A book on Auras and Chakras

For as long as I can remember, I've associated colors with nearly everything, especially sound. This summer I realized I also associate colors with people. I figure this is another aspect of synesthesia, and I suspect it may be a way of encoding "extra" information that the brain has no other way to process. So I went looking for a book that might help me figure things out. Most of them were useless. At least three-quarters were along the lines of: "Open up your Aura and (Become Rich/Find a Mate/Cure Cancer/etc.)" A few were sort of beginner's guides that had little more info than I had already found on the internet. Most of the rest were interdisciplinary, so they might be tied in with crystal healing or divination or some other New Agey thing. I finally found one that actually looked useful: Your Aura & Your Chakras: The Owner's Manual, by Karla McLaren.

I like this book. Especially since all she would need to do to move it from "New Age" to "Self Help" is call her exercises "Positive Visualizations" instead of Aura/Chakra work: i.e. there is little obvious nonsense. She has a no-nonsense, down to earth style that is very nearly Taoist. She emphasizes balance and calls most New Age practices idiotic because they tend to unbalance people. Some of her claims seem a bit overboard to me (she cured a schizophrenic?), but those were parts of minor anecdotes and not the focus of the book.

The focus is on energy exercises/visualizations. Grounding. Clearing stale energy out. Defining and separating the chakras. She gives very specific instructions. And I found that most of what she said agreed with things I'd already experienced. I am aware of the energy centers at the sites called "chakras." In taiji, we generally only work with 3 of them (Root, Heart, Third-Eye), and I suspect that neglecting the others is not good.

Perhaps my favorite part of this book is her manner in dealing with this stuff. At one point, she tells readers not to get cocky just because they know something about the aura and others don't. Why? Some people keep their auras balanced all on their own and never need to worry about fixing anything.

At any rate, I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a practical guide to auras, etc.

Yin and Yang

There is neither heaven nor earth,
Only snow,
Falling incessantly.

—Hashing, 27 Dec. Daily Zen calendar

For no obvious reason, I went hunting for yin-yang images this morning. I found some interesting things, as well as some very odd ones. First off, the source of the symbol is the apparent path of the sun through the year. This I had seen before. It is also known as the taiji symbol (or taiji-du, various spellings). Taiji means "supreme ultimate" and it refers to the uppermost support beam in the roof of a house. As the sun moves through the sky, light and shadow switch positions on the slopes of the roof.

Now, some of the more interesting images that I found:
This one comes from a rather hysterical Christian analysis of yin and yang (link is further down). I rather like the confluence of major symbols in it.


According to the site where I found this, this is an actual picture taken by one of the Voyager probes. Mozilla crashed on me and I lost the link, though.







This one is available for purchase as a print (but I would again have to hunt for the link; also lost when Mozilla crashed). I love the way the symbol shows up all over the place in nature.







The last image I'm just going to link to rather than post. It is a 3D stereogram from something called VRillusions. For those who have trouble with stereograms, use the dots above the picture as a guide. Cross your eyes until you get the two dots right on top of each other in the center of your field of vision (you will be "seeing" three dots at this point). Then the 3D image should be visible. Any more, I actually find the guide more distracting than helpful, but that was not always so.




Anyway, the hysterical Christian article got on my nerves, so I'm going to deconstruct it. There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. But with all the author's "research", he doesn't even mention the link to the path of the sun, and it sounds like he takes any statement in any book that even mentions "yin/yang" as gospel truth about it. Let's see...

First, something he gets right (by quoting it from another book): "The philosophy of T'ai Chi Ch'uan is rooted in Taoism, which advocates natural effort, and in the I Ching, or Book of Changes. The movements and inner teachings are derived from the complementary relationship between Yin and Yang, two fundamental forces that create and harmonise the Universe by their interaction." He does not mention that "distinguishing full and empty" is what makes taiji one of the most effective martial arts, but he probably didn't bother to research practical applications. He also confuses "palmistry" (a Western art) and "reflexology." Reflexology is about the links of the energy meridians to other parts of the body (usually hands and feet). I've been told of studies of advanced meditators who did energy circulation while hooked up to electrical monitors. There was a measurable flow of electricity right along the meridians described by the Chinese several thousand years ago. The meridians are real (I would like to track that study down, though). I think, though, that reflexology techniques will not work very well in someone whose meridians are blocked.

Most of the rest of the article is completely irrelevant. He confuses Gnostic dualism with yin/yang non-dualism. He insists that the yin/yang has extreme sexual connotations (the Chinese would laugh: the fact that he sees only the sexual implications tells us a great deal about where his mind is). Yin/yang says there must be a balance. Extremism of any flavor indicates imbalance. This includes extreme obsessession with sex as well as the extreme of celibacy. He misses this, and it's probably the most important point. After a great deal more ranting about pagan uses of the symbol (pagans use it! It must be evil! I'm guessing he condemns Christians who dare to put a five-pointed star on their tree as well), we finally get to something relevant to yin/yang.

The yin/yang symbol is quite appropriate today for humanists, New Agers, witches, Satanists, etc. As Michael Tierra, a proponent of the yin/yang theory, states: "The Yin/Yang theory is a teaching method and does not define anything absolute.'' There are seven laws concerning the yin/yang, one of which is: "2. Everything changes."

This is an important item to notice. The idea that "everything changes" does not agree with the Bible. There we find that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 1 3:8). He doesn't change. James 1:17 also states: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Malachi 3:6 tells us: "I am the Lord, I CHANGE NOT."

Another law is: "3. All antagonisms are complementary.'' Again, this is contradictory to Scriptures. This would make Jesus and Satan complementary to each other! What blasphemy!

Well, if God and Christ never change, then they are both dead, for only the dead never change. But that is not what I see in the Bible. God created something. That was a change. Christ came, and the God of the New Testament is clearly different from the God of the Old Testament. That was a change. And, according to Christian doctrine, without Satan to tempt Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, there would have been no need for Christ. How can they not be complementary?

And how about, "'The extreme of any condition will produce signs of the opposite.'' Again applying this to Christ would mean that because He is the extreme in goodness, mercy, compassion, etc., that He will produce signs of hate, injustice, unconcern,etc." One word: Crusades. Argue all that you want that the Crusades were unChristian, but they were inspired by Christian doctrine nonetheless. Also, "'8. Nothing is solely Yin or Yang; everything involves polarity.'' This is stating that nothing is entirely good or entirely evil. This again contradicts the Scripture for in Habbakkuk 1:13 we find that God is 'of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on iniquity.' The Bible also tells us that there is no truth in Satan (John 8:44). Obviously, the yin/yang theory is not consistent with God's Word." So all the genocides and mass murders in the Old Testament were "pure" and "good"... Also, how does God's inability to look on iniquity square with the idea that God sees and knows all? If he can't look at iniquity, he must be missing an awful lot. And Satan's most potent weapon has always been pure and simple truth (used in a negative way, to be sure, but true nonetheless).

Some final thoughts: the yin/yang symbol is ancient. By only going to modern sources and uses, this author completely missed the mark. You want to know about yin and yang? Go to the ancient Chinese texts. Better yet, look out your door and watch the sun move across the sky, watch the seasons change, watch the moon go through its cycle. Everything changes. This is a fact of life on Earth. To say that God does not change is to declare that God is dead. That-which-is must change to stay the same, moment to moment, eon to eon.

My take on Christmas (2005)

So…what does Christmas mean to me, a Taoist who stopped labeling herself as a Christian more than a decade ago? To be honest, it’s a question that’s been puzzling me ever since. The Christmas I spent as an atheist was…quite miserable, not to mention confusing. Part of me reacted to the symbology around me while part of me felt disgust, and all of me felt isolated and alienated. However, it was just as confusing after realizing that I believed in something beyond myself, but wasn’t willing to identify that something as the Christian God.

For convenience, I buried myself in pagan symbolism for a while. And, honestly, I still find that more appealing than most Christian symbology. But the pagan rituals and ceremonies… *sighs* I’m just not a ritualistic person, really. And the pagan gods… I see them as constructs of the mind that exist in direct relation to the amount of belief in them. They are useful archetypes and can result in beautiful stories, but they are not the power in the universe. Human awareness and consciousness are more powerful than the ancient gods. And to newly aware humans, the Solstice must have been a powerful symbol: as the nights grew longer and longer, it must have seemed that they might continue getting longer until there was no more day… then came the Solstice, trapping the Sun for three days, and the nights began getting shorter and shorter… And so light had won against darkness for another year, until Midsummer when the darkness would start to gain again.

So I guess I see Christmas as honoring one portion of the neverending cycle of yin and yang. As soon as yin reaches its strongest point, it begins turning to yang, and in that moment of change, there is an instant of pure yang energy. In fact, this happens in every moment, in every breath, in every sunrise…yet it seems appropriate to recognize the yearly progression. We shouldn’t forget the other piece of the cycle, at Midsummer, when yang reaches its strongest point and begins turning to yin. It’s strange, but the Christ-story would fit better at Midsummer than at Winter Solstice. Why? Because the God of the Old Testament is pure and complete yang. No yin at all. Christ had to come to balance that out, to put the yin back into God. To bring balance. Hmmm… by that reckoning, Christ’s coming made God whole. I find that fitting, though I’m sure that thought gives most Christians the screaming heebie-jeebies.

