Compilation of Winn Forum posts on Free Will, Neidan vs. Chan, 5 Shen vs. Original Shen, Binary Soul, Taoist cosmology

[Steven]

Steven: “your focus in alchemical meditation is on achieving something different.
Nor do I think that as much focus is directed at uncovering
the stable core axis of self that is lying beneath the clouds
of thought, beneath the spheres of emotions, beneath the
collective voices of the five shen, etc. Whereas this
is one of the focal points of Zen meditation,”

singing ocean:
>>>Would this axis of self be a personal core self or
>>>the collective core self of nature? It seems to me
>>>that the “personal self” is inherently polarized
>>>whereas the collective self is inherently neutral
>>>for reasons that seem to be self explanatory.

reply by Steven:
I think it is more personal than the collective self, but
much less “personal” than what we think of as being the personal
self with a personality, thoughts, emotions, etc. Sort of like
the personal self with the five shen removed . . .
Closest I can “come up with” in Daoist terms would be the Ling.
But again, that’s only a guess.

But instead of trying to fit predefined terms into an actual experience,
I prefer to just think of it as some core aspect of personal self,
an aspect around which the five shen gather to create the
full personalized self that we know of, in everyday existence.

>>>where Zen is more focused on awareness of the impersonal collective
>>>aspect of the mind of nature.

I don’t agree with this interpretation.

>>>how does one achieve embodiment through (mental) observation
>>>of the collective impersonal neutral self?

As mentioned above, I don’t agree that you are
observing the “collective impersonal neutral self”,
so we are talking about apples and oranges here.

If you are asking how Zen meditation (or at least one version of it),
can create deep embodiment, it has to do with how the breath
is used in the meditation. To elaborate further would unfortunately
require “teaching the meditation” first, which neither time
nor space here permit . . . But the short answer is
“how the breath is used”. It is the breath and the way the
meditation is done that anchors you to the body.

S

[singing ocean]

Yes, I would like some more clarification of what the ling is in order to continue. I will read up on it, and maybe Michael can add to it.

This question of observing the “collective impersonal self” is relevant because in previous conversations on this board, when a Chan practitioner focuses on “emptiness between the thoughts” with the goal of merging into that emptiness, I have often had the impression that it was a kind of “universal emptiness”, an “ultimate neutral state” similar to idea of Wuji, but non-processual, that would mean it would be more “ultimate” and collective rather than a personal aspect.

It sounds like the meditation you are doing is much more focused on activating the lung shen, and observing the functioning of the other four shen as they interact while focusing on the lung shen.

I suppose that letting the shen interact freely while rooting them in the rhythmic activity of the lung shen would allow them to process their own patterns and bring those patterns to the fore, probably allowing deep patterns to emerge that may be buried in the everyday requirements of their functioning. I can see how this would be liberating…kind of like cleaning the house of all the clutter.

[Steven]

>>>This question of observing the “collective impersonal self”
>>>is relevant because in previous conversations on this board,
>>>when a Chan practitioner focuses on “emptiness between the thoughts”
>>>with the goal of merging into that emptiness, I have often
>>>had the impression that it was a kind of “universal emptiness”,
>>>an “ultimate neutral state” similar to idea of Wuji,
>>>but non-processual, that would mean it would be more
>>>”ultimate” and collective rather than a personal aspect.

OK, I can’t speak on what others may do or say.
But from my perspective, there is no focus on the
“emptiness between thoughts” in Zen practice.
In fact, there is no focus on “emptiness” in general.

For one thing, there is no such thing as emptiness!
It does not exist.
Even a perfect vacuum is not completely empty.
So there is no point in trying to seek it.
And why would you want to, anyway?
Unless you are some kind of nihilist trying to escape existence?

That’s not the point of Zen practice.

Thoughts come and go, just like clouds in the sky.
Asking to not have thoughts is like being upset that there
are clouds in the sky. It is the nature of sky to have clouds!

One of the points of the practice is to recognize
that as thoughts come and go, that there is some
personal aspect of yourself that is common to both situations
when you are thinking and when you are not thinking.
Some stable skeleton element of yourself that lies
beneath the aspect of the mind or the chatter of the five shen.

By becoming more aware of this “skeleton self”, you learn
to not identify with thoughts and emotions, and to not
let them define you. It also helps you to become aware
of when a particular thought process arises that can
drag you away into some storyline that takes you out of
the present moment. It lets you experience *more* of life,
rather than “escaping” involuntarily into daydream,
fantasy, emotional rollercoasters, etc.

>>>It sounds like the meditation you are doing is
>>>much more focused on activating the lung shen,
>>>and observing the functioning of the other four shen
>>>as they interact while focusing on the lung shen.
>>>I suppose that letting the shen interact freely
>>>while rooting them in the rhythmic activity of the
>>>lung shen would allow them to process their own patterns
>>>and bring those patterns to the fore, probably allowing
>>>deep patterns to emerge that may be buried in the everyday
>>>requirements of their functioning. I can see how this
>>>would be liberating…kind of like cleaning the house
>>>of all the clutter.

