Livia Kohn on Daoist “Sitting in Forgetfulness” vs. Chan/Zen Emptiness vs. Inner alchemy

I am struck by a few feelings. First while I may consider myself a lonely practitioner, unique in whatever blossoms from techniques that are ‘doing me’, I am part of an old tradition of self cultivation. So I say to them ‘leave me alone to my own digestion but thank you so much for being here’.

This part seems the center of it:

“underlying concepts of what the end result should be are so different.”

The mind wants there to be only one way so I can rest easy and either stray or be righteous. The reality is when I sit at my dinner table I don’t just eat broccoli all the time but a mixture of foods that balance the plate and hopefully meet my specific needs at the time. It will be different the next night and the next.
Why not the same with these techniques?

Using the same metaphor though, a stew of mixed ingredients may be fulfilling some times but other times separating the foods out so they don’t touch is important. So I can taste each one.

An elderly friend once told me that if any teaching he was introduced to didn’t increase his capacity to love he would leave it behind.I find this an interesting litmus. But then again what is love? Barry

I’ve lately become suspicious of Krishnamurti, while still holding out some respect for him.

Spyrelx mentioned the obscurity of the statement concerning him.

Basically my suspicion rests on his tendency to reject everything that wasn’t his own particular mode of non-dwelling (not a foible entirely unique to him), which is (somewhat) like Hui-Neng’s zen or prasangika madhyamika (drop the dropping, drop that, etc…), but he truly had a unique way of describing transcending intellect, and was very challenging of his audiences. Curiously though, he tended to reject even zen people out of hand. He made sweeping assumptions. He belittled other teachers insultingly as a matter of habit. Also, he never mentioned in any of the lectures of his that I read that he practiced hatha yoga on average up to two hours a day, nor did he mention his extensive esoteric education, including ‘astral initiations’ by Charles Leadbeater, the man who discovered him and considered him to be some kind of world messiah (an assertion that Rudolf Steiner disagreed with); instead it’s all about ‘just quieting down’, ‘shutting off the brain’s dualistic blah blah’. Yes, but there are important contributing factors, lead-ups and follow-throughs, as we’ve mentioned in various ways in previous chapters of this discussion. And now what to do that you’ve quieted down–does everyone then go around giving lectures on quieting down? A Tibetan buddhist might say that he was a ‘mahayanist’ (this is not exact, because you could say philosophically that he was more hinayanist, I think) who ignored in his public teaching the hinayana (understood as hands on mindfulness techniques that develop mind power which power may in fact be radically absent) and vajrayana (magical practices). Missing seems to be a subtler philosophical approach whereby the confining technique can be experienced as simultaneously linked up to awareness of intrinsic freedom; also missing seems to be the approach of meditation as art, as joyful human expression.

People may be interested in this: http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=trungpa+AND+krishnamurti
It is from 1972 and is a dialogue between a young Chogyam Trungpa and Krishamurti. Unfortunately it is cut off before Trungpa really gets much of a word in, but still I found it very educational in many subtle ways to see Krishamurti actually speaking, and to know of the very detailed system of study and philosophical thoroughness of the tradition Trungpa represented and was aware of as he was listening to Krishanmurti. If any one has found or finds a link to the whole dialogue please let me know.

I see no contradiction in having non-dwelling be the central practice–the ‘refuge’–and then feeling free to practice any meditative arts that are there (or any other more worldly art for that matter). I do think it is better to emphasise the connection to source over cultivating for other reasons only or preferentially, just as developing technology for its own sake leads to all kinds of complications, as it were, automatically.

I think what often gets lost in the ‘just sitting’ dialogue is that it’s, in my view, more about how best to tune in to the primal source as guiding intelligence, which connection can develop into an operative mode, with the world then seen as one’s magical oyster. Or you could just carry wood like before. A fixed, enlightened end-state is not the aim (it is an impossible aim). Quieting the internal dialogue, for example, is not the end, in this sense, but can be a facilitating act toward tuning into to the dao or buddha nature or what have you.

Just my one-sided penny.

Simon

Thanks Max

It’s really interesting to see Gurdjief in motion; I’d never seen footage of him before. He had a more relaxed style than I’d assumed he had–those intense eyes and many stories gave me this idea of someone like a kind of mannic, enlightened Groucho Marx (esoteric Groucho Marxism… Where do I sign up!).

And thanks for the dzogchen link. A book on dzogchen I’ve returned to many times over the years is Primordial Experience: An Introduction to Dzogchen Meditation. Apparently from some of the reviews I just looked at on Amazon it has its faults, but it involves a translation of an ancient core text that is very important in that tradition, coming originally from a profound teacher.
I bought this book in around ’89 or ’90 because I was at a bookstore thinking about what to buy, when I heard something drop. A book had fallen behind the shelf sort of thing. I explored and found this book and bought it. One troubled reviewer sadly found the philosophical background chapters at the beginning incomprehensible. This is because they are difficult to understand and require the interest to engage in repeated study, and preferably a background in study of the progressive stages of meditation on emptiness (see Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso’s book). I have recently found that the philosophical approach therein contains the same meat as certain trends of the western tradition (for example, see Cause, Principle, Unity, by Giordano Bruno. The inconvenience there of course was being tortured and killed for your efforts, rather than kept in the lap of luxury like in Tibet. Still, maybe that’s what has contributed to the wilyness of western practioners–like that smartypants Gurdjief).