Note: This is where my thoughts on Christmas took me this year. I'd be surprised if they haven't changed some by next Christmas.

Plain potatoes

Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes.

—Alan Watts, 25 Dec. Daily Zen Calendar

Thinking is not experiencing.

If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha

After [his master's death], Ta-hui gathered all the [master's] publications together in front of the temple and made a bonfire of them. What the teacher builds in shape must be destroyed by the disciples in order to keep the teaching from becoming an empty shell. Western philosophers create their own theory then followers continue to repair the outer structure until it no longer resembles the original. In Zen we say, "Kill Buddha and the patriarchs; only then can you give them eternal life."

—from The Iron Flute by Nyogen Senzaki

No dogma. No tradition. Each generation finds the truth anew, unchanged yet unlike that of the previous generation.

The Nature of Strength

The only condition for allowing your internal energy to develop, grow, and become strong is that you must relax yourself and yield to the universe. When you become soft and pliable, your internal energy will gradually begin to develop and accumulate. Eventually you will have the ability to become extremely hard and strong, when it is necessary to do so. To make metal into the hardest steel, you must heat the metal, make it as soft and pliable as liquid, and then refine it into the hardest steel.

—Waysun Liao's commentary on the T'ai Chi Classics

This is one of the seemingly paradoxical things about taiji. The kind of strength most people think of as "strength" is only good against those who are weaker in that kind of strength. Do you have strong muscles? Eventually you'll run into someone who has stronger muscles, or you'll grow old and the muscles will fade. Taiji's strength is something else entirely. It is the strength of bamboo in the hurricane, of pine trees laden with snow, of the wind against your face and the water on the rocks. The Tao te Ching observes that water is the softest of all things, yet it can wear down the rock, which is one of the hardest of all things. So it is with the strength of taiji. Relax, accept the force coming at you, and redirect it. The strength of song, alert relaxation, cannot be overcome. The harder you push on it, the stronger it becomes. And as soon as you stop pushing, it's as if there's nothing there. This is true strength and power. All else is illusion and tomfoolery.

Which reminds me... The taiji motto could easily be "Resistance is Futile." :-) When you resist, you are giving power to your opponent, giving him something to push against. When you accept the force directed at you, you can do anything with it (well, anything if you truly accept it and are truly relaxed; I am not yet able to do this consistently).

More from the Chuang Tzu

When a way is illustrious, it does not guide;
Illustrious, fancy, glowing... it no longer guides, but forces you along and distracts you from what's important.
when humanitarianism is fixated, it is not constructive;
Nothing can be accomplished when you are obsessed with one way of doing things, one way of being right, one way of being.
when honesty is puritanical, it is not trusted;
No one is trusted less than one who can truthfully claim she's never told a lie.
when bravery is vicious, it does not succeed.
Viciousness only distracts from the task at hand.

Beginninglessness

There is a beginning, there is never beginning to have a beginning, there is never beginning to never begin to have a beginning. There is existence, there is nonexistence. There is never beginning the existence of nonexistence, there is never beginning never beginning the existence of nonexistence. Suddenly there are existence and nonexistence, but we don't know if existence or nonexistence actually exist or not.

Now I have said something, but I don't know if what I have said actually says anything or not.

—from the Chuang Tzu, trans. Thomas Cleary

*grins* I finally started reading the Chuang Tzu, and I'm quite enjoying it. The link in the sidebar is to a different translation. So far I like the Thomas Cleary translation better, but it's always nice to be able to compare. One odd thing: the on-line version has numbered chapters and verses, and the Thomas Cleary version does not.

Experience

Silence is better than holiness, so one action is better than all the sutras. If you are attached to words and speech, you won't understand a melon's taste; you will only understand its outside form. If you want to understand a melon's taste, then cut a piece and put it in your mouth. A melon grows and ripens by itself; it never explains to human beings its situation and condition.

If you are attached to the sutras, you only understand Buddha's speech. If you want to attain Buddha's mind, then from moment to moment put down your opinion, condition, and situation. Only help all beings. Then Buddha appears in front of you. This is enlightenment and freedom from life and death.

—Commentary from Zen: The Perfect Companion by Seung Sahn

Words are not the answer. Words separate us from reality, place it at (at least) one remove. Experience the world. Until you've experienced the world, all the words in the world are meaningless.

Native Thoughts on Good & Evil

This set of passages is taken from Seven Arrows, written by Hyemeyohsts Storm:

"Aaai ya hey!" exclaimed Yellow Robe. "...Do you know why the Center Pole in the Great Lodge is Forked?"

"No," answered Hawk. "No I do not."

"There is a Twinness about man," began Yellow Robe. "A Twinness of his nature. And there have always existed the Twin Parts of the People. It is always the Other Man who does not understand, or the Other Man who is the one at fault. This Other Man is represented by the Forked Tree, the Center Pole of the Sun Dance. It is Forked, but Both Parts of this are One Thing. Leaves are left upon the Forked Tree as a Sign to the People that these things of Twinness mirror Twinness again within the People. The Two Forks look exactly the same. And each Fork branches into many leaves that are acactly the same. But the question is always, which Reflection is which? Which one am I? Or am I both? It is a great Teaching, and that is why it is symbolized in the building of the Sun Dance Lodge. It has healed the wounds between many divided Peoples, and has brought these many different kinds together in brotherhood within the Renewal Lodge."
...
"One Half of you loves, and the Other Half of you at times hates. This is the Forked Medicine Pole of Man. The clever thing the Medicine has taught us here is this. One Half of you must understand the Other Half or you will tear yourself apart. It is the same with the Other Half of any People who live together. One must understand the Other, or they will destroy each other. But remember! Both Halves must try to understand. Even within yourself it is hard to know which of the Forks is which. 'Now Why did I do that?' One Half of you asks the Other Half. You do things quite often which you do not mean to say or do, sometimes to yourself and sometimes to others. But you would not kill yourself for these mistakes, would you? I am quite certain that you would not. Yet there are those who have done this, who have killed either themselves or others. These are men who have not learned. An entire People can be like this. These People and men are not Full, they are not Whole."
...
"These People [that we visited] had been taught by the Black Robes that good and evil existed as separate things. We talked with them about this philosophy and discovered their confusion. They had these two things set apart. But they are not separate. These things are found in the same Forked Tree. If One Half tries to split itself from the Other Half, the Tree will become crippled or die. These People we discovered were trying to split this Tree with their law. But you cannot split these things with law. Rather than taking this Barren Way, we must tie together the paradoxes of our Twin Nature with the things of the One Universe."
...
"No, my son, there is no such thing as good and bad. This is only a tool used by the white-men to create fear among themselves. It is only the man who searches for good who will also discover things that he will perceive as bad. If this man then tries to dictate his own perception of what is good to others, he will ultimately become a bad man himself. And now here is the next paradox, which is the Other Twin. The man who dictates his own perception of what is bad to otherse is also bad. One is mirrored into the other. Because in truth they are one of the same Forked Pole, and are always perceiving the mirrored image of themselves."

Analysis: Other than the differences in terminology (Twinness vs. Yin/Yang), this could have come from a Taoist text. Part that I didn't quote (because it would have meant including enough passages to explain the Sun Dance) says that Good and Bad come and go in cycles. That these two are "Twins" of the same whole, and cannot be separated. Ancient Celtic legends often contain similar themes (when I run across one again, I'll probably post it). I suspect that the reason for this is that these people had not yet begun to see themselves as Separate from Nature. They saw themselves as a Distinct Element of Nature, but not as separate. And in Nature, there is no good or bad except relative to something else. Why should modern human society be different? Because we place importance on labels. Human. Natural. Good. Bad. True. False. The label is not important; the thing itself is.

Good and Evil?

One of the issues that put me on the path to Taoism was that of Good and Evil. The more I thought about it, the less sense the Christian notion of an Absolutely Good Deity made. The world around us is neither good nor evil. It just is. The lion kills the gazelle and eats it: good for the lion, bad for that particular gazelle. A seed falls on fertile earth and sprouts, eventually producing more seeds. Another seed falls on rock and is smashed before it can sprout. Bad for the seed, but the event in and of itself is neutral. Sure, we can add interpretations. Was it a weed? Then it was a good thing it was smashed. Was it an endangered species? Oh, now it's bad that it didn't sprout. Even then, I don't see how you can see evil in this event. It was just an event.

In fact, people rarely describe natural events as "Evil." Even a catastrophic storm like Katrina is described as "devastating" or "horriffic," not evil. It seems likely that this is because people recognize that the storm has no volition of its own. There is no "intent" behind it (unless you believe the conspiracists). Animals have intent ascribed to them, yet we still don't describe their actions as evil. They aren't seen as having any choice in their actions. So it seems that "ability to choose otherwise" is a prerequisite for an act to be evil. So...if there's no free will, there's no evil? Interesting idea, but not my focus.

