Home › Forum Online Discussion › Philosophy › Round 3: EGO/SELF & MEMORY IN LIFE FORCE PROCESS (long essay)
- This topic has 43 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 7 months ago by Fajin.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 13, 2006 at 11:35 pm #11376Golden SunParticipant
I don’t know that I would agree with your thoughts about “emptying the mind”. I have a feeling this may be a poor translation and not really where it’s at.
Actually, Max just made a post here that really sums it up it’s about allowing everything to be AS I IS. If you have thoughts come up, it’s ok..they will pass .If you have some deep emotional stuff..if you let it be as it is and don’t mess with it it’s not such a big problem.
I would say that is more what I am interested in now that moving energy from this point to that point or whatever. I won’t fall into a trap of calling one practice “better” than another but if that is what works for you great.
March 13, 2006 at 11:42 pm #11378FajinParticipantThanks for the reply Golden Sun,
Let me say as Alan Watts puts it, “the non-mindedness is a state of wholeness in which the mind functions freely and easily, without the sensation of a second mind or ego standing over it with a club.” So basically, let the mind thinks what it wants without a separate thinker or ego. Good, but the ego will keep thinking if you don’t do anything about it. If you do something about it, then you will remain in a state of peace and tranquility known as wu-wei (non-effort). There are many paths, they may all lead to the top of the mountain, but what sets them apart is how effortlessly they got there. The choice is yours my friend.
Fajin
March 13, 2006 at 11:44 pm #11380MaxParticipantI have been many “enlightened” teachers.
Seems like you misspelled it, but to make sure, you meant ‘seen’, right?
If not, could you tell more on this? Like names.March 14, 2006 at 12:04 am #11382Golden SunParticipantAre you talking about practices? I do qigong every day along with mediation and have done some of Michael Winns meditations.
I find them all interesting and useful but you can’t do everything so I settle on qigong.
But I think there is a very powerful teaching in letting everything AS IS rather than manipulate or attempt to get the so called ego out of the way in some manner.
Whatever works for you, good luck.
March 14, 2006 at 12:08 am #11384MaxParticipantSo, like you said Max we should practice Michael’s alchemy with an unpolluted mind first. That’s what the inner smile does, but fusion (the 1st formula) does at a deeper level.
You know, I really hope you will be able to get to that point.Fajin
Fajin
What part of you signed first, and what – second?
March 14, 2006 at 12:11 am #11386FajinParticipant***You know, I really hope you will be able to get to that point.
Are you saying that my mind is polluted because I am not in agreement with you?
To make up for it, I won’t sign this time!
March 14, 2006 at 12:16 am #11388MaxParticipant…and my mind is polluted as well.
March 14, 2006 at 12:19 am #11390FajinParticipantSo then why did you say that you hope I will get up to that point?
March 14, 2006 at 1:10 am #11392Golden SunParticipantMaybe he was wishing you good luck on your path?
You can still have good wishes for others even if you disagree with them, no?
March 14, 2006 at 11:45 am #11394Hoo HaParticipantThanks Fajin. I was amazed that the Rinpoches and Dzogchen teacher(s) that Michael has met didn’t clarify this with him. Prehaps they did and I just pedantically latched onto a dialectic. Best, Rex
March 14, 2006 at 3:29 pm #11396FajinParticipantMarch 15, 2006 at 11:42 am #11398Poo HeadParticipantJust to look at a few parts of this blitzkrieg:
MW:”Once God divides its original nature of One into Many, it BECOMES the Many. The One no longer exists apart from the Many. The One has become a collective process, and IT CANNOT KILL ITSELF, i.e. end the process of creation, without the consensus of every aspect of the Many. Gods free will, i.e. its creativity, has been re-distributed to the Many…… So I cannot personally stop my self from existing, because it belongs the collective/whole.”
Just because you personally cannot end the process of creation, what has that got to do with what you can do about your self? That’s like saying I can’t burn this twig because there will always be trees.
