Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Who chooses to feel compassion?
#1 Tip... Bar None
Think of this tip as the 'magic tip'.
There is no true or 'right' way to do any of these activities. There is no 'right' form to learn. Moreover, there are no masters ? no one who can teach you the core. Teacher simply teach the particular form they follow. Whatever form you learn functions like a path, a trail, a road. And just like walking down any trail, you are present ? awake in each moment ? or you are drifting away, either in thought or desire.
Simply put, being personally watchful and deeply aware is where the magic begins. All else is nothing but aesthetic illusion. In other words, one's aesthetic preference for one form over another simply reflects one's needs and inclinations in the mixed bag of one's emotional makeup, cultural conditioning and circumstance. Aesthetic preferences are [chref=53]by-paths[/chref] in the sense that we tend to put a lot of credence in 'truth' of the form which distracts us from the watching our step on the trail.
Of course, I suspect that it is our tribal instincts which drive us to make much ado about nothing ( form). Still, I feel it is healthy to know what is going on; there is a better change we'll act wisely, or so I think...
Much Ado about Chi, Prana, Compassion, Love, Spirit, ... You Name It.
We hype up every facet of human endeavor, maybe more so today than ever. Mmmm? Anyway, the first verse of the Tao Te Ching, the disclaimer if you will, states: [chref=1]"The way that can be spoken of, Is not the constant way; The name that can be named, Is not the constant name".[/chref] I've found it very helpful to switch "way" with any and all other words that come to mind, and particularly those loaded with [chref=12]color[/chref]. Using such words as a launching pad for curiosity, brings us closer to knowing the [chref=1]nameless[/chref]; such knowing is more [chref=15]subtle[/chref] than all the [chref=2]words[/chref] and the thinking we use them for.
Talent Hoodwinks Us
Innate talent misleads us. Folks with athletic talent will do the Yoga and Tai Chi visibly better than those with less talent. Does that make them 'spiritually superior'? Of course not. They are naturally better at those skills, just as a typist might be at typing, a dish washer at washing dishes, or a Sage at [chref=65]hoodwinking[/chref]. 'Superior' ability in mundane activities, like dishwashing, doesn't grab headlines for the same reason people don't pick up pebbles and mount them in wedding rings. The rare, non mundane, stones are what we treasure. Is this not simply our hierarchal instinct expressing itself? We are dazzled by what ever appears to be 'extra-special' just like fish that lunge for a shinny lure.
We all have talent in some area of life. But, how about in all the other areas of our lives? In those private places where our lesser talent lies lurks self knowing's weakest link. Of course, that is not the view we want to see. We equate talent with the 'superior man'. That's where hype enters into life.
The external world you see is a blend of its innate nature and a reflection of your innate nature, e.g., what you need to see. Not only can you not believe what you hear... you can't believe what you see or think either. Thus, the Taoist view: [chref=71]To know yet to think that one does not know is best... [/chref].
Making Mistakes
The process of making mistakes and correcting them corresponds to the Taoist view:"If you would have a thing shrink,
You must first stretch it;... Another way to look at it: We first need to make 'arduous mountains out of superficial mole hills' before we can 'make those mountains into effortless mole hills'.
I regard 'mistakes' as jewels of consciousness. When I fail to sense the moment to moment continuum of my 'mistakes', I'm on auto pilot. A continuous awareness of 'mistakes', has two aspect to it: (1) you are awake, and (2) 'mistakes' loose their 'potencies' and become an enriching part of your life.
Mistake and correct are two sides of the same coin ( yin and yang to put it another way). The point here is that whether a thing is 'up' or 'down', 'left' or 'right', 'right' or 'wrong' is irrelevant; the way runs deeper than such duality.
'Turning back' to this root, you eventually return to that 'shadowy' place where mistake and correct merge into one 'mysterious sameness'.
Of course, mistakes will feel very relevant socially, i.e., some will say, "you're wrong", just as you say others "wrong". Jesus put it so well, "Judge not, that ye be not judged". Yep, 'what goes around comes around'. That is the nature of tribal politics. And that is why if takes a while to own your own life. Your social-tribal instinct will fight you all the way on that one.