I'm interested in what the nature of Nature can tell us about the nature of Deity. Nature is neutral. It is not inherently good. Yet Christians tell us it was created by an Absolutely Good God. The usual explanation for Evil is "The Fall." Humans were given free will and disobeyed God, and suddenly the world was no longer Good. Okay, several problems with that. God created humans, who sinned, which is an evil act. Therefore, God created beings capable of evil, and evil did not exist in the world before that point. Ah, so God created evil. This contradicts that God is Absolutely Good. No, wait, the Christians say. God gave humans free will and the ability to choose between good and evil. Oh, so evil existed before the humans sinned? Where did it come from? Didn't God create everything, so, again, God must have created Evil? Then there's usually an attempt to define evil as "moving away from God." But then God must have made it possible for people to move away from God (isn't that what giving them free will means?), so, once again, God is responsible for evil.

To me, the primary problem is the belief in Absolutes, but I'll continue to consider those Absolutes. If we insist that God be Good, then someone else must have created Evil, presumably Satan. Okay, God created the world, it was Good, then Satan came along and introduced Evil. Hmmm... We still have a problem. Either (1) God allowed Satan to do this, or (2) God was unable to stop Satan. (1) contradicts the notion of an Absolutely Good Deity. (2) contradicts that God is the supreme being. So we wind up with the old Gnostic Heresy with two equally powerful Deities, one good and one evil (though the Gnostics would actually reverse the roles here). At the very least, this system is more consistent with the observed world.

Now, supposing that these two Absolutes exist, why is there no absolute good or absolute evil in nature? Natural events are only good or bad relative to one another, not to some absolute scale. Only in human society do we try to impose an Absolute Scale of Good vs. Evil. Yet this makes no sense whatsoever, since a single event can be Good in some ways and Bad/Evil in others. A while back, I posted the classic Chinese story illustrating how one event had both Good and Bad repercussions. But there’s a larger problem. One event cannot be separated from another in any absolute sense. Yes, we can isolate one portion and look at it by itself, but something came before that, and before what came before, etc. For instance, I get to campus just as someone pulls out of a good parking space (good for me); the car right behind me does not get that parking space and winds up circling around for twenty minutes and is late for an important meeting (bad for that driver); someone who was on time for that meeting gets an important assignment instead of the person who was late, and this eventually leads to a promotion (good for that person) and so on and so forth… Every event influences every other event. Sometimes that influence is good, sometimes it’s bad. More often it’s too miniscule to be detected (butterfly effect?). To single out any piece of that chain as “Good” or “Evil” is ridiculous. You’d have an Absolutely Good event causing an Absolutely Evil one, or vice versa.

So to characterize events as Good or Evil makes no sense whatsoever. What about the people causing those events? I do agree that human intent can be Good or Evil, but that does not necessarily mean that the results will be. However, Evil intent is more likely to produce Evil and Good intent is more likely to produce Good. That is the extent to which Good and Evil exist: in the minds of humans. No where else. And they have no meaning except relative to one another. A single action can be for Good or Evil depending on the circumstances. I forget which Heinlein book it was, but there was a discussion that went something like:

“Is stealing wrong?”
“Yes.”
“Would you steal to feed a baby?”
“Of course!”

[slight tangent]The problem, of course, is that complete moral relativism is equally vacuous. I do think that we should try to understand events within their cultural context, and then decide if the actions that bother us are serving a useful purpose. And if those actions cause harm to others, decide if there is a better way to accomplish that purpose. If the actions do not serve a useful purpose and cause harm to others, then I see no problem with judging those actions as wrong. You could also take my argument about prior causes and webs of events to argue that no people are responsible for their own actions: everything is determined by the past. That is even more vacuous, because it exculpates me from responsibility for judging those acts wrong as well. Yes, everyone’s actions are influenced by their genes, by their parents, by the people around them, by their experiences. Hero or villain, beggar or millionaire, this applies equally to everyone, even to those who sit in judgment over wrongdoers. Predetermined or not (and I lean towards not), there is nothing to be gained by not holding people responsible for their own actions.[/tangent]

So what is my view of Good and Evil? They are labels, nothing more. One cannot be understood without the other. Go too far in either direction, and you inevitably start heading towards the other. We try to treat them as two irreconcilable ideas, but they depend on one another for their very existence. If God is Good, then He can only be Good in comparison to something that is Not Good (i.e. Evil). So the statement “God saw that it was Good” is meaningless unless Evil is presumed to exist. In Taoism, it is recognized that events cycle between good and bad. The universe itself, though, is neither. It just is. As humans, happiness is easier to find when we stop being attached to whether an event is good or bad, and instead just accept that it is an event.

Example: If my mom knocks a glass onto the floor and it breaks, she swears and grumbles and groans the whole time she’s cleaning it up. If I drop a glass onto the floor and it breaks, I usually blink and say, “So much for that glass,” and enjoy the way the light reflects off of the shattered pieces as I sweep them up. And then I think “Good. Now there’s more room in the cupboard.”

Definitions

That which has been successfully defined has been successfully killed.

—Christmas Humphreys, 28 Oct. Zen Calendar

Yeah, I haven't updated this blog in a while. I've been breaking some bad habits, and wound up breaking the posting habit for a while as well. Also, I haven't run across as much to post about. However, I really like this quote. Despite the name, he's actually a Buddhist, and has his own Principles of Buddhism. I am not a Buddhist, but it's interesting to read through the principles and see which I agree with. One that has never made much sense to me is "All life is suffering." Suffering is only a label. I am currently "suffering" from a cold, but at the same time I am discovering new things about myself that I likely wouldn't have had the cold not come upon me. I suffered, seeing my grandma stuck in the hospital for nearly two weeks. That was more difficult, yet I learned a great deal there as well, including that my grandma is a very strong and resilient woman, who nonetheless recognized that she might not survive. Every piece of "suffering" has something to teach us, as does every joy, and as soon as I recognized that, I suffered a great deal less. I am not to the point of "no-suffering," and perhaps I never will be, but "all life is suffering" has never made much sense to me.

"Pain is mandatory; suffering is optional." No clue who said that first, but I think it fits.

Emotions

If I find a relevant passage, I might post it later, but I've lately started noticing something about the nature of feeling. There seem to be two kinds. One is purely superficial. It may be nothing more than a chemical phenomenon of the body. That kind of emotion is what I would call a "qi disturbance." Qi rises up and gets into things where it shouldn't, and causes problems. If I relax and allow the qi to settle, this kind of emotion disappears. It may rise up again, depending on how attached I am to the emotional state, but I can still allow it to settle.

The other kind of emotion is deeper than that. It's so deep it seems to have no end. The love I have for my family is of this kind. It is large and all-encompassing: so large that I sometimes lose sight of it until something happens to bring it to mind. It is unconditional. No matter what minor disturbances arise (qi-emotions), that love is still there. A few friendships have risen to that level of feeling as well. It's so deep that I'm not sure it's even appropriate to call it an "emotion." Or maybe this is the only true emotion and all others are illusion.

I think when the Sufis say that "love of God is all," it's this kind of love that they mean. In this state, hate and intolerance are impossible. Those are qi-disturbances, not true emotions. They do not come from the heart.

Independence

In Nan-ch'üan's manastery the cook monk was entertaining the gardener monk one day. While they were eating, they heard a bird sing. The gardener monk tapped his wooden arm-rest with his finger, then the bird sang again. The gardener monk repeated this action, but the bird sang no more. "Do you understand?" asked the gardener monk. "No," answered the cook monk, "I do not understand." The other monk struck the pillow for the third time

—Nyogen Senzaki, from The Iron Flute

The bird sang. The bird would have sung again whether or not the gardener tapped his arm-rest. The bird would have stopped singing whether or not the gardner tapped his arm-rest. The cook would not have understood whether or not the gardener had tapped the arm-rest.

Life and Death

What do you think has become of the young and old men?
And what do you think has become of the women and children?

They are alive and well somewhere;
The smallest sprout shows there really is no death,
And if ever there was it led forward life, and does not wait at the end to arrest it,
And ceased the moment life appeared.
All goes onward and outward....and nothing collapses,
And to die is different from what any one supposed, and lucker.

Has any one supposed it lucky to be born?
I hasten to inform him or her it is just as lucky to die, and I know it.

I pass death with the dying, and birth with the new-washed babe....and am not contained between my hat and boots,
And peruse manifold objects, no two alike, and every one good,
The earth good, and the stars good, and their adjuncts all good.

I am not an earth nor an adjunct of an earth,
I am the mate and companion of people, all just as immortal and fathomless as myself;
They do not know how immortal, but I know.

—Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, 1st ed.

It's rather nice when a bookstore decides to move and puts much of it stock at half-price... I've thought about acquiring some of Walt Whitman's work for a while now. I'm not sure what (if any) religious label he had for himself, but much of his work resonates with me. My favorite line in this selections is "The smallest sprout shows there really is no death." I don't claim to know what happens at death, but I am certain it is not the end, at least not in the way most people think.

