How about this for Chi [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

cjurakpt

06-22-2007, 09:24 AM

what a load of cr@pola - this is from the website!

This issue of cooperation is a difficult one to resolve. Master Wang's students have reported different reactions after working with him in a no touch session. Some are extremely sensitive to energy and literally fall over when Master Wang works with them. Others feel little and can’t understand why others are responding when they don’t. One explanation is that one has to develop sensitivity to energy, just as Master Wang needs to develop transmission skills.

In practicing search center, one has to become softer and learn listening skills. The use of contact requires the development of sensitivity and relaxation. If you are too hard, it is easy for your partner to find your centre. No touch is, consequently, an excellent exercise for developing listening skills and sensitivity. If one can respond to lack of touch, then one is more able to feel even very soft contact.

If we, as his students, choose to be insensitive and not respond to Master Wang’s energy, it is possible to resist it. But there is no point in such an attitude. The purpose of tai chi for us is to increase our body awareness and sensitivity, develop chi energy, and to improve our health.

Can Master Wang direct his energy at an unwilling or unaware person and make them move? No, though he does feel this is a future possibility. He feels the mind is capable of almost anything, and that only lack of discipline and practice keep us from accomplishing what is now considered impossible.

bolded part mine...

so, basically, if you are subjectively predisposed to being moved by the guy, you'll be moved? riiiight....

Three Harmonies

06-22-2007, 02:59 PM

If I tell you that you are hungry enough times you will believe that too! What the **** does that prove?
I cannot believe people buy into this ****! Yet another example of some of the BS poison that is killing the CMA! Everyone has a nitch, and I do not begrudge any man his success, but the fact their are ignorant masses out there forking out hard earned cash for this BS is sad to me!
Jake :mad:

RonH

06-22-2007, 05:29 PM

If you're gonna work with empty force, just buy Empty Force The power of chi for self-defense and energy healing. It's a lot cheaper.

cjurakpt

06-23-2007, 04:47 PM

Corwyn

06-23-2007, 08:14 PM

If you're gonna work with empty force, just buy Empty Force The power of chi for self-defense and energy healing. It's a lot cheaper.

So, if you spend less money on it, it's less a bullsh8:rolleyes:

People like Wang can ge away with doing this because the vast majority of people who KNOW better and should speak up usually don't.

woliveri

06-24-2007, 04:48 AM

I'm just curious, what would he teach you for 600 a day (in 4 hours) that would be worth that price? I mean is he going to correct your form (Chang Man Ching), or teach you his Empty Force methods.

RonH

06-24-2007, 07:16 AM

So, if you spend less money on it, it's less a bullsh8:rolleyes:

Actually...yes. The information detailing specific methods usually runs at the inexpensive to freely distributed levels because it is part method, part hard work/effort put into it. Those that would charge such a high amount are people even I would stay clear of. Even those that claim that spending so much is a test to see how much you really want it is not good enough for me. I've always found it to be a stupid reason and it's never a good judge of a person.

I'm just curious, what would he teach you for 600 a day (in 4 hours) that would be worth that price? I mean is he going to correct your form (Chang Man Ching), or teach you his Empty Force methods.

Unless he's got the ability to make you 'empty forcing' is a matter of days to weeks, he wouldn't be teaching you anything you couldn't get for cheap, if you went elsewhere.

cjurakpt

06-24-2007, 08:12 PM

this is what I posted on a thread of similar content in the Main Forum:

ok - one more time for the folks in the balcony:

it's very simple guys: "qi" is a metaphor; it is a qualitative, and in a way highly subjective (and historically succesful) descriptor for the total set of functional interelationships that occur in the body and in the environment within which the body functions (basically, the universe); it looks at the net effect of many different processes that at one time could not be observed independently, but as a functional whole could be observed and qualified (notice I don't say quantified: TCM in its original form was not looking at lab values or EKG's - it looks at tongue color/texture, pulse qualities - these are all qualitative descriptors as well);

the reason that it persisted for so long as a useful concept is that, as a technology it has very good predictive value: this is because over a long period of time, using a relatively internally consistent system (e.g. Chinese medicine), people observing how the human organism functioned under various situations gathered a great deal of empirical data and passed it on in the form of semi-linear pattern recognition; in other words, using "qi" as a concept tells you a lot about the "how" on a macro level; it doesn't, however, tell you that much about the "what" or the "how" on a cellular level, because the technology didn't exist to tell you all that; knowing the macro-"how", you can certainly be effective in many ways, but knowing the "what" and micro"how" is ultimately more effective;

