- This topic has 33 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
greetings,
i have been following some of the discussions in this forum here and there for several months, having found some striking parallels between michael’s descriptions of taoist alchemy cosmology, and my own personal ideas. that being said, i do not have any substantial “formal” background in these areas, have not been involved much with any human teachers, etc. and so i have some questions about the intended meanings of certain ideas presented here.
firstly, is yuan shen something experienced at the expense of the hun/po souls, or rather as a underlying origin for them? in other words, does someone who remains in a mode of always abiding in original spirit (“neutral witness”) have any emotions/feelings about the world? or is the point that at some stage in the process, the various feelings and personalities of the souls-streams are able to integrate with the original spirit, not at their expense, but rather their completion/natural expression?
likewise, does sending the jing-qi-shen continuum back into wu mean that there is no more jing-qi-shen (no more selfness), or rather that its mode of existence is transformed by re-integrating with the origin (selfness as the full expression of wu)?
if the answer to this second question is the latter, then perhaps it might account for the buddhist language that people are debating about on this forum. maybe the metaphysical verbiage of “non-self” is actually a way of describing the transformation of how one understands their mode of self-existence. in other words, it is a flawed or clumsy way of saying that by reintegrating your self with non-self, your true-self naturally arises. of course, this illustrates a linguistically subtle, but functionally crucial and profound, difference between the idea of one’s true nature AS non-self, the idea of one’s true nature being realized via its re-integration with non-self. am i getting close? i wonder what people from different traditions would have to say about such a distinction. perhaps it could be compared to how although music relies upon silence to be understood, to be actualized, it is itself MORE than just silence. we cannot hear our true music unless we return ourselves to the silence. but we are NOT just silence! how does this sound to you?
see ya in the celestial waterfalls,
christopherHello Christopher,
I see that you have been following the discussions between Bagua, Michael, and I. And it looks like your questions pertain to my point of view so I will answer.
>>firstly, is yuan shen something experienced at the expense of the hun/po souls, or rather as a underlying origin for them? in other words, does someone who remains in a mode of always abiding in original spirit (“neutral witness”) have any emotions/feelings about the world?<>or is the point that at some stage in the process, the various feelings and personalities of the souls-streams are able to integrate with the original spirit, not at their expense, but rather their completion/natural expression?<>likewise, does sending the jing-qi-shen continuum back into wu mean that there is no more jing-qi-shen (no more selfness), or rather that its mode of existence is transformed by re-integrating with the origin (selfness as the full expression of wu)?<>of course, this illustrates a linguistically subtle, but functionally crucial and profound, difference between the idea of one’s true nature AS non-self, the idea of one’s true nature being realized via its re-integration with non-self. am i getting close?<>we cannot hear our true music unless we return ourselves to the silence. but we are NOT just silence! how does this sound to you?<<
*The silence is behind the sound just as the stillness is behind the movement. When we know the root, we know the rest of its blossoming.
Fajin
thank you for your reply, fajin. i have a few questions for you, if you don’t mind.
>>When we understand the root, we understand all of the origin’s blossomings. Ego are emotions, intellect, feelings are by-products of having been born and when we return to becoming like an infant, this ego sinks back into the yuan shen. One sees the world without an ego and therefore sees it in its pristine simplicity. Seeing things in their isness indicates that you yourself have no clinging to reality and no thought frequencies arise, one spontaneously acts. No emotions, no feelings.<<
why does the root produce the blossom?
is it only so as to dissolve the blossom back into the root?
even if this is so, then doesn't it still valorize the process of the blossom bursting forth and returning, as being the true expression of the root?
is not, then, to put the root "above" the blossom, to actually misunderstand the root itself? for is not the nature of the root its very manifestation as blossoming, and then dissolving back into itself — and then blossoming "again" in a kind of *acausal* eternal recurrence of refining its creativity?
in other words, aren't emotions and feelings verily the actualization of the original spirit in its infinite flux of the inseparability of self-experience and self-dissolution?i apologize if i am being too poetic or vague. what i am trying to say that i don't understand how anything can be "false", since it is all the creative process of nature's intelligence at play through the myriad layers of its instantaneous (acausal) unveiling. there is nothing "outside" it, for things could only ever even by "outside" BY WAY OF IT. from my perspective, it seems there is a contrived projection of "root" as being superior to "blossom", which innately doesn't make sense to me, because as i understand it the root and the blossom are different aspects of the same thing! i don't grasp how the blossom could be false if it arises out of the true root, for how could the root find anything to be false? my understanding is that the inner-meaning of the root is the blossom, and the inner-meaning of the blossom is the root. and so to turn away from the blossom is to betray the primordial sapience of the root, and to turn away from the root is to block true understanding of the flower. and thus maybe the reality is that it is not "one" at the expense of "the other", but actually both of them as woven through an infinite, edgeless process of transformation BETWEEN them.
otherwise, how could we even be having this conversation?