Names

No matter what path you follow to reach the place of truth, the place you arrive at is the same. When people are totally committed to their religious practice, they no longer need to be chauvinistic about it. All that is necessary is to dig into that basic question, to reach that deepest essence, and humbly accept Grace. This path is not about searching for information but about reaching for those answers and knowledge that are not limited by such names as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. When one still needs to hang on to a sect, then one has only a shadow of the real thing, a mere reflection of a religion that does not constitute a true and deep understanding of it. The true understanding takes place prior to the teaching of any religion. We must reach that place of true humanity, that place where we can truly realize that the life energy of every single person has exactly this very same root. This state of mind is beyond explanation and teaching with words and phrases. It cannot be spoken about; it can only be realized through each person's individual experience.

—Shodo Harada Roshi, quoted at The Daily Yak

The name of a thing is not the thing itself. Being attached to a name limits the possibilities.

Mantra of the Heart Sutra

Om gate gate
paragate
parasamgate
bodhi svaha

—final mantra of the Heart Sutra

I don't know why, but I love this mantra. Even without knowing what it meant, I loved to chant it. It's deeply soothing to me. One translation into English is "Beyond - Beyond - Beyond the Beyond - Totally Beyond the Beyond - Awakening - So Be It." I like it even better since finding the translation. I got the translation here. The page also has the mantra written in the Sanskrit script (which someday I would like to learn to read), and an audio-bar to listen to it. One oddity: when I first heard the mantra, "svaha" was pronounced "shva-haa" but here it's being pronounced "swa-haa". I don't know enough about Sanskrit to know if one is correct and the other is not, or if it's just a variation in dialect. *shrugs*

The yin within the yang

Calm in quietude is not real calm;
when you can be calm in the midst of activity,
this is the true state of nature.
Happiness in comfort is not real happiness;
when you can be happy in the midst of hardship,
then you see the true potential of the mind.

—Huanchu Daoren

from Deeshan.

In taiji we say "Stillness within movement; action within stillness." Always the two halves, yin and yang, should be united.

On the Road...

{rant}
Sin is an idea that makes very little sense to me, and I have very little patience for it. Why? (1) Mindless adherence to rules has nothing to do with spirituality; (2) There's no such thing as absolute right and wrong, any more than there can be absolute good or bad; (3) People become attached to the idea of "sin" and the label of "sinner."


(3) is the one that bugs me the most. Christians are stuck on being "sinners." They have no concept of being anything else. To my mind, this means they've missed the point entirely. The point is that everyone has fallen away from Tao (or God or the Way or the One; pick a label). The point is that once you've recognized this in yourself, you should begin moving back towards Tao. The point is that sitting there and screaming "We are all sinners!" helps no one. Christians get stuck at this point, and don't seem to realize that they need to progress beyond it. So long as they remain attached to the idea of "sin," they cannot progress.

What do I mean by progress? Well, that's hard to put into words. But when you deliberately try to progress you generally stay where you are, or go backwards. The idea is to close the gap that has opened up between you and the Tao. Being attached to an idea (of sin, of goodness, of closing that gap) will not allow that to happen. You have to let go of those attachments. So first recognize that you're a "sinner" if you must, but then forget that you even know what a sinner is. Then maybe there's a chance.

The thing that really bugs me about Christianity is that (most) Christians figure that once they're Christian, they're done. Boom. Nothing more to do. They're like people desperate to get out of town who finally make it to the bus depot and decide that's good enough. Oh, and now it's their sacred duty to get everyone else to the depot, but God forbid that anyone buy a ticket or actually get on the bus! (So they frequently try to drag people back who have gotten on the bus) The obsession with sin is nothing more than a bus depot on the road to enlightenment. It is not the be-all and end-all. So get a ticket out of there, and stop trying to drag everyone else in!
{/rant}

ADDENDUM: Inspired by the recent God or Not Carnival of Sin. On the plus side, the God or Not carnival is an opportunity for Christians and atheists (and others) to compare viewpoints on religious issues. On the negative side, I can only take so much nonsense before making some sort of rant, as above. I should probably note that the only definition of sin which makes sense to me is "that which separates a person from his/her deity."

Rules?

When the Tao is lost in a person or land one must resort to righteousness to rule society.
When righteousness is lost one has to use morality.
When morality has been abandoned there is only ritual to conduct society.
But ritual is only the outer clothing of true belief; this is nearing chaos.

—Tao te Ching, from Ch. 38, trans. Unknown

Depending on the translation, this can be a difficult passage to figure out. In the original translation that I read, it was far from clear what it meant. This translation is much better. The idea is that when people are at one with Tao, there is no need for rules, or morals, or righteousness, or power. Those only become necessary when people have already fallen away from Tao. Next is righteousness (sometimes translated 'virtue' or 'power'). So long as people keep to righteousness, they do not need any of the lower forms of rule. Then comes morality, and then empty ritual. There is a similar passage in the Analects of Confucious; however its emphasis is different. It says that it is best for people to do what is right without thinking (being at one with Tao), and next best is to do what is right because it is right, and so on... The Taoist emphasis seems (to me) to be that anything less than completion, union with the Tao, is worth very little. All the rest is mere facade.

Note: Taoism and Confucianism have a history of conflict, and a lot of Taoist material is an attempt to make Confucianists look ridiculous. Example: Chuang Tzu and Confucius were watching a fish swim in the river. Chuang Tzu remarked "See how the fish enjoys sporting in the water!"
Confucius scoffed. "You are not that fish. How do you know whether it enjoys itself or not?"
Chuang Tzu retorted, "You are not me. How do you know that I do not know whether the fish enjoys itself?"

(Those may not be the original names in the story)

Seek not, and ye might find

If Tao cannot be seen, then stop looking; if it cannot be heard, then stop listening; if it cannot be grasped, then stop grasping; if you cannot think your way to it, then stop thinking. As long as the Tao is viewed as an object or goal, it will forever be elusive and obscure.

We are like a person who is under the illusion of being imprisoned and frantically attempts to pry open the door to escape. Yet in reality this person is just breaking into a prison.

—Stuart Alve Olson in The Jade Emperor's Mind Seal Classic

Related sayings: "Without a rope, people bind themselves." "Do, or do not, there is no try."

Christians talk about "accepting Jesus" or "allowing God into your heart" in much the same way, but few seem to realize what this really means. It means you have to open your heart and allow Deity (in whatever form) into it. You cannot invite Tao in; you cannot force Tao in; you can open your heart and give Tao a chance to come in. It reminds me of a song we used to sing in Sunday school (different application, but same idea):

Love is something if you give it away,
give it away, give it away,
Love is something if you give it away,
you end up having more.

Love's just like a magic penny.
Hold it tight and you won't have any.
Lend it spend it and you'll have so many,
they'll roll all over the floor!"

Doubt

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

—Gautama Buddha, translation from WikiQuote

A big difference between eastern and western "religions" is that eastern religions expect people to enter with doubt and suspicion. They welcome it. Why? Because any thinking being can reach the same (or similar) conclusions. All "beliefs" are really observations about the world that anyone who pays attention can find, independent of the texts. And if you come to a different conclusion? Perhaps you have found something new, that the sages hadn't yet noticed, or perhaps you looked at it in a slightly different way. (That is not to say there is no controversy; there are different branches of Buddhism, Taoism, etc., because they emphasize different teachings; generally, however, they will agree that the other schools have valid POV's)

Atheist trying to understand Meditation

The only claim I making with respect to meditation is that there are methods of training our powers of attention, such that we can come to observe the flow of our experience with astonishing clarity. And this can result in a range of insights that, for millennia, people have found both intellectually credible and personally transforming (mostly in the East). The primary insight being that the feeling we call "I"-- the sense that we are the thinker of our thoughts, the experiencer of our experiencer -- really disappears when looked for in a rigorous way. This is as empirically confirmable at looking for one's optic blind spot. Most people never notice their blind spot (caused by the optic nerve's transit through the retina), but it can be pointed out with a little effort. Loss of the feeling of "self" can be pointed out and discussed in a very similar way. It's just a little harder to get someone to notice it, because most people can't stop thinking for more than instant.

—Sam Harris, interview at Raving Atheist

Reading evolution and science blogs does tend to lead one into the realm of atheists and antitheists. The rational ones are quite interesting to read. The irrational ones...well, they're slightly better than reading extreme fundamentalist writings, but not by much. It's interesting to me that most of the people who call themselves atheists have little or no knowledge of eastern thought. Of course, some Buddhists would also describe themselves as atheist, but that's another story. What I like about this interview is that the self-proclaimed Raving Atheist is actually making an effort to understand Harris's POV. He's not convinced he agrees with it, but he doesn't dismiss it out of hand.

The All

If you cannot see
God in all,
you cannot see
God at all.