Breath/lung shen is the most fundamental thing that
connects us to being in a body. It is the most attached
to earth. So it is definitely a service tool in the
meditation for creating embodiment. This is no different
than how the breathing techniques from QF3 help to
make you more grounded . . . but that’s not to say that
it is anything more than a tool.

Moreover, you are definitely observing the chatter of
the mind and the functioning of the five shen from
an observation point of view, but the real purpose
of doing so is to identify the core constant “skeleton you”
that lives beneath the five shen, which ultimately
you get understanding of . . . in part by subtraction . . .
Through continued observation of the mind and the five shen,
you notice that there is something constant, a substructure
that exists below the changing winds. This “skeleton you”
beneath the mind, beneath the five shen, has an awareness
to it, an aliveness to it, that it uniquely its own thing.
But on some level, it is still “you” and not just the
collective self.

From my experience and my observation (and this is where
I disagree with both you and bagua, as it is basically
a middle ground), this “skeleton you”, this fundamental
part of you beneath the five shen, this aliveness, this
awareness, etc. . . . this is IMMORTAL already. When
you die, this continues on. What we think of as us,
namely the “skeleton” + the five shen, this assemblage,
this is what constitutes what we think of as us as
our living life (has our personality, our memories,
our emotions, etc.). This assemblage is MORTAL.
Upon death, the assemblage breaks, the five shen scatter,
and the “skeleton” lives on . . . perhaps to join
with another five shen who wish to have another life.
I think part of the promise of the Healing Tao formulas
is to keep the assemblage intact after death, or at least
some fraction of it, so that a greater percent of
“who you are as a living person” continues onward.

Of course, if my model is correct, and I definitely
think it is–for a number of reasons (I feel I have
some personal evidence to back it up)–then some
Zen practitioners may argue that . . . in reality,
only the “immortal skeleton part” is the important thing,
and the rest is not. And in that sense, when you die
and you shed the rest of the assemblage, that’s the
natural thing and that’s what is supposed to happen,
and that’s what the lifeforce intends (in a very Daoist sense).
Like taking off a set of clothes at the end of the day
(and perhaps putting on a different set on a different day) . . .
I completely respect this opinion, but it is one that
I personally do not share.

I feel like we’ve already discussed all this before, and
this is just a repetition of stuff already discussed, but
it became apparent to me that I needed to make clear
my perspective on what is actually going on. What I
actually experience doesn’t necessarily fit into
a pre-defined model . . .

S

[singing ocean]

Much of this has been discussed before, but as you said, you apparently hold a different view than most Chan or zen practitioners, and Bagua as well so its probably a good thing that you are clarifying it. It is refreshing to me to discuss it using common terms.

My practice has not been on observing the “already existent underlying personal core self”, I have not explored that concept or been aware of it (that there is an existing core self that is personal in nature), but rather on how through cultivating the neutral force in the core channel, one can create that original self from fusing the five shen through kan and li. It seems to me that this core self is by nature more collective because of how it is created by connecting to the larger five shen of the directions, elements and planets, stars etc., or, it is probably an intermediary between the personal shen and the collective shen. Hard to tell so far.

[bagua]

Hi Steven:

I hope you are having a wonderful retreat.

From my experience and my observation (and this is where
I disagree with both you and bagua, as it is basically
a middle ground), this “skeleton you”, this fundamental
part of you beneath the five shen, this aliveness, this
awareness, etc. . . . this is IMMORTAL already.
*******************
I would offer its enough to experience this, we don’t need to define it as immortal or not, this is adding something to it.

Do you feel the formulas reveal this?

When you die, this continues on.
***********
Maybe, isn’t this just a thought or opinion, how do you really know this? Is your experience so strong of this experience you have full faith all these after life things will be taken care of?

bagua

[Steven]

Just to clarify:

1. Everything I said in the 4-part post on ZBuddhism,
are the teachings from the Zen tradition.

2. With the exception of my last post,
while much of the discussion has been my interpretation
of Zen practice, I suspect most Zen practitioners would
still agree and concur with much of what I said.
Even most standard Zen practitioners agree that
“emptiness” is not what you are seeking. Not
letting thoughts define you, not getting carried
away into fantasy and daydream, not being pulled
out of the present moment, and being able to
witness the core observer beneath the shifting clouds . . .
So everything I’ve written on that is consistent.

3. Where I principally diverge from classical
Zen teaching is:

In the last post, everything I said from
the paragraph

“From my experience and my observation . . .”

forward to the end of the post, is purely my opinion only.
These statements about the nature of self, the immortal part,
the other part that is mortal, etc. do not come from the
Zen tradition and is not what they teach. This is purely
my perspective only.