-christopher
Hi Christopher,
No need to apologize, it is my pleasure.
>>why does the root produce the blossom?<>is it only so as to dissolve the blossom back into the root?<>even if this is so, then doesn’t it still valorize the process of the blossom bursting forth and returning, as being the true expression of the root?<>is not, then, to put the root “above” the blossom, to actually misunderstand the root itself? for is not the nature of the root its very manifestation as blossoming, and then dissolving back into itself — and then blossoming “again” in a kind of *acausal* eternal recurrence of refining its creativity?<>in other words, aren’t emotions and feelings verily the actualization of the original spirit in its infinite flux of the inseparability of self-experience and self-dissolution?<>i don’t understand how anything can be “false”, since it is all the creative process of nature’s intelligence at play through the myriad layers of its instantaneous (acausal) unveiling. there is nothing “outside” it, for things could only ever even by “outside” BY WAY OF IT.<>from my perspective, it seems there is a contrived projection of “root” as being superior to “blossom”, which innately doesn’t make sense to me, because as i understand it the root and the blossom are different aspects of the same thing! i don’t grasp how the blossom could be false if it arises out of the true root, for how could the root find anything to be false?<>my understanding is that the inner-meaning of the root is the blossom, and the inner-meaning of the blossom is the root. and so to turn away from the blossom is to betray the primordial sapience of the root, and to turn away from the root is to block true understanding of the flower. and thus maybe the reality is that it is not “one” at the expense of “the other”, but actually both of them as woven through an infinite, edgeless process of transformation BETWEEN them.<>otherwise, how could we even be having this conversation?<<
*We are having this conversation because you made a post and I replied. Not more, not less. There is a more intellectual answer, but I prefer to keep things as simple as they really are.
Fajin
I find it interesting that the root penetrates and obsorbes, and the flower unfolds and recieves. There could not be life with out both.:) Thank you guys for remembering the vast teachings of nature. I enjoyed the fresh perspective.
>>We are having this conversation because you made a post and I replied. Not more, not less. There is a more intellectual answer, but I prefer to keep things as simple as they really are.<<
what i meant, is how could we be having this conversation if not for the reality that the root is NOT more primary than the blossom (nor is the blossom more primary than the root, of course) but that they both arise out of an ungraspable living-intelligence between them. this intelligence, this spontaneous reality-pathos, can't really be accounted for by the metaphysics of "emptiness" so long as they are describing an "ultimate" and "permanent" state behind everything. the sense i get is that, from its hermenuetical depths of usage and context resonating through the instances i've seen it employed, the word "tao" alludes to this reality in a way which "shunyata" does not. i really feel we are talking about something "different", in a manner of speaking at least. i guess that is the point of my original post — it seems like various people posting here are really talking about something profoundly different, even when referring to some fo the same words.
blessings,
christopherChristopher,
Emptiness doesn’t mean nothing as in being absent. It implies a functional infinte vacuum. It is omnipresent, and has the potential of all creation in it. Dao is the constant process of change, implying changlessness. In Tao cosmology, Wu Ji is shunyata, the emptiness.
My advice to you is to not have any fixed assumptions like some on this board about what Buddhism is/is not, when it is something that the intellect cannot grasp seeing that it is based on prajna wisdom, meaning transcendental wisdom. Try Buddhist meditation for a while and try Taoist meditation and you’ll see the differences, when indeed, they are identical. You have a keen intellect, but it is limited.
Good luck,
Fajinand it is precisely because there is no contradiction, the differentiations freely arise.
-christopher
“why does the root produce the blossom? …in other words, aren’t emotions and feelings verily the actualization of the original spirit in its infinite flux of the inseparability of self-experience and self-dissolution?”
Yes. In its need to grow spirit needs a way to have experience. This is what feelings are for. They tell us/spirit what is going on. Without feelings there is no direct experience of the truth nor a connection to the source. It is our guidance system. Without them there is only the thinking and that is not capable of knwoing truth. To invalidate feelings is to invalidate life -the purposeful act of spirit.
“from my perspective, it seems there is a contrived projection of “root” as being superior to “blossom”, which innately doesn’t make sense to me, because as i understand it the root and the blossom are different aspects of the same thing!”
A very important observation. The contrivance comes from a desire to self-annihilate and is part of escapism.
“… to turn away from the blossom is to betray the primordial sapience of the root, and to turn away from the root is to block true understanding of the flower. and thus maybe the reality is that it is not “one” at the expense of “the other”, but actually both of them as woven through an infinite, edgeless process of transformation BETWEEN them.”
Yes. “Them” actually refers to Spirit reflecting Itself to Itself as Us- beings.