—Unknown, found on a Yogi Tea tag

If you like tea, I highly recommend Yogi Tea. All the tea bag tags have a nice saying on them as well, which I see as a bonus. This is the first one I've found that I felt like posting. Yogi Tea's green tea (both regular and decaf) has an incredibly good flavor.

Unknowing, unthinking

Indeed he knows not
how to know who knows
not also how to un-know.

—Richard Francis Burton, 28 Sept. Zen calendar

Apply yourselves day after day, year after year, to the study of the "unthinkable."

—Soen Nakagawa, 29 Sept. Zen Calendar

I accidentally tore off today's calendar page, as I was behind, and tomorrow's went so well with today's that I thought I would post them both. They say that an ordinary student spends each day adding on new bits of knowledge, and that a Taoist student spends each day removing unnecessary knowledge. The Way cannot be found by thought or deed, but only by experience.

Science + Religion = ????

However, when people attempt to mix the realms of religion and science � attempting, for example, to use science to promote a given religious or philosophic view -- in the long run, given the very nature of the relationship between religion and science, the results will be the reverse of what is intended, and may end up damaging what in fact they hold most dear. For example, a proponent of science who believes that faith in God is absurd in the age of Science may end up creating a religious backlash against science itself among those who take a different view. But properly, empirical science cannot speak of the metaphysics of that which lies beyond the empirical realm and the ontology required by its naturalistic explanations.

Alternatively, those who attempt to use science to prove the existence of God will end up with a God susceptible to empirical criticism, when belief in God should be a matter of faith. A religious view rooted in science will be grounded in the shifting sands of scientific discourse, placed in constant threat of being uprooted by the newest scientific discoveries. For the better among those who initially accept this substitute for true faith, such a view will at first seem intoxicating, but will soon prove poisonous to their religious beliefs.

—TimChase, Religon and Science

Nicely sums up my feelings on both fronts. It is not that science and religion are at odds with one another directly; it is that there are people who insist that they should be at odds. Antitheism is rampant in many scientific communities, and it is just as poisonous as the antiscientism of many fundamentalist religious groups. Science, by its very nature, is constantly changing. A religion that does not allow its doctrines to change should certainly not tie itself to science. I do not object to archaeological digs trying to establish the accuracy of historical events, so long as the results are accepted whether or not they agree with what is written in the Bible. When religious groups sponsor these digs, they are likely tempted to gloss over inconsistencies, and this is not science. It's also not scientific if an antitheist group ignores evidence that supports the biblical accounts. Science is all about the inconsistencies. The error bars are often more important than the data itself. As soon as religious beliefs—whether pro or anti—enter data analysis, it stops being scientific and becomes dogmatic. The only dogma in science is, "Can it be repeated? Would another scientist reach the same conclusion? What are the sources for error?"

Happiness

Being happy
doesn't mean everything is perfect;
it just means you've decided to see
beyond the imperfections.

—Unknown, borrowed from Deeshan

It is so easy to think that we need something to be happy. Something more, something less. Something perfect. But all we really need is to allow ourselves to be happy. Sometimes this is harder than others. Sometimes it's so easy we don't even notice.

Dogma

Originally, Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian ideas were simply referred to as teachings. The notion of a dogmatic religion was entirely foreign to the Chinese until the intervention of Western beliefs. So when the Taoist speaks of a Supreme God, the language is not the same as when a Western Christian speaks of God. Whereas the Christian speaks of something external and distinct from himself, the Taoist is speaking of something external but simultaneously connected to his own inner being. Heaven and the Jade Emperor are seen not only as truly existing, but also as symbols. Externally, they reflect what is going on here, but aren't involved or necessarily concerned with our affairs.

—Stuart Alve Olson, The Jade Emperor's Mind Seal Classic

I don't know much about the Taoist pantheon of gods. It's not that I'm not interested; it's more that I see them as external and I focus more on the internal. Olson argues that they are both, and as this is very Taoist, I will need some time to consider it. Another interesting line from a page or so back: "Taoists view gods and spiritual beings as still engaging in the process of cultivating their spiritual growth...whereas Western religious Christains tend to perceive God as a manifestation of fixed perfection." To me, anything that can be labelled and pointed to is necessarily less than The-All. So the Christian notion of a supreme God separate from His creation is very, very foreign to me, because how can He be supreme if He is separate? He is less than the Whole in that case. So somewhere beyond that conception of God there must be something more, and less. Something with no label or name, something that cannot be named or described. Lao Tzu said "I call it Tao." Smullyan has a discussion of the named Tao versus the nameless Tao that is quite entertaining. By naming it, we set it apart, so that it is no longer Tao. :-)

Dalai Lama

I found out the day after it happened that the Dalai Lama had visited Idaho. Not my town. It's a three or four hour drive, and I had to work, so perhaps it's just as well I heard about it after the fact. :-) A summary indicates that the emphasis was on interfaith cooperation.

I have read the Dalai Lama's autobiographical account of the flight from Tibet. The book "In Exile from the Land of Snows" contains most of that story, plus details from others during the flight, and accounts of what came after. The section on Chinese prison camps was particularly difficult to get through. It is hard to believe that human beings can do that to one another, and sickening to realize that they can.

The closest I generally get to prayer is to express this wish for everyone in the world: "Strength to those who need it. Peace to those who seek it." To my mind, anything more specific is...likely to cause problems. For instance, I could wish for world peace; but the world could be peaceful under a tyrannical dictator. I could wish for an end to hunger, but largescale deaths in poverty-stricken countries could fulfill such a wish. So I keep it simple and small. "Strength to those who need it. Peace to those who seek it."

Meditation: Reclaiming it?

I posted the title link because it was unusual enough to catch my attention. Now, it's true that most Christians don't associate meditation with their faith. I like seeing someone point out that it is a valuable tool for them as well. I see it as a valuable tool for anyone.

Some troubling things, though. One is Gerrish's idea that this is taking meditation back from the forces of Satan. So... any non-Christian who meditates is automatically a Satanist? I realize some Christians think this way, and I pity them. But that's not the strangest thing. How can he reclaim something that has been done in the east for 5000 years? Yoga goes back at least that far in India, and I would be very surprised if meditation was not part of it from the beginning. But his breed of Christian always has to make it seem like the evil pagans and easterners stole the beautiful, pure ideas from Christians. *sighs*

More troubling is his "check your insights with your pastor/the bible" idea. Meditation is about self-exploration. Your insights are yours. They came out of you. They tell you about your own current internal state. Maybe you're angry, or sad, or happy. The whole point of meditation is to actually experience something for yourself. A Christian might say he was trying to experience the mind of God. I think of it as tuning into that-which-is. But, wait, Gerrish says that experience is only valid if your pastor says it is. Your own sense of the event doesn't matter at all! So, ask your pastor's permission to meditate then ask his permission to believe in your own experiences. Uh-huh. That's a great road to self-exploration.

However, the very act of meditation (if practiced sincerely) is likely to change a person for the better. And not necessarily in ways that an authoritative Church will like. Why? Because they are experiencing the Divine for themselves, without all the filters and safety-nets put up by the Church to safeguard the power of its clergy. Wasn't that the point of the Protestant Reform? Priesthood of all believers? Everyone to read and interpret the Bible for themselves? But, wait, too independent. Too much room for actual individuality. Let the new regime of authorities rule. :-) I hope Christian meditation catches on. I think it could really shake things up.

Letting Go

Many people do not know how to free themsleves from science and religion. The more they study science, the more they create destructive power. Their religions are mere outer garments too heavy when they walk in the spring breeze. Books are burdens to them and prayers but their beautiful excuses. They consume potions, pills, and drugs, but they do not decrease their sickness physically or mentally. If they really want peace, friendship, love, and a life of usefulness, they must empty their precious bags of dust and illusions to realize the spirit of fredom, the ideal of this country.

—Nyogen Senzaki, The Iron Flute

Attachment is the enemy. Let go. Most of us have a death grip on what we think of as "reality". Let go. Fall into the emptiness below. Then maybe, just maybe, you can find the "really real" world.

Perception and Reality

Perception is more important than people commonly realize. How I perceive the world has a direct effect on my experiences in it. Obviously it will affect whether I perceive things as overall positive or negative, but it does more. My attitude affects the way I interpret events around me, which in turn will affect the way I respond and interact, which will affect the way others interact with me, which will affect the way they relate to the world... If you believe the world is basically a horrible and evil place, you will find that you are right. If you believe that the world is basically a good and beautiful place, you will also find that you are right. If you believe the world is fallen and full of sin, you will find that you are right. If you believe that here, and now, is paradise, you will still find that you are right. You choose your own reality. The hard part is finding the "really real" reality behind all those other realities. The even harder part is determining if such a reality exists.

One level of reality is the scientific one. This is the completely objective and measurable reality, accessible to all observers and repeatable to anyone who replicates the original conditions. Within its own realm, scientific reality is perfectly valid. Most scientists will even claim it's the only reality, the "really real" reality. I can't prove them wrong, but I don't think they are right either. The scientific reality is completely consistent and predictable. On a certain level, so are people. They have set patterns and routines. But throw a monkey wrench into the routine, and there's no telling what will happen. Perhaps on a statistical level you can say X% will do A and Y% will do B, but that's a far cry from knowing what any given individual will do.

