- This topic has 43 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
>>Jumping into emptiness without foundation means suicide of the self, yes…<<
*LOL. You know this for fact? There is a difference between a trance state, and a samadhi state. One includes loss of self, the other does includes gain of true self.
It is about the ‘choice’ one is able to make or not.
Choices can be made when there is knowledge, a sense of boundary and a sense of self respect. Many women are deprived either deliberate by religion and society and unconscious by the information passed down by generations of deprived women.
Everything I post is not an ultimate truth, it is based on my daily experience and observation of many women (and men).
Hi Wendy,
In the alchemical texts there is reference to real knowledge and concsious knowledge. Choiceless choice is brought about based on the real knowledge that the true self knows, and is spontaneous.
In Zen, koans are used which are seemingly absurd questions that the concsious self cannot answer like “what was my original face before I was born?”, or “the Buddha never spoke a word”, etc.
Only the true self has knowledge to these questions and we learn to use it. That’s what happens when we still the concsious mind, so that the true mind will be made apparent. Based on true knowledge, the choice is made. This is wu-wei.
There is ultimately no distinction between man and woman in this kind of meditation, as the true self is neither male nor female – non-dual.
That’s my experience,
FajinIn the West, Buddhism – which is a misisonary religion (Taoism is not) – has spread many techniques through its various branches. But just because modern westerners “shop” amongst Buddhist techniques doesn’t mean that they buy into or even know of its ultimate premise denying the development of the Self or its innate right to exist, even in its often tortured and limited human form.
Masahiro Ouchi is Japanese, and a Healing Tao instructor. He has recently started a TaoZen organization. He is integrating his own personal past with his love of Tao and inner alchemy. There is no conflict with using “forgetting the self” meditation to clear the post-natal mind, as an emptying process of releasing distracting thoughts and feelings. But that is only a foundation for cultivating SELF with inner alchemy – and not premised on eliminating the Self.
Just to be clear, I think many of the meditation methods and values of Buddhists – some of which came from Taoism – are perfectly useful in cultivating Selfhood – but that the underlying assumption about the Denial of Selfhood is pernicious and ultimately not a position I can support.
I accept that humans have doubt about Selfhood, but don’t think it is healthy to increase those doubts. I think the only evolutionary boost that Buddhism gives to Selfhood is a contrarian one. By doubting the self, and peddling that as a metaphysic, it forces others to choose to affirm the self. It creates a polarity that enriches the overall human process. So I support Buddhists right to promulgate their view – it has merely intensified my awareness of the importance of Selfhood.
This issue is not my attachment to alchemical methods – I merely share them because they work for me, and I’ve experienced a vast enrichment of my Self through them. I support any method that works for anyone – but don’t see the point of strengthening the self on Earth and then pulling the rug out from under the Self at the End, which in reality never arrives.
The Self never ends. It is here to stay. That is why I advocate awareness of immortality – it is simply the underlying truth.
Yours Immortally,
MichaelFajin,
Please don’t take any of these comments as reflecting on whatever practices you are currently experimenting with. I am merely trying to raise consciousness about the pernicous subtle effects that religious belief can have on development of the Self.
>*Bagua put it nicely. That Buddhists DO deny the false self, not the true self. The true self is like a microcsmic representation of the quantum void (Wu Ji) underlying all essence (jing/yin) and life (qi/yang). The ego self ceases to function and the true self is realized, that is nirvana. Not something new, but something already there, just realized. The true self acts as a non-actor, and to me this is the supreme action, wu-wei.
This is a nice statement of Bagua’s personal beliefs, but it is also Bagua backpedaling again and distancing himself from the Wikipedia definition of Buddhism, which posits Nirvana as the complete Cessation of Self, NOT the growth of the True Self. The closest thing to Bagua’s notion of True Self is the Buddhist stage of becoming an Arhat, but even that is deemed trapped in cycles of incarnation.
Even this False Self-True Self dicotomy has dualistic underpinnings, and reflects what I detect as an implicit Buddhist judgement against worldly incarnation. The True Self/Arhat is in a different and more subtle plane, and the False self is in the earthly plane, it is still trapped in suffering. Basically Earth = suffering, Human Free will = mistake in the wikipedia definition.