We All Want to Do it the 'Right' Way.
But, how far shall we take that? 'Right' encompasses two issues - awareness and tradition.
'Right awareness' (mindfulness, attentiveness, concentration) is crucial to all living things. It is about being alert - alive to the moment. If a deer loses that moment, a lion may have him for dinner. If a driver loses that moment, he may go straight... off the cliff. Unlike everything else in life, I have yet to overdo moment to moment awareness.
'Right' as defined by tradition is another story. Nevertheless, tradition plays a crucial role in guiding us where to apply awareness, at least initially. Tradition also brings with it social / political dimensions which can be taken obsessively too far. Here attention is narrowly focused on the form and away from the process. In the end, it is not about the form, but about the care you give to your moment to moment.
Yoga, Tai Chi or Honkyoku serve to exemplify both issues. Both pass on an age old tradition of 'right form' and also aim for 'right awareness' and a returning to the 'eternal moment'. Even so, life flows moment to moment from birth to death, while these 'forms' are like islands of learned discipline. You can't live your moment to moment life as a learned discipline, and you can't spend you entire waking hours only doing these forms with the notion that you'll remain in the 'eternal moment' - an unnatural and nonsensical notion on many levels.
Moment to moment awareness - watching - is all that really matters. To the extent that learning a discipline will open the door to that aim is useful. But, beware of the [chref=53]by-paths [/chref] which obfuscate that aim. A good example of the social / political, i.e., tribal, tendency in all human activity is Christianity. Christ had a fairly simple straight forward message which aimed at 'right awareness' in one way or another. Why then are there myriad Christian sects (and Buddhist one's as well) each believing that their form is the best, if not the true, form. Yes, we do cling desperately to the form, and in doing so loose our chance to be aware of an underlying '[chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref]'.
The Real Problem Lies Not in Knowing What to Do, But the Doing.
If you are honest with yourself in the moment, you will see that your 'faint heart' is your weak link more than anything else. It you can suspend all the rationalize excuses you make and just take it step by step, no matter how small the steps are, you will be master of your [chref=64]journey[/chref]. We tend to postpone our moment until that 'tomorrow' where we hope to get it together.
A case in point: I've often suggested to folks wanting to do yoga but didn't want to plunge in, that they simply do ONE POSTURE a day and let it evolve naturally. I can't remember anyone ever being able to do this. We tend to be very 'all or nothing' in our approach to life; we either rush headlong or piddle our moments away.
Think of this tip as the 'magic tip'.
There is no true or 'right' way to do any of these activities. There is no 'right' form to learn. Moreover, there are no masters ? no one who can teach you the core. Teacher simply teach the particular form they follow. Whatever form you learn functions like a path, a trail, a road. And just like walking down any trail, you are present ? awake in each moment ? or you are drifting away, either in thought or desire.
Simply put, being personally watchful and deeply aware is where the magic begins. All else is nothing but aesthetic illusion. In other words, one's aesthetic preference for one form over another simply reflects one's needs and inclinations in the mixed bag of one's emotional makeup, cultural conditioning and circumstance. Aesthetic preferences are [chref=53]by-paths[/chref] in the sense that we tend to put a lot of credence in 'truth' of the form which distracts us from the watching our step on the trail.
Of course, I suspect that it is our tribal instincts which drive us to make much ado about nothing ( form). Still, I feel it is healthy to know what is going on; there is a better change we'll act wisely, or so I think...
Much Ado about Chi, Prana, Compassion, Love, Spirit, ... You Name It.
We hype up every facet of human endeavor, maybe more so today than ever. Mmmm? Anyway, the first verse of the Tao Te Ching, the disclaimer if you will, states: [chref=1]"The way that can be spoken of, Is not the constant way; The name that can be named, Is not the constant name".[/chref] I've found it very helpful to switch "way" with any and all other words that come to mind, and particularly those loaded with [chref=12]color[/chref]. Using such words as a launching pad for curiosity, brings us closer to knowing the [chref=1]nameless[/chref]; such knowing is more [chref=15]subtle[/chref] than all the [chref=2]words[/chref] and the thinking we use them for.