So what about other realities? There are mental realities, religious realities, local realities, universal realities, statistical realities, monetary realities... all with their own flavors and personalities. The important thing to note is that these realities need not agree on any particular observation. The more closely related they are to one another, the closer their observations will be.


For example, scientists tell me the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is somewhere around 12 billion years old. From a completely empirical standpoint, I agree. In the realm of science, this is truth. Yet on another level, I know that nothing has existed before this very moment. Time is an illusion. Thus the earth has no age at all; neither does the universe. I hold both of these views as correct, simultaneously, and see no contradiction between them (making this different from Doublethink :-). So it doesn't make sense to me to get all worked up because your Bible says the earth is no more than 6000 years old and the scientists say it's over a billion. I see no contradiction between these views. They are on different levels of reality. I can tell you that I am ancient, born before the stars had even been dreamed by the gods (or God if you prefer), and I can tell you that I have never existed before this very moment, or that I was born more than 28 years ago in a Pocatello hospital, and in each case I am telling the complete and absolute truth. I am a tiny speck in this vast universe yet the entire universe is contained within me. So how much of a stretch can it be for the universe to be simultaneously zero, 6000, and 12 billion years old? None at all (for me). Admittedly, 6000 seems a bit arbitrary (2^4*3*5^2), but why not?

For those who see a contradiction in these values... well, I'm not you (or am I ;-), but I would guess you're trying to cram all the levels of reality into one. But why? In a single day, some moments will fly by, while others drag. On a psychological level of reality, it would be explained that time itself does not vary, only your perception of it does, yet one time I measured 18 minutes outside a room that went by as five inside the room. Could I replicate the result? Almost certainly not. I doubt I was anywhere near the scientific level of reality on that particular day. So to tell me there's a contradiction between Biblical reality and scientific reality... is meaningless. Why should they be the same?

Oh, I suppose you'd like your God to create a complete and consistent reality for you, all contained on a single level. Hmmm..., I can think of three levels of reality experienced by most humans on a daily basis: being asleep, being alert and aware, and being relaxed and unware. So much for a single level of reality. Oh, but maybe there's a completely objective reality hiding underneath that! Nope. Uncertainty principle does that one in. The more accurately you measure, say, velocity, the less you know about position. Even more disturbing (to anyone seeking a complete, objective reality), any logical system of axioms with sufficient power to describe the universe has been proven to be incomplete (i.e. there are statements within the system which cannot be proven or disproven). So even (especially?) if we steal the scientist's position that the universe is entirely logical and follows an entirely logical set of rules, it is, a priori, incomplete. So logic implies uncertainty and incompleteness. Lack of logic implies...who knows? Perhaps it implies 0 = 6,000 = 12,000,000,000. :-)

(Read Gödel, Escher, Bach for a discussion of incompleteness, or ask Fibonacci about it sometime)

Life's Little Ironies

The mind creates the chasm which only the heart can cross.

—Stephen Levine, 11 Sept. Daily Zen calendar

I thought this was a beautiful quote (and relates to a semi-rant from a month or so ago; sorry Fibonacci :-). This is, indeed, how most Taoists, Buddhists, and New Agers see it. The terminology may be slightly different, but the sentiment is the same. So I was curious to see who Stephen Levine was. So far, there's not a lot of detail, but he has served as a "death counselor" for many years (counseling the terminally ill and their families), and has studied meditation techniques from some well-known figures, including Ram Dass. His homepage is somewhat amusing, in that he has left it barebones, not even labelling what Page1, Page2, etc. are. The most detailed biography I could find is here.

Acceptance

Chapter 21

Harmony is only in following the Way.

The Way is without form or quality,
But expresses all forms and qualities;
The Way is hidden and implicate,
But expresses all of nature;
The Way is unchanging,
But expresses all motion.

Beneath sensation and memory
The Way is the source of all the world.
How can I understand the source of the world?
By accepting.

—TaoteChing.org

I figured out a long time ago that it was impossible to change something unless you first accepted the way it already was. More briefly: "You must accept reality if you want to change it." Perhaps in accepting it, you will be changed. Perhaps not. But you may then have the chance to make a change; more properly, to allow a change. Nothing can be forced. Force begets force and nothing is done. You cannot force an image onto the world and expect it to be accepted. Until you observe how the world actually is, you are at its mercy.

As an example, Mark Otis came down to help out with my taiji class today (thank you, Mark; I hope your gas bills aren't too astronomical :-), and we did a bit of push-hands. We started with circling, then after I'd already reacted, I noticed Mark had switched to the four-form. Without any need to consciously categorize it (to think), I responded appropriately. I accepted the change and responded appropriately. A few years back there would have been a stutter, a pause, as I struggled to process what had happened.

Untainted

The lotus flower is unstained by mud. The single dew drop, just as it is, manifests the real body of truth.

—Ikkyu, 5 Sept. Zen Calendar

The lotus is highly revered because though it grows in the murkiest of water, it produces a vibrant, beautiful flower, 'unstained by mud.' It is a symbol of enlightenment and truth. Our gross physical nature is the mud, the murk, the filth of the swamp, yet it can produce the brilliant flower of truth and enlightenment. (Photo is the Meditation Pool at Sunrise Ranch in Colorado)

Forging

The bellows blew high the flaming forge;
The sword was hammered on the anvil.
It was the same steel as in the beginning,
But how different was its edge!

—Nyogen Senzaki, The Iron Flute

Untrained, undisciplined, we are like raw steel. Without the forge, without training and discipline, we can never carry a proper edge and be put to use. We sit rusting in the corner instead.

Taoism in a nutshell

Taoism is for a special kind of person. Although anyone can benefit from it, it's not for everyone, at least not this day in age and place. The true benefit in Taoism is found by those who are ready to question what they've been taught. Furthermore, the more one learns of Taoism, the more they learn they must question. As Lao Tzu put it, "in pursuing knowledge, one accumulates a little more each day. In pursuing the Tao, one takes away a little more each day." Everything we've been taught, all the technicalities, categories, and descriptions of nature, keep us from experiencing nature itself. For nature is not something that needs to be categorized. It is the only category.

—Bill Mason

This may be why I'm a Taoist. Given a piece of information, one of my first responses is always to question it. Where did it come from? Whose point of view is it? Has it been filtered through many points of view? Is it even remotely accurate or useful? Most of the information in the media is so filtered as to be meaningless.

But the section on Nature hits especially close to home. When I look at a sunset, I can think "sunset" and move on, or I can really look at the sunset without thinking and experience its full wonder and beauty. Thought interferes with experience.

And now I consider that questioning may seem to be about thought... And it's true that one can be so busy questioning a piece of information that its meaning does not penetrate. Which is where the Taoist principle of "Balance in all Things" comes into play. :-)

To pray, or not to pray...

Funny, but even during the brief time I called myself an atheist, I did not object to people praying around me. Or to someone calling for a large "group prayer." It was their right if they wanted to pray. I'm still not into prayer as the vast majority of people practice it; to me, it is somewhat sacrilegious to try and tell God what to do. But if they want to pray, that is still their right.

However, if it is true that the military was also downgrading and demeaning other religions, this is a problem. I support the rights of officers to have a prayer before a meeting, before a battle, or whatever. I also support the rights of soldiers to pray to whichever deity they choose, in whatever manner they choose (or not to pray, as they choose).

Here's the thing: a true atheist is not going to be bothered by people praying. Why? Because he'll just see it as pointless and silly, but not offensive. Problem is that there aren't very many true atheists. Most people who call themselves "atheist" are actually "antitheist". My own definition of antitheist is "someone who hates the god in whom he/she doesn't believe." So an antitheist must antievangelize, and eliminate any chance of exposing poor, innocent people to the perceived evils of religion. Since antitheism isn't seen as a religion, it is also not seen as falling under separation of church and state. But it is a religious position, admitted or not.

All right. Done ranting (for now).

Yoga

Well... this is different. It's a refreshing change from the Christian groups that condemn yoga (and anything remotely eastern). However, I'm not sure that using the term "yoga" is appropriate. Yoga translates (more or less) as "union", referring to unifiying body, mind, and breath. I know of no corresponding idea in Christianity (feel free to correct this if there is one). As for the objection that it is pervaded by Hindu ideas...well, the original yoga certainly was. But there are Buddhist yogas as well, and no one objects to their use of the term. Taiji is sometimes referred to as "Chinese yoga." But these Asian systems are complementary (most of the time), rather than at odds with one another. I would be curious to know if the "Christian Yoga" is incorporating Christian meditation, and readings of the Bible, as the physical exercises are only a very small portion of any yoga system (which makes the late Pope's comments rather amusing to me), or if it is simply a name for Christians getting together to do stretches.