so, in the last 110 years, we have learned more about the "what" and micro"how" than all of human history combined; we have imaged and observed things down to a level that is unprecedented; so why haven't we "found" "qi"? simple; it's because "qi" is NOT an independent "entity"; it is NOT a discreet "force" that exists independent from other things; it is not something that one can emmanate from their finger tips - even if there were such a thing, that would not be "qi" per se: it would be something like telekinetic energy (which, to date, has not been observed by any reliable means anywhere); "qi" is not electrical current, heat, kinetic energy, magnetic fields: these are all measurable things, and they all occur naturally in the human body; they all participate in physiological function, and are therefore encompassed by the descriptor of "qi"

the whole phenommenon of throwing someone across the room or "KOing" them can be described quite easily: stimulation of the autonomic nervous system (controls BP, HR, RR, digestion, emesis, sweating, temperature control, certain types of muscle function, and, of course the adrenaline fight/flight response) will generate all the strange effects observed; as the ANS can be impacted through things like hypnosis, entrainment, mob psychology you can subconsciously program yourself or be programmed to have autonomic effects with the right trigger - if you observe others and then pattern their responses to what your teacher is doing for years on end, no shocks that he can KO you with little effort (and in all liklihood, you are predisposed to it any way, since the people searching out and studying with teachers like that are the ones who want that sort of thing to be real anyway); self-fulfilling prophecy, nothing more nothing less - so, in a way, what you see is real, but it is a reality that is very context dependent...

and BTW, as far as the whole notion of what "qi" is - if it was going to be anything it would be breath - although it's more than just the air that you take in and breathe out: it's also the function of the respiratory mechanism (lungs, diaphragm); and because breath is a basic aspect of all physiological function, it is a good place to start when looking at how the human body works, especially when you don't have x-rays and lab tests: breath effects everything from blood oxygenation to proper digestion to muscle function; so "qi" is a pretty pragmatic concept to begin with, not some mumbo jumbo mystical BS; actually, the etymology of the character for "qi" is a depiction of vapor rising off of rice: basically describing the process of fermentation...pretty "earthy" origins...

so cut the cr@p guys: free yourselves from seeking the extraordinary - enjoy the profoundly ordinary, such as it is...

'nuff said...

spiralstair

06-25-2007, 12:09 AM

this is what I posted on a thread of similar content in the Main Forum:

so, in the last 110 years, we have learned more about the "what" and micro"how" than all of human history combined; we have imaged and observed things down to a level that is unprecedented; so why haven't we "found" "qi"?

Hi cjurakpt,
I got two words for ya....

Dark Matter.

Haven't found that yet either, the most prevalent 'thing' in the universe, sort of like the source of 10,000 things... no wait a minute, that's called something else by Chinese philosophy...

Then there is one other thing that people feel strongly, that motivates movement and behavior, but also can't be measured, something the Amazing Randi wouldn't recognize if it walked up and hit him in the head... love.

Now I know that's The four letter word on a fighting forum...

cjurakpt

06-25-2007, 05:36 AM

Hi cjurakpt,
I got two words for ya....

Dark Matter.

Haven't found that yet either, the most prevalent 'thing' in the universe, sort of like the source of 10,000 things... no wait a minute, that's called something else by Chinese philosophy...

Then there is one other thing that people feel strongly, that motivates movement and behavior, but also can't be measured, something the Amazing Randi wouldn't recognize if it walked up and hit him in the head... love.

Now I know that's The four letter word on a fighting forum...

dark matter has not been directly measured, true, but there is more and more evidence for its existence;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A588224
and just remember that, although physicists do tend to be more "spiritual" than other scientific disciplines, they still have to play by the rules of theorizing, observation, experimentation, refutation, etc.; so they can't just say "well, I've felt it, so it must be real"

as for love: in most cases, for most people, it's another name for preference, for picking and choosing; and preference changes, sometimes rather abrubtly; love, as most people experience it, is therefore highly relative; if you are talking about Love, like the way Rumi talks about it, or maybe even Christ (hard to tell what he actually did say), then you are probably looking at something along the lines of what Krishnamurti calls "choiceless awareness"; in the case of the former, its just another aspect of emotion / mind's craving for self-validation; in the latter, it speaks to a way of seeing and being in the world that creates a sense of space and freedom from habitual repetition, but in and of itself is not a specific "thing" either;

spiralstair

06-25-2007, 08:07 AM

dark matter has not been directly measured, true, but there is more and more evidence for its existence;

So, something that is phenomena-less, that composes the background in which phenomena stands out be measured, is not real until it is itself measured?

Didn't someone once say that the Tao isn't the wheel, but the hole in the center where the axle could exist?

I agree that most things claimed as "chi" are just interactions between posture, angles, gravity, and people's expectations.

Still, it's a great big universe, most of it still undocumented.

Mike Patterson

06-25-2007, 01:20 PM

"cjurakpt" is quite correct in his interpretation of origination of the character "Ch'i". The first half denotes "rice" or "rice eating people" and the second part or "hat" denotes "gas rising" from the surface.

