I do think that you are on the right path and I wish you luck and success with your efforts.

Warm regards,

Steve

 

 

Hi steve f,

 

Thank you for offering your thoughts. I have to say that everything you stated makes a lot of sense to me. If I may, I'd like to start with some of your last points and then work my way up to the beginning of you post. I must say that the experiential aspects of Taoism are one of its attractions to me. I have found much in my own personal self-searching and within my daily sitting meditations. This brings me to your second to last point, which is in regard to the realness of one's own personal experience. I am wondering if this is at odds with the idea that there is no distinction between oneself and others. Certainly, one's own experiences and perceptions define reality--I would definitely agree with this. Still, if I am the world, then is there any conflict between my acceptance of my own subjective reality and the objective idea that I and the world are one? I don't ask this question to quibble, but I ask in the spirit of honest curiosity. For me, this has still been a difficult point. As I wrote in my response to goldisheavy, I still have trouble seeing no distinction between myself and others around me. Perhaps this is a result of the poverty of my own spiritual growth, but I am not sure how I can bring myself to this conclusion, at least at this point in my spiritual path. Certainly, if I can make this leap, then your next assertion flows naturally and makes perfect sense: "If you strive to improve the world, you improve yourself. If you strive to improve yourself you improve the world." If you don't mind my asking, I would greatly like to know how you came to conclusion that self and others are one. I have heard others (some on this thread) who have stated something similar. I think this is a crucial idea, but I'm afraid that I'm not quite there yet.

 

That said, this simple phrase you wrote is priceless: "Questions are alive - they keep you investigating. Answers are dead, they trick you into thinking that you understand." There is much truth in this.

 

Lastly, I also agree with you that the Tao (Dao) is undefined.

 

Thanks again for your thoughtful "rant"--it was probably the most thoughtful rant I've ever read. I hope to hear from you again soon.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

[Birch Tree]

My friends,

 

The advice and wisdom you are sharing with me is priceless. Many thanks.

 

Stigweard:

 

Thanks for the explanation of the role of virtue. I apologize for not having seen those posts already. I really like your definition of virtue: "It is the spontaneous expression of one's personality when one is living true to one's nature." This makes a lot of sense, especially in the context of Wu Wei. Your second post references the teacher-student relationship, which as William Douglas Horden pointed out, most of us (myself included) do not live in areas where the the teacher-student relationship is mainstream. So, the question then becomes how does one realize their true nature in the absence of a teacher? As I wrote earlier, I myself have avoided seeking out a teacher because I consider my path to be my own. Maybe that is a bit of arrogance on my part, as I clearly have much to learn from others (this post is certainly proof of that). However, without a teacher, is it possible for one to discern their true nature? If I am reading your second post correctly, practices like Taijiquan and the classic texts like the Tao Te Ching are mirrors that help us discern "the core" by examining the 10,000 things. I also have had to learn virtually everything about Taoism from books (I am wondering if William Douglas Horden had to do this as well). Yet this has not been so terrible. I am beginning to think that one may be able to catch glimpses of one's true nature in the depths of meditation. For me personally, this is always when I have felt the closest to the Tao, and also when I have felt like I've learned the most about myself. I don't know how far meditation will get me, but I have been pleased with it so far. Thanks again for sharing your other posts, which were very relevant to our discussion. By the way, I didn't know about the Celtic Ogham script--thanks for sharing that too.

 

 

William Douglas Horden:

 

Thanks for the reply. Like you, I too have always been drawn to nature. I love nature, and the Galapagos Islands are on my list of places to visit before I die--that is really neat that you were able to visit there.

 

In fact, before I was Taoist I practiced Wicca. I was drawn to Wicca mostly because of the high reverence Wicca places on nature. After I discovered Taoism, I came to realize that Taoism places a similar high priority on nature as well--and Taoism has other metaphysical and philosophical aspects that appealed to me more than Wicca.

 

So I too must echo your reverence for nature. Nature is wonderful. Thanks for sharing this with me.

 

 

Marblehead:

 

Thanks for your clarification on steve f's post. I see that it is the state of Manifest where distinctions arise, but not the state of Mystery. If I follow you correctly, it seems that the state of Mystery is the spiritual realm (spiritual essence). This is thought-provoking and helps me to understand steve f's point of view. However, I am wondering how the state of Mystery relates to the true nature that Stigweard had referenced (in the second quoted section). This opens up a new question that I have: in which of these two realms (Manifest or Mystery) should we suppose that the true nature lies? If it is in the Manifest, then it is individualistic, personal, and probably different for everyone. If it is in the Mystery, then by definition it would seem that it would have to similar or even the exact same for everyone. I would hazard a guess (and please correct me if you think I am off course here) that if there is no distinction between the self and others, then the true nature of the self would reside within the Manifest. I would like to know if this seems correct to you or not. Thanks again for your clarification.

 

 

Easy:

 

Thanks for your response--you are definitely right--Lama Shenpen Drolma certainly has got me thinking. I am interested in your distinction between the Tao (which I take to be the universal) and the tao of Birch Tree. The first (Tao) is probably unknowable. As goldisheavy pointed out, we can probably get close to it, but will probably never actually get there. Still, this bring up the question--what does it mean to get close to the Tao? Is getting close to the Tao the same thing as getting close to the tao of Birch Tree (or Easy, or anyone for that matter)? If I may, your response about the old cat stalking reminded me of a poem that I read once. I don't remember the entire poem, but the part I remember went something like this (also your screen name reminds me of this too):

 

"The right way to go easy

is to forget the right way

and to forget that the going is easy."