Going Inward

And so, for the first time in my life perhaps I took the lamp, and went down to my inmost self. But as I moved further and further from the conventional cerainties, I became aware that I was losing contact with myself. At each step of the descent a new person was disclosed within me...and when I had to stop my exploration because the path faded, I found a bottomless abyss at my feet, and out of it came—arising I know not whence—the current which I dare to call my life.

—Teilhard de Chardin, from 29 August Zen Calendar

Interesting that the day after I ponder the Tao, this should come up on my calendar. :-D This passage is about going beyond the labels that we have for ourselves, going deeper to the core of who we really are. And if we go deep enough, and listen closely, we find the Tao.

The Way (Tao)

Something undifferentiated was born before heaven and earth;
still and silent, standing alone and unchanging,
going through cycles unending,
able to be mother to the world.
I do not know its name; I label it the Way.
Imposing on it a name, I call it Great.

—Cleary

This is from Chapter 25 of the Tao te Ching. I posted it because I was in the mood for pondering the nature of Tao. First off, it is nearly impossible to describe in words. How would you describe the color red to someone who was born without sight? But the passage above is a good place to start. Tao is not a thing, process, or being, yet it encompasses all of these. It makes no demands, and has no plans, thus its will is always done. It asks nothing of people, and 'nothing' seems to be too much. Tao may be "mother to the world," but it is not a Creator. Creation implies a conscious, deliberate act; but when consciousness arises, one has already departed from the Tao. The Tao is not good, nor is it evil, it just is. As soon as something is perceived as good (likewise as evil), the Tao has been forgotten. Tao has no voice, yet one may hear it.

*pauses* Looking over what I just wrote, I realize how much it sounds like the Tao te Ching. There are only so many ways to describe the undescribable, I suppose.

A few final thoughts.... The Tao turns no one away. It is only a matter of whether people bother to listen or not. There are no rules or doctrines to follow. Rules are for those who have fallen away from Tao. Given a chance, people will do what is right.

Flowers and Stars

Pick up a flower in a field and you may disturb a star in the sky.
All is interconnected.
Nothing is separate.
Everything has its place, its function.
Nothing is here for nothing.
Everything is here for everything.
Take care.

—Tishan

What more is there to say?

If love were software...

This is on the same site as the Shrine Room (note: clicking on "Shrine Room" on that site takes you through the process of setting up a virtual meditation altar; I find it very soothing). I found it quite entertaining.

Religious Freedom?

*sighs* In a country founded by people who left because their religion wasn't tolerated...all we've learned is not to tolerate anyone else's POV. Whatever your religion, so long as it harms none, you should have the right to practice it. You should have the right to pass it on to your children. You should have the right to proclaim it on high if that's what floats your boat. To be fair, there is currently a practice of protecting every religion except Christianity...but when I read things like this, I have to wonder if it's simply backlash. As for Bush's infamous comment that witchcraft isn't a religion... bull.

Wicca FAQ
Wicca in Detail
Pagan Info
Pagans in Detail

(Links all from Religious Tolerance and Wikipedia)

Silly Activity

Ran across this on a blog that I read:

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal… along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

So just for kicks, I tried it. The nearest book to me was The Traveler's Phrase Book, and on page 123 there was a map of Germany and the word Germany. So I looked for the next nearest book, which was The Iron Flute by Nyogen Senzaki.

Page 123, fifth sentence: "The old pine tree grows on a snow-covered rock."

The funny thing is that I absolutely love to go through a forest or along a river and see the trees growing straight out of solid rock. They always make me smile. Of course, I'm not usually out in the winter, so I've never seen this on a snow-covered rock. :-)

Turning Over the Pail

Three monks, Hsüeh-fêng, Ch'in-shan, and Yen-t'ou, met in the temple garden. Hsüeh-fêng saw a water pail and pointed to it. Ch'in-shan said, "The water is clear, and the moon reflects its image." "No, no," said Hsüeh-fêng, "it is not water, it is not moon." Yen-t'ou turned over the pail.

—Nyogen Senzaki, in The Iron Flute

I've been meaning to post this for a while... This is one that I think is worth thinking about, without me giving my interpretation (or even the interpretation in Senzaki's commentary). It's a beautiful and profound little story.

Dragons

Every so often, I "see" dragons during my meditation. So I started looking for information. The most useful site is linked above. As for what it means, I suspect it's rather like dream symbolism: what the dragon means to me is more important than any traditional lore surrounding it. However, since I tend to think in terms of Chinese tradition, there's probably some value in reading up on their dragon legends. :-) Don once told me that visions/sounds, etc., during meditation are like signposts on the road. They tell you you're headed in the right direction. But you shouldn't get caught up in "playing" with them, mentally. That would be like stopping the car because you'd seen the sign indicating your exit was coming up. Apparently Don's signpost is to "hear" big band music (which he doesn't particularly like).

Missing Out

"What, you don't hear the babbling of the stream over there? You don't hear the chirping of all the birds? You don't hear the leaves rustling in the wind? You don't hear the rodents scurrying about the forest floor? Damn it, boy, there is an orchestra playing for you and you haven't heard a thing."

—Stuart Alve Olson,The Jade Emperor's Mind Seal Classic

I see people out walking, jogging, with earphones on. Not just in the city, where it might be reasonable to cover up the sounds of traffic, but out in the wild. In the forests. They can't hear the natural music around them, so they substitute artificial. More than that, they don't SEE the beauty around them. At least in some American Indian tribes, children were expected to describe everything they'd seen and heard every time they returned from an excursion. I think our society could benefit from such an attitude. From a practical perspective, awareness of your surroundings is the most important self-defense skill. From an aesthetic perspective, people miss out on so much!

Translations Galore

I recently aquired the Thomas Cleary translation of the Tao te Ching... which brought to mind the differences and difficulties in translation. Just to give an idea, here are several translations of the same passage (from Chapter 3):

Not putting high prices on hard-to-get goods causes the people not to steal.

—trans. Cleary

Not prizing property that is hard to come by will save them [the common people] from becoming thieves.

—trans. Ames and Hall

If the sage does not buy treasures then the people will not want to steal them.

—trans. Kwok, Palmer, and Ramsay

Not collecting treasure prevents stealing.

—trans. from online source

Prize no rarity, and men are freed from thievery.

—trans. from Douglas Allchin

By not setting high store on things difficult to obtain, he [the sage] prevents the people from becoming robbers.

—trans. from F.H. Balfour

Do not value rare treasure, so that people will not steal.

—trans. from Beck

If we cease to set store by products that are hard to get, there will be less outright thieves.

—trans. from Byrn

Okay, there are a ton more, but you get the idea. The thing that immediately struck me about Cleary's translation was that he uses "price" instead of "value". The value translation makes more sense, because the price itself is irrelevant if people do not place value on the object. So I started hunting through other translations, and Cleary's is the only one with this particular nuance. It almost implies the same meaning, since setting a high price generally indicates that SOMEone places high value on it, but I prefer the other translations in this instance.

A(nother) poem by Basho

Summer moon—
hands clapping,
I greet dawn.

I love the simplicity of haiku (in English it's not a syllabically correct haiku, but likely it was in its original language). So few words, such beautiful ideas. This one captures the feeling of watching the sky lighten in the morning, stars gradually giving way to blue sky. And there's a sense of respect for the sun as well.

Perfection

The perfect blossom is a rare thing. You could spend your life looking for one, and it would not be a wasted life.

Perfect... They are all... perfect...

—Katsumoto, in The Last Samurai

The first line is spoken to Nathan Algren at the beginning of his enforced stay. The last line is said as Katsumoto lays dying. To me, the juxtaposition represents the difference between seeking Zen and becoming Zen. A seeker is looking for the one thing, the one truth that is just right. One who has become Zen has given up differentiating between things and truths. Everything is perfect, just as it is. Though it is difficult for many of us (including me) to always see this perfection.

Freeing the Mind

The mind has been resting on objects all along, and so it is not used to independence; suddenly without resort, it is hard for it to remain at rest spontaneously. Even if you can pacify it for a while, it scatters in confusion again. Govern it as it arises, so that it does not become agitated. Eventually, after a long time, it will become tuned and tamed, able to be at peace naturally and spontaneously.

—from Practical Taoism by Chan Po-Tuan, trans. Cleary

This passage struck me as my experience in meditation this morning. My mind would not simply let go, but would cling to objects and ideas, images and forms. Partially this is my own fault for trying to let go rather than allowing myself to let go, but partially it is simply that my mind is not used to letting go. It clings to the familiar, the images and ideas, for fear of getting lost in nothingness. Perhaps someday, my mind will become "tuned and tamed," but I suspect that is a long way down the road.

The Question of Existence

"If there's no meaning in it, that saves a world of trouble as we needn't try to find any."

I might make a similar comment about the Taoists. Since the Taoists make no claim that the Tao exists, it saves them a world of trouble in trying to prove that the Tao exists.

Just compare the situation with the history of Western religious thought! Good heavens, the amount of debates, battles, bloodshed and torture over the question of whether God does or does not exist!...The Sage has no need to affirm the Tao; he is too busy enjoying it!