Talent Hoodwinks Us
Innate talent misleads us. Folks with athletic talent will do the Yoga and Tai Chi visibly better than those with less talent. Does that make them 'spiritually superior'? Of course not. They are naturally better at those skills, just as a typist might be at typing, a dish washer at washing dishes, or a Sage at [chref=65]hoodwinking[/chref]. 'Superior' ability in mundane activities, like dishwashing, doesn't grab headlines for the same reason people don't pick up pebbles and mount them in wedding rings. The rare, non mundane, stones are what we treasure. Is this not simply our hierarchal instinct expressing itself? We are dazzled by what ever appears to be 'extra-special' just like fish that lunge for a shinny lure.
We all have talent in some area of life. But, how about in all the other areas of our lives? In those private places where our lesser talent lies lurks self knowing's weakest link. Of course, that is not the view we want to see. We equate talent with the 'superior man'. That's where hype enters into life.
The external world you see is a blend of its innate nature and a reflection of your innate nature, e.g., what you need to see. Not only can you not believe what you hear... you can't believe what you see or think either. Thus, the Taoist view: [chref=71]To know yet to think that one does not know is best... [/chref].
Making Mistakes
The process of making mistakes and correcting them corresponds to the Taoist view:"If you would have a thing shrink,
You must first stretch it;... Another way to look at it: We first need to make 'arduous mountains out of superficial mole hills' before we can 'make those mountains into effortless mole hills'.
I regard 'mistakes' as jewels of consciousness. When I fail to sense the moment to moment continuum of my 'mistakes', I'm on auto pilot. A continuous awareness of 'mistakes', has two aspect to it: (1) you are awake, and (2) 'mistakes' loose their 'potencies' and become an enriching part of your life.
Mistake and correct are two sides of the same coin ( yin and yang to put it another way). The point here is that whether a thing is 'up' or 'down', 'left' or 'right', 'right' or 'wrong' is irrelevant; the way runs deeper than such duality.
'Turning back' to this root, you eventually return to that 'shadowy' place where mistake and correct merge into one 'mysterious sameness'.
Of course, mistakes will feel very relevant socially, i.e., some will say, "you're wrong", just as you say others "wrong". Jesus put it so well, "Judge not, that ye be not judged". Yep, 'what goes around comes around'. That is the nature of tribal politics. And that is why if takes a while to own your own life. Your social-tribal instinct will fight you all the way on that one.
We All Want to Do it the 'Right' Way.
But, how far shall we take that? 'Right' encompasses two issues - awareness and tradition.
'Right awareness' (mindfulness, attentiveness, concentration) is crucial to all living things. It is about being alert - alive to the moment. If a deer loses that moment, a lion may have him for dinner. If a driver loses that moment, he may go straight... off the cliff. Unlike everything else in life, I have yet to overdo moment to moment awareness.
'Right' as defined by tradition is another story. Nevertheless, tradition plays a crucial role in guiding us where to apply awareness, at least initially. Tradition also brings with it social / political dimensions which can be taken obsessively too far. Here attention is narrowly focused on the form and away from the process. In the end, it is not about the form, but about the care you give to your moment to moment.
Yoga, Tai Chi or Honkyoku serve to exemplify both issues. Both pass on an age old tradition of 'right form' and also aim for 'right awareness' and a returning to the 'eternal moment'. Even so, life flows moment to moment from birth to death, while these 'forms' are like islands of learned discipline. You can't live your moment to moment life as a learned discipline, and you can't spend you entire waking hours only doing these forms with the notion that you'll remain in the 'eternal moment' - an unnatural and nonsensical notion on many levels.
Moment to moment awareness - watching - is all that really matters. To the extent that learning a discipline will open the door to that aim is useful. But, beware of the [chref=53]by-paths [/chref] which obfuscate that aim. A good example of the social / political, i.e., tribal, tendency in all human activity is Christianity. Christ had a fairly simple straight forward message which aimed at 'right awareness' in one way or another. Why then are there myriad Christian sects (and Buddhist one's as well) each believing that their form is the best, if not the true, form. Yes, we do cling desperately to the form, and in doing so loose our chance to be aware of an underlying '[chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref]'.