MW-“There is no pyramid, nobody on top who can issue the command to cease existing. No God or divine agent running the Tao. There is now a central meeting place, the hub of many spokes, the consensus point of the Many at the center of the multiple nested spheres of reality. This meeting point we can say is neutral, or empty of content controlled by any one individual being, but that space is not a void as long as it is collectively owned by the Many as their center.”
Just because people can find this space, it certainly doesn’t follow that they own it, or affect it in any way. This seems to be an assertion without evidence.
MW – “The desire to stay in neutral is essentially taking the religious position, I am one of Gods Children, and if I let go of my limited sinful ego-self stuck in desire, then God-Daddy-Creator-Tao will make all the right creative decisions FOR ME or THROUGH ME. Then I wont actually have any responsibility for the outcome.”
If we were to be as patronising about the taoist alchemist’s position, we might say:
“The desire to become a spiritual immortal is essentially taking the religious position,”Even though I am clearly imperfect, I shall adjust such parts of me as my imperfect self sees fit, and no others, which will leave me so groovy, so utterly right, that I will be suitable to merge with everything and last forever.”
And really, Michael, are you so sure that you are in a position to say what the only two possible outcomes of Chan cultivation are? Are you quite sure there are no possibilities out there you haven’t spotted?
When I first heard, that you were going to be more active on this forum, I was delighted that you would be sharing your knowledge. But now it really seems as if you want to stifle debate by launching huge unanswerable tracts of assertion at anyone who dares to differ. I do remember that you had to defend yourself, and taoist alchemy in general, against a great deal of vitriolic attack from the bodri camp, but it really seems like you’re overcompensating now.
P.S.
As a debating champion, you should be ashamed of this paragraph:
“To keep this really practical, lets bring in the consequences of having sexual power to create new realties/beings: If I get a woman pregnant (speaking as a man), and she gives birth to a child, can I just neutrally witness that child and expect that the Tao or Buddha will raise the kid? Or is the creative burden put on the level of micro-ego-self that created the kid, i.e. ME, to feed and clothe and love the kid and mature its new micro-ego reality?”
March 15, 2006 at 1:00 pm #11400TrunkParticipantph> When I first heard, that you were going to be more active on this forum, I was delighted that you would be sharing your knowledge. But now it really seems as if you want to stifle debate by.. >
I’ve recently thought that a large part of Michael’s background has been that of
1. prolific writer, very energetic guy.2. leader~teacher in a classroom setting, in which the ability to quickly re-direct focus to one’s own teachings is an essential ability.
3. political survivor Stories that its none of our business to hear, and that I don’t know and don’t want to know,.. but all organizations have political struggles at various levels, and Michael has done very significant work in moving the HT system forward in a progressive fashion. I don’t envy that task, and that work inspires my gratitude.
Everyone has their role to play in life, ..
Yet, in the arena of this board – which is egalitarian, an open forum, a mostly level playing field .. that’s just the nature of a web forum. I miss some of the old dynamics, where half a dozen people would come up with 6 very different pts of view on a topic and they were all right. A realization for me was that it took at least 5 or 6 very different views to get a rounded view of a topic, and each person could be freely acknowledged for what was valid about their pt of view .. and, at the next moment, someone would weigh in with a totally different view. It was a very open, inquisitive, sincere, dynamic way of learning.
March 15, 2006 at 3:34 pm #11402FajinParticipant“To keep this really practical, lets bring in the consequences of having sexual power to create new realties/beings: If I get a woman pregnant (speaking as a man), and she gives birth to a child, can I just neutrally witness that child and expect that the Tao or Buddha will raise the kid? Or is the creative burden put on the level of micro-ego-self that created the kid, i.e. ME, to feed and clothe and love the kid and mature its new micro-ego reality?”
***Michael is just saying that there needs to be some self-responsibility and not just to merely observe and be aware of the moment. It requires a concsious act on your part. Buddhism doesn’t only observe, but Michael was just saying that you can’t have just observation. It requires the self.
Fajin
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.