—from The Tao is Silent by Smullyan (shortened considerably by me :-)

Smullyan's book is an interesting (and entertaining) read. The segment above is part of what convinced me to buy it and read it. For some reason, I'm inpsired to turn it into a parable.

A native guide was leading two tourists through a rough area. A loud, deep rumbling began on the track ahead of them. "Ah, it is an automobile. We should get out of the way," the guide tells them, and steps off the track. One of the two tourists nods, the other scoffs. "There's no such thing as an automobile! It's just a stupid legend!"

"Maybe it does," says the other tourist. "I mean, what else could make that noise?". And they stand on the path and argue. The guide listens for a while, and finally pulls them both to safety moments before the automobile races by. "Whew, that was close," the second tourist says.

"Ha! We still don't know whether the automobile exists!" says the other.

Moonlight

On the tips of ten thousand grasses
each and every dewdrop contains the light of the moon.
Since the beginning of time,
not a single droplet has been forgotten.
Although this is so,
some may realize it and some may not.

—Dogen (28 July Zen Calendar)

"Moon on the water" is often used in Buddhism as a metaphor for the reflection of the divine nature in each being (or sometimes as the reflection of a particular Boddhisattva). Beyond that, I think the poem speaks for itself. Just as a note of interest, there is nothing in Tibetan Buddhism to prevent the Dalai Lama (or any other enlightened being) from having more than one physical incarnation at a time. Just as the moon may be reflected millions of times over, so may a single individual. I do not know whether this is common to all forms of Buddhism, but I suspect it is.

Guan Yin

This is the area that Bataan set up in the front of the practice area at taiji camp. The statue is of Guan Yin (often spelled Kwan Yin) with a dragon. Sometimes when I looked toward the statue, it seemed like the dragon was expanding outward into the room, flitting amongst all of us taiji players. Interpret that how you will :-). Guan Yin is variously considered a goddess, a Boddhisvatta, and a Taoist Immortal. The last two are often considred equivalent, and they are how I tend to think of her. The closest western equivalent would be a Saint. Legend has it that she was all set to enter Nirvana when she turned around and vowed not to do so until all beings on Earth could enter with her. The wikipedia link in the title is rather dry, so here is a more interesting one.

The characters in the picture stand for heaven, earth, and man. Heaven (Tian) I recognize. It is the one with a sort of 'A' figure with a line on top. Man is the bottom figure, something like the Greek letter 'nu'. The middle one I have probably seen before, but don't remember. By process of elimination, though, it must be earth. In taiji, earth stands for our rootedness, our ability to disperse force into the ground. Heaven stands for our straightness. We try to keep a perfectly straight spine, suspended from the headtop. One of my favorite images combines these two: we are like plants, about to break the surface of the soil and come into the light; our legs are like our roots, extending into the earth; our head is the tip of the plant, reaching for the surface. So what is the role of 'man' in all this? (Oh, Bataan made a point of translating it as 'human') Well, in terms of Chinese thought, Earth is below, Heaven is above, and Man stands between. Anything above the surface of the earth is 'heaven', btw. In terms of the body, the lower Dan Tian (an energy center in the lower abdomen) is the 'in between'. So our legs are earth, our spine (and arms, to a lesser degree) are heaven, and the waist is man.

I have to wonder how much beyond the earth's atmosphere this idea of 'heaven' technically extends. If it extends to the edge of the universe, the picture seems unbalanced to me. My suspicion is that it doesn't extend much beyond the atmosphere, but does include our perception of things beyond the atmosphere. So it would include the starlight that we see but not the star itself. Hmmm... Unless I extend it to the orbit of the earth, it would include sunlight but not the sun. I have no idea if that might be a problem, or if it is anywhere near what the ancient Chinese had in mind. :-D

Freedom

Most people tend to delude themselves into thinking that freedom comes from doing what feels good or what fosters comfort and ease. The truth is that people who subordinate reason to their feelings of the moment are actually slaves of their desires and aversions. They are ill-prepared to act effectively and nobly when unexpected challenges occur. as they inevitably will.

—from A Manual for Living by Epictetus, trans. Lebell

This could have been written by a Buddhist, but Epictetus was a Greek stoic. Some would disagree with me, but I consider desires themselves to be perfectly natural and harmless. It is attachment to those desires that is the problem. It is one thing to wish that the summer heat would break, another to rail against the continuing heat and rant about the injustice of it all. Admittedly, wishing for coolness is stepping out of the moment, but once the desire arises (of itself), the thing to do is examine it and decide if it's useful. Most often, it is not, so then let the desire go. If it is useful (perhaps there is some shade not far away), then act on it.

The Birds and the Fish

A monk asked, "What is the fact of my nature?"
The master said, "Shake the tree and the birds take to the air, startle the fish and the water becomes muddy."

—from The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu

Over the time I've pondered this poem, I've considered dozens of possible meanings. One of the more obvious ones is that things behave according to their nature. When the birds are startled, they take flight. When the fish are startled, their rapid movement muddies the water. At the same time, this instinctive reaction causes loss. The tree is now empty. The water is no longer transparent. But then is the problem with the birds and fish themselves, or is it with the one who startled them in the first place? Or is there any difference? Another thought...by taking flight, the birds reveal their presence (assuming the tree is covered in leaves or needles, anyway). Would it not be better to cling to the tree as it shakes and remain hidden? The fish hide themselves by muddying the water, but they also obscure their own path. Perhaps that is the message: our automatic reactions can either drive us from the path or hide it from us.

Thoughts...

No quote for today... I have several in mind, but they are at home and I am not, and I am not sufficiently advanced to transcend space yet ;-). I was sitting on a bench today. To my left was a "barren", dry hillside. Directly in front of me (and across a street) was an artificial forest of trees planted by residents. To my right, a parking lot.

I looked between the hillside and the trees, and it was the hillside I found most appealing. It is dry, mostly dirt. A few desert plants cling to life, and likely support a small population of animals. The trees are quite beautiful in their own right: a mix of species that would be unlikely to grow together in the "wild." Yet the trees did not appeal to me so much as the hill. Why? Because the trees require support. Take away the humans, and most of them will die. A few may be drought tolerant and survive, but the rest would die. And they were placed in their location. On the hillside, seeds blew in or were carried by animals; roots spread. No one had to 'cause' it to be what it is. It is 'of itself so,' to borrow a term from Alan Watts.

And the parking lot? To be honest, I noted its existence and otherwise ignored it. It is a dead thing to me. Now, an old parking lot, full of cracks and crevices, with plants and weeds clinging to life... That is alive. Why? Because no one is forcing it to a particular shape any more. It is simply existing, changing, living. A maintained parking lot is constantly forced back into shape: cracks patched, lines repainted. It is not allowed to be 'of itself so.'

Taiji Camp

I'm going to taiji camp this weekend, so I probably won't be able to post anything for a while. A final thought (from 26 July on my calendar):

Zen is not safe. Letting go is a big risk. People are scared out of their minds to let go. To really let go of everything. To let go of everything! That's the big one, isn't it?

—Maurine Stuart

A poem by Basho

Slender, so slender
its stalk bends under dew --
little yellow flower

—Basho, translation found on the link above

Certainly a reminder of how precious and fragile life is. But more than that, it is a beautiful image. As a taiji player, I see the 'stalk bending' as an exmaple of Sung (alert relaxation). The flower is not stiff and tense, fighting the extra weight. Instead, it yields.

The Way

The master asked Nan-ch'uan, "What is the Way?"
Nan-ch'uan said, "Ordinary mind is the Way."
The master said, "Then may I direct myself towards it or not?"
Nan-ch'uan said, "To seek [it] is to deviate [from it]."
The master said, "If I do not seek, how can I know about the Way?"
Nan-ch'uan said, "The Way does not belong to knowing or not knowing. To know is to have a concept; to not know is to be ignorant. If you truly realize the Way of no doubt, it is just like the sky: wide open vast emptiness. How can you say 'yes' or 'no' to it?"
At these words, the master had sudden enlightenment. His mind became like the clear moon.

—from The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, translated by James Green

I'm not sure how much to say about this one... You cannot apply effort to following the Way, because that is not the Way. Yet if you do nothing, you do not find the Way. How, then? You allow the Way to open up inside of you, and around you. Suddenly, there is no following or not following. There is just that-which-is. This is the Way.

MILK: Manic Incessant Links and Klicking...

Ummm.... Looking over the posts for yesterday and the day before, I realize just how much the milk had affected me. It's not that I wouldn't have posted similar things without my head being messed up. It's that I wouldn't have posted so much all on the same day. I think I got into a headspace where I thought posting something would make the weird feeling in my head go away. It didn't. So I posted more. Yeah, there's logic... *mutters to herself*

The Blind Men and the Elephant

I've always liked this story... :-D The link is to an older Buddhist version.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind


The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”


The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”


The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”


The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”


The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”


And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

—John Godfrey Saxe