The Real Problem Lies Not in Knowing What to Do, But the Doing.
If you are honest with yourself in the moment, you will see that your 'faint heart' is your weak link more than anything else. It you can suspend all the rationalize excuses you make and just take it step by step, no matter how small the steps are, you will be master of your [chref=64]journey[/chref]. We tend to postpone our moment until that 'tomorrow' where we hope to get it together.
A case in point: I've often suggested to folks wanting to do yoga but didn't want to plunge in, that they simply do ONE POSTURE a day and let it evolve naturally. I can't remember anyone ever being able to do this. We tend to be very 'all or nothing' in our approach to life; we either rush headlong or piddle our moments away.
Comments
The notion of a free will, either explicit or implied, is a manifestation of our sense of self. It is the 'self' which chooses to do or not do this or that. It is the 'self' which chooses to live right or otherwise, and to feel compassion or otherwise, yes?
Now, most world-views hold that the 'self' is real, and so none of this would seem ironic in their eyes. However, Buddhist hold that the 'self' is an illusion which can be 'extinguished'. Mmmmm? If 'self is an illusion, then there is no 'self'. If there is actually no 'self', then who chooses to live right or feel compassion? Who chooses to extinguish self, for that matter? Who has free will? Who follows the Dharma? Such an oxymoron as this imparts great irony, does it not? :?
Pardon me if engage in a little Taoist mischief and rattle the cage of the Buddhist paradigm.
(1) We're 'realized'... and we're not. We're pure being, universal consciousness... and we're not. But, we 'think' otherwise. Part of our 'thinking' that hinders feeling our 'pure being' is our insistence on having 'it' pure! Our obsession with flawless purity (olive oil, virgins, heaven, consciousness, compassion, diamonds,... you name it) is the judgement we impose on the cosmic reality we expect to experience. If the cosmic reality differs from our expectations and ideals we may guarantee that we will be unable to see 'it' as 'it' is. Our judgement of 'it' predetermines what we see. Thus, to paraphrase..."he who knows does not think, he who thinks [chref=56]does not know [/chref]". Our thoughts bias perception.
(2) To think, to believe, that our true nature is happy and free, is no different than a Christian's belief in the 'purity' of heaven and the 'impurity' of hell. This duality of view puts us in constant contention with nature. Nature is not 'only' dualistic. Nature is not 'only' pure. Nature is not 'only' compassionate. To paraphrase again..."the nature [chref=1]that can be named[/chref] is not the constant Nature". This whole dualistic view is a product of our nervous system - esp. our BRAIN, our emotions and the instincts which evolved to help us survive as wild animals. However, these innate facets of our biological nature are not conducive to seeing 'it' as 'it' is. What we see is a projection, reflection, a mirroring of our own biological nature.
If, in everything you 'know' to be so, you first assume that it is probably a reflection of your instinctive makeup (needs and fears), you can often discount enough of such preconception to allow you to catch intuitive glimpses as how 'things' might actually be. And I do stress might! On this path, one is always left [chref=15]hesitant and tentative[/chref]. A sense of [chref=1]mystery[/chref] pervades all. :shock: :?
Just like quantum physics, where one cannot observe without changing what's observed. At least that part makes sense to me and very much clarifies "he who knows does not think, he who thinks does not know ".
That's pretty much all that's sunk in right now. But another thing that comes up for me is that I still carry around a basic concept drummed into me by the Catholic Church that there is something outside of me (or even inside of me, but separate) that is perfect, pure, good, holy, sacred. Maybe it was not put there by my Catholic upbringing, maybe it is hardwired into my brain. It's a very pleasant feeling, to feel the sacredness of everything. Perhaps, that's the mysterious sameness of the Tao.
Or maybe not. Now I'm wondering if the ability to feel the sacredness is part of the instinctive nature...needs and fears. ??? My big brain feels pretty small right now and I feel plenty hesitant and tentative.