Simon

That’s a great video, thank you.

My first teacher is somewhat like that (not quite as impressive, though as a healer he has a great track record). I briefly took lessons from another guy in Stuttgart who sat on a chair with his legs off the ground, then pushed a student across the room using one finger. Can’t argue with that! Interesting fella. He had a picture on one wall of his sort of shamanistic-taoist ancestor whom he obviously idealised.
Doing qigong is a huge, really straighforward positive in my life. That my practice of gigong has had a positive effect on others, particularly friends and family, is really heartening to me too.

There are different results from different kinds of study and practice.

The way of repetitive philosophical study is not for everyone (nor, to be clear, would I contend or want to make it seem that it’s necessary for everyone), and I agree that without meditating groking the texts is very unlikely, unless previous experience is helping, and even then it just might not be one’s cup of tea. It’s my cup of tea.
Basically, I see it as linking up deeply ingrained philosophical understanding with meditation experience in an ever-refining positive feedback loop; the concepts become like mudras, gestures that when accessed trigger states of mind they’ve become firmly associated with. I like the phrase ‘philosophy as an alchemical catalyst’. The repetitive study/contemplation is itself a meditation practice, creating deeper and deeper echoes in the mindstream. I like to write, am attracted to whatever involves refining the faculty of communicating or juggling with language, which is part of why I’m drawn to this kind of approach.

I think what you suspect about Tibetan buddhists (or buddhists in general I’d say) is actually quite true in many cases. But some of them really put the two–philosophy and meditation power–together in a very impressive way. Individuals are distinct from traditions, though the former may be deeply imprinted by the latter. I am particularly a fan, in the Tibetan community, of teachers from the Nyingma lineage–like Namkhai Norbu, Tarthang Tulku, Thinley Norbu.

I’m not familiar with the comments made my the Dalai Lama re the Afghanistan situation (the current Canadian involvement in which is very controversial over here), but I must say that things he’s said on Dharma topics I’ve found puzzlingly naive and/or uninformed. For example, his blanket statement of ‘not believing in God’. The actual view of buddhism is very subtle on this point, in my understanding, and it would certainly be ‘politic’ to be subtler on such a touchy topic for westerners. Indeed, many breakdowns of ‘the trinity’ are extremely similar to buddhism with its trikaya (see Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart for example). And Giordano Bruno’s ‘god talk’ is pure dzogchen sneakyness (there’s that minor complication of his having been burned at the stake by ‘christians’, but whatever). And there’s that line in the Gampopa biography, where Milarepa whispers in Gampopa’s ear “There IS a supreme being…”. In short, that comment of the Dalai Lama’s struck me as too glibly ‘going by the book’. My view is that the Dalai Lama is definitely a politician (which many forget, or I would say, are not really aware of in the first place–they think he’s like the pope; he is actually only the head of one of the Tibetan spiritual lineages, the Gelugpa, the youngest of the lineages), but that all told he appears to be a competent teacher of foundational buddhism, and to be nice guy. What did he say about Afghanistan?

Simon

Hi Rex

No, I haven’t read it. But in general as I said I have found the Dalai Lama to be a competent teacher, who’s presentation is in keeping with other teachers; Tibetan lamas are extremely well-educated. The Gelugpa lineage, which he is the head of, is often considered (as you probably know) the most scholastically accomplished (though this is not always painted in the most flattering light), and so one would expect that kind of thoroughness from that lineage’s head. It’s only certain public, generalized statements of his that gave me pause. But we all put our foot in our mouths sometimes, me not excepted of course.
Still, I would go to Tarthang Tulku or Namkhai Norbu (Nyingma lamas) for an introduction, to get a real taste of it; and the Dalai Lama’s book could serve as giving an overview of dzogchen’s various permutations (it sounds like that kind of book). The argument can be that the Dalai Lama received a more well-rounded education than other lamas; on the other hand, he didn’t specialise as much in particular ways, has not assimilated western culture and language as thoroughly as other lamas (like the above two), and his time is very occupied with political meetings. But not having read that book, I can only say that it is very likely an excellent text, just as the glowing reviews suggest.

Simon

I found alot of those groups to have been changed. Alot of those group got taken over by greedy controlling individuals focused on luciferous aspects. Then there powers just got centralized. I personaly stopped liking alot of that stuff after Madame Blavatsky lost guidance of her group. Similiar things happen to the freemasons and sence the freemason adopted nights templar stuff that also got currupted. But this is a old pattern. Thank goodness for alot of new teachers that are heart centerd using true yang and yin. Alot of pople are rediscovering the shamonic and ancient teachings and making them fit the current time while holding to there core teachings.