THERE IS NO FALSE SELF, according to my understanding of Tao. There is really only One Self, the Original Self, an integrated trinity of Yuan jing-qi-shen which is emanating its sense of Self (and varying degrees of Free Will expression) into the 10,000 Things. Humans are a specially potent expression and given special acknowlegement as the child of Heaven-Earth.
None of the “10,000 humans” is false, they are all part of the Original Self’s true process or Way. Having “false” perceptions of fixity within the physical plane does not make the Self underlying the human heart-mind/personality having those perceptons False. It might be accurate to say that there are free will expressions of False Yin and False Yang chi, ie as excessive or contracted, but that doesn’t make the underlying Self itself false.
Say you have a child, and the child falsely describes somethin out of ignorance – say it calls a pig a cow. ,Should the parent condemn the child itself for being a “false child”? Of course not. Let’s not confuse the child’s self with its expressions. so it is with the Original Self and its 10,000 children. The Original Self would never judge its children as False or even condemn them for misuse of the free will given to them – for the Original Self bears that responsibility of having given its free will to them. That’s why “God” is smart enough to know that to judge others is to judge Its God-self.
The whole process is experimental, and most humans currently fail to mature,or integrate the polarities within and without, and thus get dissolved back into Heaven-Earth at death. But even these human struggles and suffering add immensely to the understanding of the Self that has taken on human form under the collective guise of Humanity. Even if individual humans fail to learn from their mistakes, Humanity takes note and recycles the soul fragments accordingly to maximize its learning the next time. The process will eventually lead more humans to realize their immortal Original Nature (“Return to Origin” cited in Taoist texts) .
So what Bagua is calling “false self” and “true self” are just a single continuum. But there is no implication that there is a complete cessation of consciousness as stated so clearly in Wikipedia’s definition of Buddhism. Wuwei just means spontaneous action, according to the scholars of classical Daoist chinse I’ve read. it doesn’t mean cessation of action, or cessation of all thought or all feeling.
Fagin in another post quotes “True Knowledge” – a Buddhist inspired term created by Thomas Cleary, imposed on Taoist alhcemical works. Again, Buddhist “mind state” thinking is different than Taoist alchemical “jing-qi-shen” processual thinking based on the Life Force, and we should not allow appropriations or approximate translations to confanbulate the two.
>*The non-self is permanent and cannot be eliminated. It is the ultimate spiritual evolution and union with the divine and embodies of itself the highest free will as the ego is no longer in control, but apart of the greater whole.
This kind of “ULTIMATE” thinking is part of Buddhist verbal campaign against “ego” (a modern psychological term which means self) and ulitmate Buddhist drive to eliminate free will expression in the physical plane by getting everyone off the Wheel of Incarnation. By associating “negative thoughts and emotions” as inexorably linked with the personal self, they hope to damn the right of the personal self and free will to exist.
What about all the loving expressions of the personal self? Why not focus on that loving aspect of those imperfect, struggling human egos? That spark of love is enough jusitification for individual free will and embodiment on the Wheel of Life to continue. Love means the process of integration is continuing HERE IN THE PHYSICAL PLANE. I personally don’t want anyone pretending that its “compassioinate” to wish me into non-existence after death. I consider it a false projection onto my inalienable right and destiny to continue loving and creating in all dimensions.
The language Fajin uses above: “embodies the highest free will” and “unites with the greater whole” also contradicts the Wikipedia highest goal of eliminating all embodiment and certainly any expression. Again, I have no problem with Fajin or others re-interpreting what I consider to be outdated cultural ideas and molding them into something that fits their modern identity and community. But let’s expose the old ideas as having false underpinnings, and note the change.
>>But only an immortal one Or God-self can have that perspective, not a Non-Self!<>They want to DEVOLVE the self, rather than evolve it. This is the essence of the “War in Heaven”, whether to evolve or devolve the Free Will that results from Selfhood. The Buddhist position is a reflection of that position, it ultimately seeks an elimination of the Free Will choice to continue living after death and evolving and creating.<<
*How can you be less free after having transcended duality? Who is the one with the free will, the false you, or the true you?