Keep in mind that any discussion that has to do with ANYTHING
taking place beyond this very life that we are living now is
NOT part of Zen. In particular, recall that I mentioned in
my four-part post on ZBuddhism, the following (which I’ll
requote here):

The metaphysical/cosmological questions as to what happens to an
enlightened being upon death are deliberately avoided in ZBuddhism
for several reasons:
1. Such a state is considered beyond description.
2. Anyone “still conditioned” would find attempts at a description to be incomprehensible.
[Sound familiar?: The Tao that can be described is not the constant Tao.]
3. Such speculation runs counter to the principle of Right Mindfulness.
4. Don’t worry about what happens after life, when you aren’t
even living life fully now.

I just wanted to clarify what is canonical Zen and what is not.
In particular, I don’t want anyone to confuse what is part of Zen
and what is simply an opinion of mine separate from that. But
that’s not to say that everything I’ve written is a divergent view;
just the cosmological model of self (immortal & mortal, etc.).
Hopefully it’s clear; otherwise I can elaborate further . . .

S

[Steven]

Hi bagua:

My retreat is great. I love it!
Glad to see you post, my friend. 🙂

>>>Steven: From my experience and my observation
>>>(and this is where I disagree with both you
>>>and bagua, as it is basically a middle ground),
>>>this “skeleton you”, this fundamental part of you
>>>beneath the five shen, this aliveness, this
>>>awareness, etc. . . . this is IMMORTAL already.
>>>*******************
>>>bagua: I would offer its enough to experience this,
>>>we don’t need to define it as immortal or not,
>>>this is adding something to it.
>>>Do you feel the formulas reveal this?

True, there is no need to define it as such.
However, I choose to, and this is based on my
personal experience. Since it is my personal
experience and not necessarily your personal
experience, you are free to disregard it.

I don’t know whether the formulas reveal it or not.
My experience of this did not come from the formulas.

>>>Steven: When you die, this continues on.
>>>***********
>>>bagua: Maybe, isn’t this just a thought or opinion,
>>>how do you really know this? Is your experience
>>>so strong of this experience you have full faith
>>>all these after life things will be taken care of?

You are basically asking me from where I get my
cosmological picture and from what basis or evidence
I have to back it up. This is a fair question.

You are asking me if this is simply a belief.
This is a belief, sure.
But our beliefs are formed from our experience.

Here is just one such experience:

We go to sleep each night.
Now, I don’t know about you, but this is what I experience.
Unless I’m having a lucid dream, what happens is that
my memories, my emotions, my personality are for the
most part completely wiped away. This life no longer exists,
and I have no awareness or recollection of this life
whatsoever. However, an “aliveness”, an “awareness”,
some skeleton form of “me”, still remains, despite the
fact that all these other things are wiped away. This
is the one constant that exists from dream to dream and
in between dreams. This is my experience.

Of course, when we go to sleep at night, we are still “living”.
Death, being a little more extreme obviously, we should expect
at least the same amount of dissolution (if not more).
Certainly if my memories, emotions, personality etc. are
wiped away upon going to sleep, why should I expect any differently
upon death? After all, death is even more of a disconnect
from this life.

So, yes, based on this, I expect fully (unless some miracle
of the formulas happens) to have my memories, emotions,
personality, etc. dissolve upon death. Why should I expect
any different?

At the same time, this “aliveness”, this “awareness”, this
skeleton form of “me” persists no matter if I’m awake or asleep.
In fact, I would say that there is no discontinuity in that
whatsoever. In fact, I’ve never experienced anything but
continual persistence. Awake, asleep, awake again, asleep,
no matter which dream I may be in, it remains. This has
never changed. I have no reason to believe that it will
ever change. Why should I? I have no evidence that it will.
All evidence I see is that this “skeleton version of me”
is immortal, and will continue on, no matter what.

Death is yet another transition in the future, one have
not experienced yet (probably :P) but I have no reason
to believe anything different will happen other than what
I already have experienced. In my opinion, it requires a
LEAP OF FAITH to believe that there will be anything different
than what I described.

Of course you don’t know for certain until you actually die
and experience it, but it feels inconsistent to me to believe
anything other than what I’ve described until that point.

This is one major recurring experience that I feel confirms
my cosmological picture, and one that perhaps you can identify
with. I do have others, but they are things that you
wouldn’t be able to identify with (in particular, some
“supernatural experiences” I had as a child and teenager,
which I can not personally simply dismiss as fantasy)

So for me, there are several personal experiences
(some of which I experience daily, such as going to sleep),
that come the following view:

1. There is a “skeleton version” of myself–an “aliveness”,
an “awareness”, some kind of continued existence, that I
can identify as me. I do not feel that this ever ceases to
exist, and any evidence I see seems to confirm this view.
This is the same core version of myself that I experience
in deep Zen meditation, and with all the personal evidence
I feel I have and have experienced, I feel confident in
saying that this is IMMORTAL.

