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)