What about the idea that the physical human being and spritual human being are two types united? Can you image dogs having a religion to discuss how to be a dog? No, they are able to be perfectly as dogs with no thought or discussion. What is it that gives a human being such trouble? What is it that gives a human being such power to act if many diverse ways?
1) The idea is an emergent property of our brain. We have chopped Nature into this, that, and those. A good survival ability which enables us to manipulate nature. Well, the unseen consequence is that the manipulators have become manipulated by their own skewed way of viewing Nature's 'suchness'. Physical and spiritual are two sides of the same coin.
Now, to really appreciate this point, take a coin out of your pocket and look carefully at it. Imagine one side is 'physical' and the other side is 'spiritual'. Silly uh?
2) Just as we are able to be perfectly human with thought and discussion, other creature are able to be perfectly themselves with their natures. Discussion is to humans what sniffing each other's butts is to dogs. If our noses were as highly developed as a dog's, we would probably sniff more. If dogs had big brains they would talk more. So? I can't imagine dogs having religion any more than I can imagine humans spinning spider webs... or getting to know our neighbors' butt scent.
The magnitude of difference we assign the differences we perceive is completely relative to our own needs and fears. There's no basis in reality. Differences are illusionary... 'only skin deep' as they say. Less so, I say.
3) What "trouble?" Life is a struggle from virus and bacteria on up the tree of life. Life battles against inevitable entropy. That's life. We have the innate instinctive drive to maximize our comfort and security - as all life forms do. That is the survival instinct. This need for comfort and security drives us to ideate a 'more perfect world', where there's no struggle. And we struggle with ourselves, within our mind... we are our own worst enemy as they say. For all the myriad creature, each advantage comes with its 'other side' disadvantage.
"Diverse ways?" First, that 'diversity', like 'magnitude of differences', is in the eye of the beholder. Second, according to who? Who is judging humanity as a remarkably diverse creature different from the other animals? Again, I would suspect that this tendency to see ourselves as 'unique' is driven by survival instinct. If the tree outside my window could speak, it would say how 'unique' it was. Each person not only feels themselves unique, but also imagines themselves unique and that is what gives us our particular brand of struggle in life. The Monarch butterflies don't have to endure our kind of struggle, they have a struggle which is 'unique' to their nature. Each life form has a unique struggle in life according to its nature. We are no different - either way. And that's 8)
1) By "Trouble" I meant that I create problems that don't exist otherwise and I do it all with my thoughts and opinions. Outside of the struggle for basic food and shelter, that which I need to survive, the struggles I face don't really exist. My dog doesn't do this as far as I can tell.
2) By "Diverse ways" I meant different from each other; not other creatures. The struggle you have created for yourself is much different than the struggle I created for myself and there are far greater differences out there; some people spending their whole life killing others and some people spending their whole life serving others.
You might say that that it only appears different but the results are quite different in how one creature impacts another.
1) The common ground is that each is doing what they NEED to do. If you believe in choice and morality, then you will likely make 'moral' judgements, one being '[chref=2]the good[/chref]' choice, and the other 'the bad' choice. But one person's good is simply another person's bad. For example, Al Qaida feels killing Americans is good. Americans feel killing Al Qaida is good. So? Your moral point of view all depends on where you are standing, no? Moralist just hate this view for it puts into question their cherished bias. :roll:
2) Concerns about "results" and "impacts" are a peculiar human obsession which obfuscates our moment. We are obsessed with the [chref=64]end[/chref] and negligent with the means, always leaping ahead out of being (what is) into thinking (what could be - what should be). :yy: If what is, is yin, and what should be is yang... we are much too much yang oriented for our own well being. Simply put... we are nuts! ... (I know, speak for myself
Some might use Free-will to convey that I have the freedom to will myself. I can see how that is not so. I can't maintain a straight path long enough to will myself into much, if anything.
I use Free-will to convey that there is no power outside of myself directing me. I am not a puppet for demon nor deity. How I am in my life is an expression of my inner nature. So, it is not free will in the sense that I cannot chose any path because my inner nature will ultimately be in control.
Sometimes my understanding on this is fleeting and I slip back into the former meaning.
I think that is why [chref=61]taking the lower position[/chref] feels so deeply natural.