April 4, 2006 at 12:46 am #12388
SO: So, I would think it is more effective than one-pointedness to get a direct communication from your vital organ shen to tell you what to do.
Based on this comment I believe I don’t see shen the way you see them or taught about them. To me, shen are the countless number of energy strands connected with other and this lifetime’s events that hold an emotional charge that needs to be resolved. They are not just connected with the major organs but with everything else in your body. Every itch you have, any pain or pleasurable sensation, any mental images or dreams that pass through your mind can be associated with them. And because of this, your comment holds no meaning to me, although it doesn’t mean it not true for you.
SO: This comes down to a problem of unclear language again; I think what you really mean is to observe the self, while I am talking about listening to the self and talking to it.
Yes, you notice correctly that we use different languages, and it may bring some misunderstanding. Although I’m not sure what you mean by ‘self’, observing the self, listening to the self all seem like the correct way to go about it. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘talking to Self’. Do you mean the formulas?
SO: In some ways we are saying the same thing, but when you observe the self, aren’t you observing the emptiness within the self, or is it the sensations, thoughts, etc as they arise and dissolve?
You observe whatever you observe- it maybe emptiness, and in a moment it will turn into fullness. As you go deeper, the levels of emptiness and fullness become more subtle and deeper, and there is no end to this path, just like any other path. It’s hard for me to answer you the questions you ask for a reason that I meditate I observe the sensations and the emptiness in them but I don’t mentally categorize what is what, if something is there or not.
There are some comments I read (not yours) that claim this type of practice bypasses jing-chi-shen transformation and goes straight for shen. This is an incorrect understanding of the path. Just because you don’t intentionally focus your mind in a specific way to help digest your food doesn’t mean it remains in your stomach in it’s original state.
SO: Do you actually consider the voice of the Vital organ shen as a valid communication, or is it unimportant because it will dissolve into emptiness anyway?
Just like a man trying to scoop the moon reflection in the pond and hoping to get the real moon. The minute he touches the water, the reflection of the moon is distorted and he realizes it’s not the real thing.
We create the pearls, assign colors to them, communicate through organ sounds but still all we work with is ‘the reflection of the moon’. It doesnt mean it’s a waist of time, but eventually we may need to let go to continue further.
SO: Where does that clarity of thought arise from? Is it from the self? If it is, then what part of the self, the vital organ shen or the empty part, which is not really the self at all, but the collective mind?
I noticed that over the years my practices age getting less and less complicated, with all the mental debris of concepts slowly falling away. You ask deep questions but they have no meaning to me. These are the type of questions that, if I had the answer, I would never ask the question, nor would I care about the answer.April 4, 2006 at 2:11 am #12389
It seems that your concept of the “vital organ shen” as energy strands with emotional charges that need resolving would be closer to the “conditioned self” in daoist terminology; patterned reactions, or unresolved issues.
What I mean is not communication with the conditioned self, but with the pure unconditioned virtue qualities that are not patterned or unresolved, but create neutrality in their manifestation of five-phase harmony.
By “talking to the self” I mean invoking the five-phase harmony of neutrality. In this sense, the “moon-reflection” metaphor is invalid in that the pure qualities are real, and lead to a deeper state of pure neutrality that at the same time leave the memory of that “many-into-one” that co-exists as a positive-negative-neutral (free will) with the deep neutral state.
To ask the question and to know the answer, which came first?
Do not both co-exist? Even with the non-answer and non-question? They are all real.
Both the moon, the water and the reflection are real, as is the deeper state of unknown neutrality, and all dynamic stages of complexity in between. To care or not to care? To use will or not? Both are real and are a choice.April 5, 2006 at 12:31 am #12391
I don’t want to get started in another discussion, I just want to ask you one thing about your answer to Singing Ocean in regards to the moon, water, and reflection. You said, “They may seem real at the moment but they are not permanent. And hence, you are trying to grasp the reflection of the moon.”
Can you please tell me then, what is permanent and why/why not?April 5, 2006 at 1:11 am #12393April 5, 2006 at 2:38 am #12395
What is “grasping the reflection of the moon?” Is it a metaphor for something that is not real? Do you not recognize reality, the real and the non-real? Does an impermanent object have less validity than a permanent one?
The deep neutral state is an EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I hope you get the point).
It becomes a PERMANENT part of everyday life whether I am closing my eyes or not: the harmonizing process is always ongoing.April 5, 2006 at 4:17 pm #12397
I don’t think it’s possible to stop aging. Stars have supernovas, they die. Although, the neutrinos from the supernovas may form black holes. Aligning your DNA to anything in the universe would still not stop aging. What has a beginning, has an end. Your body had a beginning, and must have it’s end. You can delay that though.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.