To call the ego “the false self” is both inaccurate and an invalidation of the entire spiritual process which is to manifest or embody spirit. The ego is you/being/essence in an ongoing process of self-making, always being refined as the vessel/manifestation of pure unmanifest spirit. The ego is not the “false self.” The identifications we acquire in the world become a false self. These “forgettings” of what we really are, these false notions, steal our lifeforce and our fulfillment because when we put our attention on them we are taking our attention off of the source. The actual “false self” is that conglomerate of illusions we resistantly hold about ourselves, our rigidness expressed as fear of letting go. (That is why Daoism is centered in the ideas of flow, balance and change.)The purpose of our alchemical work is to speed up the natural process of going through the many stages of creating a self, which includes fabricating and then releasing all the roles we’ve been or can be and gradually expanding ourselves, wholeness upon greater wholeness, until we “achieve” oneness – which we never really were without. What actually is transmuted in alchemy are the misunderstandings of what we are, predominately, our belief that we are separate from the source -the belief which causes all our fear- and the misuses of our energies which stem from this false idea, NOT our selves. It is clearly humanity’s unfaced guilt about its misuses that has created the self-abnegating idea that the ego is bad and must be consumed. (Hence, the creation of the idea of “going to hell.”)
The actual “alchemy” is not a process of burning up bad parts of ourselves, but is the taking of those parts and holding them in the neutral space of yuan chi, which is unconditional love, so that they are “appreciated” and fulfilled, validated as such, and so are raised, literally as a child is raised through its many stages of growth, into maturity. We are not setting out to destroy what is bad so we can be free of it. “It” is part of us. There is never an unloving controllingness, and certainly not a suppression of the ego. Whether in the quantum physical world, the metaphysical or the biological/pychological world, the true understanding is that anything which is suppressed is doomed to surface somewhere, sometime, in its unfinished, i.e., incomplete, state because: Energy has to go somewhere. Guidance of the ego becomes the watchword, thus a redefinition of “discipline” is necessary. When this is not attended to properly, disease results because, as is said in oriental medicine, when you try to suppress the symptoms you drive the illness deeper. It MUST express.
The act of calling one part of you “the true self” and another part of you “the false self” is self-negating and creates a psycho-spiritual split and a horrible dilemma for the soul. It is only one part of the ego doing this to another part it does not want to accept that creates this unhealthy behavior. And the idea that “you” will eventually get to a place that “you” will have a “non-self” which is a “true self” which takes the place of your “false self” is both just plain wrong, spiritually, and is crazy-making. And it brings up the question, “If you enter “nothingness” and “no-selfness”, who or what will be left to know that?” This is spiritual bullshit at the very least, and a distracting head-trip rather than a practical spiritual approach designed to create integrity, freedom and self-knowledge/realization by actually manifesting the spirit as a self, which is the whole point of Daoism.
Spirit, undifferentiatedness, produced selfness, uniqueness. The Egg hatched the Chick. The Womb spawned the Child. “We” are “It.” This is not a mistake. (Though it may have been a surprise. Some pregnancies are unplanned.)
“otherwise, how could we even be having this conversation?”
Or, why?
Blessings, Alexander
I’m not doing this again. A repetition of Michael’s post through Alexander’s filtered expression of it is what I’m reading here.
Go read “Taoist Meditation” by Cleary and we will see what REAL Daoism is and and it will clearly separate Daoism from Spiritual Bullshit.
In the meantime, here’s a quote from that book in the chapter, “Secret Records of Understanding the Way.”
The Old Man of Clear Serenity said:
“There is nothing in the world that does not have both true and false versions. Practice of the Way may also be true or false, so students first distinguish the difference clearly.”
In the Anthology of the Cultivation of Realization it says:
“The true nature of human beings is the original spirit. Because it is ethereal and unfathomable, wondrously responsive without convention, it is called spirit. It is called original to differentiate from the acquired thinking spirit.
Those into whom spirit enters live, those whom spirit departs die. How do we know the spirit comes? When thoughts stop, the spirit comes. How do we know the spirit departs? Wehn thoughts stir, the spirit leaves.”
Read what the 8 Immortals have to say about the ego, especially what this lineage is from, Lu Dong Bin, and how he talks about eradication of the ego. You wouldn’t even be performing these 7 formulas if it were not for him.
Fajin
“Those into whom spirit enters live, those whom spirit departs die. How do we know the spirit comes? When thoughts stop, the spirit comes. How do we know the spirit departs? Wehn thoughts stir, the spirit leaves.”
A bit of contradiction I think. I`m quite alive, and yet I think…
The spirit IMO is always there, does not leave or come.I think there is no such thing as false, but rather as different manifestations. What can be seen as “false” is to me identifying with those manifestations. The manifestations themselves cannot be false.
Why would you want to eradicate the ego?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.