 

I hope to hear from you again soon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts--they were very thought-provoking.

 

Once again, thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts and for humoring me in my ignorance. I hope to hear back from all of you again soon.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

 

 

 

 

 

William Douglas Horden:

 

Yes, definitely a happy coincidence! After reading the excerpt that you quoted, I couldn't help but think about the method of "turning the light around" mentioned in the Secrets of the Golden Flower. Do you suppose that the "the mind within the mind" referenced in the Original Tao is what is to be found when the light of consciousness is turned around on itself (turning the light around)? I'd be curious to know if you think these are the same thing. If this "mind within the mind" is something similar to our spiritual essence (for lack of a better term), do you suppose this is the part of us that existed before language?

 

 

steve f:

 

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I wish you all the best in your journey as well.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

 

 

Note: Edited because I didn't expect my new response to William Douglas Horden and to steve f to get appended to a previous post.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Birch Tree

[William Douglas Horden]

....and this issue of language is interesting.

 

Consider the hypothesis that, in the beginning, human beings created language

but now language creates human beings.

 

After all, we are born into a world that is already fully described for us.

We are born into a universe of language.

We treat the world according to the words (and their relationships) attached to things.

 

As others have noted, "categories" do not "exist".

There is, for example, no such thing as "tree".

There is that particular organic entity outside your window--

but there is no such thing as "tree".....

If there were, the same "sound-word" would exist in every language.

It wouldn't be an arbitrary thing.

 

The linearity of language (go ahead and try to say every word

in a sentence all at the same time) is equivalent to the linearity of time.

 

Nature is different. Stand there beside the sea, in a forest, up to your waist in a river.

Listen. Fall into it. Merge with it. Not time. Space.

Let go of describing it to yourself in words.

"Calm the senses" as Original Tao says.

Find the mind within the mind that exists before language.

Before time.

The Unchanging.

 

Anyway, that's what I think this week.....

[William Douglas Horden]

Birch Tree, you wrote:

William Douglas Horden:

 

Yes, definitely a happy coincidence! After reading the excerpt that you quoted, I couldn't help but think about the method of "turning the light around" mentioned in the Secrets of the Golden Flower. Do you suppose that the "the mind within the mind" referenced in the Original Tao is what is to be found when the light of consciousness is turned around on itself (turning the light around)? I'd be curious to know if you think these are the same thing. If this "mind within the mind" is something similar to our spiritual essence (for lack of a better term), do you suppose this is the part of us that existed before language?

 

 

My reply:

 

My understanding of turning the light around (and I would say "light" is "awareness", not consciousness, which is usually used to refer to "conditioned awareness") is that awareness first begins by watching thoughts coming and going, something like fireworks, not following them, not interested in their content, just watching them arise and die away, like birds flying across the sky, like they were someone else's thoughts. This quiets the mind so that it feels as if it has actually turned around and is watching the place from which thoughts arise. Using mind to find the mind. This state brings us to still point, a spatial awareness outside the linearity of time-flow, where we cease identifying with "this body's" sense of "me" or "the sum of all my body's experiences"--and, rather, identify with (actually: merge with)......

 

and here I feel that trying to use language beyond this point really violates the entire principle of what we're *not* talking about.

 

but i do feel that I've answered your question as best I know how.

I hope it's of no hindrance to you on your tao.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya:

 

Still, I ask you this question in all honesty and respect: if my motivation is for everyone, and I am part of everyone, is that a motivation that reflects pure altruism? If not, will this motivation be sufficient to realize the Tao (or attain enlightenment in a Buddhist sense)?

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

 

This is deep and mostly pretty hard to really release to, but to do so... is such liberating bliss, wisdom, knowledge... it's very deep. What's also deeper is that this was todays "Rigpa Glimpse" which is a daily quote from Sogyal Rinpoche. It's so pertaining to your question, it's astounding if you let it be.

 

You can have no greater ally in the war against your greatest enemy, your own self-grasping and self-cherishing, than the practice of compassion. It is compassion, dedicating ourselves to others, taking on their suffering instead of cherishing ourselves, that, hand in hand with the wisdom of egolessness, destroys most effectively and most completely that ancient attachment to a false self that has been the cause of our endless wandering in samsara. That is why in our tradition we see compassion as the source and essence of enlightenment and the heart of enlightened activity.

[mat black]

What's also deeper is that this was todays "Rigpa Glimpse" which is a daily quote from Sogyal Rinpoche. It's so pertaining to your question, it's astounding if you let it be.

 

You can have no greater ally in the war against your greatest enemy, your own self-grasping and self-cherishing, than the practice of compassion. It is compassion, dedicating ourselves to others, taking on their suffering instead of cherishing ourselves, that, hand in hand with the wisdom of egolessness, destroys most effectively and most completely that ancient attachment to a false self that has been the cause of our endless wandering in samsara. That is why in our tradition we see compassion as the source and essence of enlightenment and the heart of enlightened activity.