My suggestion is to drop rigid ideas of a True You and a False You and not build any metaphysic around it. Just see them both as part of a true process, your personal Way. The Shadow side is no less real than the Light side, together both create realities. The non-dual or original self beyond that polarityi is still part of Selfhood.
"Transcending duality" does not imply in any way, shape, or form that one has to eliminate the personal self or get off the wheel of incarnation. Or that Selfhood is even the cause of Dualism, one of the Four Denials.
The "Lesser" self can shift its awareness and embrace the Greater Self without either one having to be True or a False self.
But the Greater Self (which, as Mother Nature, still has polarity) and the Original self (which holds the non-dual space) clearly are continuing to embody in human form as their own free will choice – so why build a metaphysic or religion claiming its a mistake? Why resist the flowing river of free will growth of humanitiy, even if it hits some horribly bumpy rapids?
Embracing all Selves as One,
MichaelHi Michael,
You have made some interesting points. I think that this is a confusion over certain terms, yet still there is a different perspective we each share.
>>This is a nice statement of Bagua’s personal beliefs, but it is also Bagua backpedaling again and distancing himself from the Wikipedia definition of Buddhism, which posits Nirvana as the complete Cessation of Self, NOT the growth of the True Self. The closest thing to Bagua’s notion of True Self is the Buddhist stage of becoming an Arhat, but even that is deemed trapped in cycles of incarnation.<>Wuwei just means spontaneous action, according to the scholars of classical Daoist chinse I’ve read. it doesn’t mean cessation of action, or cessation of all thought or all feeling.<>Fagin in another post quotes “True Knowledge” – a Buddhist inspired term created by Thomas Cleary, imposed on Taoist alhcemical works. Again, Buddhist “mind state” thinking is different than Taoist alchemical “jing-qi-shen” processual thinking based on the Life Force, and we should not allow appropriations or approximate translations to confanbulate the two.<>This kind of “ULTIMATE” thinking is part of Buddhist verbal campaign against “ego” (a modern psychological term which means self) and ulitmate Buddhist drive to eliminate free will expression in the physical plane by getting everyone off the Wheel of Incarnation. By associating “negative thoughts and emotions” as inexorably linked with the personal self, they hope to damn the right of the personal self and free will to exist.<<
*I think the whole issue of free will is not very necessary if we can agree that the yuan shen (true self) is the one that is doing rather than the ego. Because to become liberated, means to let go of that which stands in the way of freedom.
The rest of what you said is pretty much about selfhood which I have explained my point above. This is a wuxing relationship, not a dualistic one.
Question: You go to China and learn new methods everytime you go there. Would you care to learn some Ch'an methods the next time? 🙂
Smiles from the Middle Kingdom,
FajinFrom my understanding, Chan and buddhism in general refers to the “impermanent” nature of things, as a way of saying that (material) things come into existance and then pass back into the undifferentiated void.
This seems biased towards the formless state, and a whole lot different than the idea that form and formless are equal and integrated in an ideal situation. This bias is evidenced in the following statement:
“Lao Zi and Buddha speak from the space where the false veil is removed and their true nature exists”
Does the “false veil” refer to the totality of existence; form and formless, or the conditioned state of fixed reactive patterning?
Why then, deny the ego? it is valid and has a right to exist as much as the original self, if it is already here.
It is not that we are intending to purposely deny it because we see it as something evil, or not useful. We are merely trying to use it to activate our original self, so that it can be used. It must run the show and the ego does nothing. The oringal self must run the show, not the ego self.
Hi:
This statement you wrote:
“From my understanding, Chan and buddhism in general refers to the “impermanent” nature of things, as a way of saying that (material) things come into existance and then pass back into the undifferentiated void.”
To me this is the same things as Lao Zi presents about the changing nature of things, accept the change and dont try to keep them fixed, this awareness sets one free. I dont see any preference for the void in this.
bagua
False veil is the intellect categoring all things based on its socialized view, the intellect is one tool, not the most meaningful one. Consider the role the intellect plays with experiencing love.
bagua
We dont deny the ego, we see it in the position it is supose to be, a supportive role not the central position.
bagua
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.