2. The full version of me, the one with memories, the
one with a personality, the one with emotions, the one
that is living in the world. This assemblage (what
some Daoists would say is the functioning of the five shen),
I see no evidence of continued existence of this beyond death.
Since this mostly dissolves at sleep (except lucid dreams),
why should I expect differently at death. I feel pretty
confident in saying that this is MORTAL.

Of course, some would argue that by practicing
One Cloud’s formulas, the formulas hold the promise
of maintaining more integrity of this “MORTAL” part
beyond the death transition. Whether or not this is
indeed true, or whether it is merely fantasy, I can not
say. I leave that as an open question.

So, in total, this is where I get my cosmological picture.

Yes, on a very deep level, it is ultimately just a belief . . .
BUT at the same time, it is a belief I feel fairly confident
of for a variety of reasons.

But you don’t have to believe me either.
It bothers me none, if you don’t.

And in particular, as I mentioned in both this post,
and my response to singing ocean, Zen doesn’t say anything
about this. From Zen perspective, it is completely
irrelevant. Zen is about this life and now, and not
about anything other than that.

I just choose to have my own perspective for own reasons,
and see no reason not to. I consider such discussions
to be an enjoyable part of life itself, and do not feel they
take me out of my pleasure of living here in the present. 🙂

Smiling in the now,
Steven

[internaldoor]

Hi Steven,

Please allow me to insert just a quick reference into your conversation.

You wrote:
***********************************
Here is just one such experience:

We go to sleep each night.
Now, I don’t know about you, but this is what I experience.
Unless I’m having a lucid dream, what happens is that
my memories, my emotions, my personality are for the
most part completely wiped away. This life no longer exists,
and I have no awareness or recollection of this life
whatsoever. However, an “aliveness”, an “awareness”,
some skeleton form of “me”, still remains, despite the
fact that all these other things are wiped away. This
is the one constant that exists from dream to dream and
in between dreams. This is my experience.

*************************************

This is exactly what the Advaita teacher Nisargadatta Maharaj said in a famous book you might have read, named_ I AM_. If you are not really into this kind of teachings, it is interesting to see that you found it by yourself.
If you have the opportunity to read it, it is a good book although it is not at all taoist.

My contact with some Zen teachers seems to confirm that emptiness could be conceived as some kind of aliveness close to what Nisargadatta and you point at. The question remains as to what extent it could be a kind of personal aliveness ( but free from the five shen) or not: no self? a higher personal self? or the core self of the universe? or something else?
And IMO (perhaps narrow), the limit of Advaita perspective is that apart from this sense of Aliveness, nothing really counts which is a way of renewing dualism and despise the carnal dimension of our lives. The dynamic exchange between this aliveness and the endodiment seems to be lost.
My 2 cents.

I wish you a good retreat,
internaldoor

[bagua]

Hi Indoor:

From my experience Advaita is Chan.

regards,

bagua

[bagua]

Hi Steven:

I’m glad the retreat is going well.

Yes, you are clear about the distinguishing between Zen and your views and experiences and explanations of them.

I would just suggest from my view Chan is about what we absolutely know, not speculation, imagination or decoction, not to deny or negate them, but that we are clear which is which, Chan is alot about that cultivation. The “present moment” or Present Awareness contains an openness that anything is possible (Wu Ji).

regards,
bagua

[Steven]

To be honest, I don’t know anything about Advaita
or the person/book you mentioned, so I can’t
comment on it.

S

[Steven]

I think we understand each other. 🙂

Best,
Steven

[singing ocean]

Does Chan use the term wuji, or is that your insertion of a daoist term into a buddhist framework?

I think Steven already pretty clearly said that Zen is only about the here and now and the other stuff are his views.

[singing ocean]

The “Self with no personality or memory / skeleton of the self” that you mention sounds a lot like Peter Novak’s concept of the Spirit (as opposed to the soul). Have you been reading his books?

[adel]

Hello,
You’re explanation of ZBuddhism is very
similar to the daily life I experienced
living in Japan. There was no need for
“practice” as the language and actions
of regular people and society naturally
led down this path(naturally you cannot
say that 100% of the population is so).

Coming back to the west
with english as the language and the
mind-body set of westerners means that
I need to actually have a “practice” in
order to continue travelling on that
path rather than having it be a more
natural way of living. In the west you
have to create a life in order to live
naturally. I find the english language
and culture to be almost anti-nature.

I believe that you are completely
correct in that the HT and ZB complement
each other.

Ja, Adel

[Author]

Posts