Common direct translations include:
1) air; gas; vapor; atmosphere
2) breath
3) spirit; character
4) influence
5) bearing; manner
6) smell; odor
7) to be angry; to be indignant
8) to provoke; to goad

If you consider all possible contexts of the character (and there are many), the only one really applicable directly to CMA is the following:

Def: "(in Chinese Boxing) the ability to use one's inner strength such as control of muscle and breathing." Notice the definition does not include any word or words denoting any form of energy. And you won't find any such words in any other context definition either. At least none of which I am aware.

Having spent a great deal of time living and learning in Asia, it appears to me that it is a predominantly western perspective to wish to assign a mystical component to the concept of Ch'i. And there are nowadays numerous Asian teachers all too willing to capitalize on that perspective.

In my day, those who practiced IMA were a great deal more pragmatic about their approach than many seem to be today. Mostly, when the word was used in conjunction with training, the connotation was one of breath.. "your ch'i is not smooth" meant your breathing is not being properly controlled.. "the ch'i here is bad" meant let's move away from the foul smell eminating from that binjo (sewer) over there.

My two and a half cents.

Three Harmonies

06-25-2007, 02:20 PM

Almost word for word with what my teacher Tim says.
Good post Mike!
Jake :cool:

cjurakpt

06-25-2007, 02:58 PM

Mostly, when the word was used in conjunction with training, the connotation was one of breath.. "your ch'i is not smooth" meant your breathing is not being properly controlled.. "the ch'i here is bad" meant let's move away from the foul smell eminating from that binjo (sewer) over there.

thanks for the input Mike - to be fair, it is my teacher's interpretation of the charcter, not mine (credit where due, etc.);

and what you say above that I quoted meakes sense: and encompasses not onl y what you are breathing, but how - meaning, to me, that "qi" is grounded in functional context; coordination of breathing, muscle function, ground reaction force and tensile properties of connective tissue system is what gives you good postural integrity and allows your to work optimally in gravity, whether for health maintenance or for useage in fighting; of course, you need good technique as well if you want to be realistic - guys like Cartmell are much appreciated because they delve into the old as well as keep abreast of the new, giving a well-rounded perspective;

BTW Mike, are you by any chance Michael Patterson the physiologist? just curious...

Mike Patterson

06-25-2007, 03:52 PM

BTW Mike, are you by any chance Michael Patterson the physiologist? just curious...

:) Well, I have studied physiology and Chinese Tui Na (under Hsu Hong Chi) extensively. But somehow I think I am not the person you are referencing. If you look in my public profile, you will see my website link at hsing-i.com

But just to make things easier.. I am one of the senior students of the late Hsu Hong Chi (Xu Hong Ji) of Taiwan. My grand teacher was Hung I Hsiang and my great grand teacher was Chang Cheng Feng. I am the person who trained all those successful IMA full contact fighters throughout the 90's until 2000 for competition in the KuoShu/SanShou/SanDa arena. I am the current head of Shen Lung Tang Shou Tao (Hsu Hong Chi's association) in the U.S.

Tim Cartmell is related to me, kung fu family wise. He studied first with my teacher (albeit after I had already left Taiwan for the U.S.) and then later with others of our family.

cjurakpt

06-25-2007, 06:37 PM

oh, ok - there is a guy, Michael Patterson, who is a physiologist who teaches in many osteopathic courses here and abroad, looking at physiology from that perspective in terms of treatment and what not - my wife, a French trained DO as well as US MD (OB/GYN) knows him quite well (I've never studied with him personally in my own osteopathic studies), and so just thought I'd find out if the world was indeed that small ;)

thanks for the lineage, BTW

Mike Patterson

06-26-2007, 11:19 AM

Water Dragon

06-26-2007, 06:58 PM

Holy Sh!t! It's Mike Patterson! I haven't seen you around these parts for a while. How ya been?

woliveri

06-27-2007, 08:55 AM

Yes, as I recall you used to live in or near San Diego, is that right? Are you now living in Nevada? If so, may I ask where?

Fu-Pow

06-27-2007, 10:49 AM

Mr. Wang.....it's time to collect your 1,000,000 prize.

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Mike Patterson

06-27-2007, 12:15 PM

Holy Sh!t! It's Mike Patterson! I haven't seen you around these parts for a while. How ya been?

Holy Sh!t! is exactly right. ;)

I stop in from time to time, just to see what's up. Just don't usually have much to say.

Yes, as I recall you used to live in or near San Diego, is that right? Are you now living in Nevada? If so, may I ask where?

We are in Las Vegas now.

TaiChiBob

06-27-2007, 12:35 PM

Greetings..

Oh boy, i hate this part.. but, to be fair, i gotta go ahead and open the door..

I am very familiar with Mike Patterson's skills and his understandings of the concept of Qi.. yet, i am compelled to ask, based on the following quote:

Def: "(in Chinese Boxing) the ability to use one's inner strength such as control of muscle and breathing." Notice the definition does not include any word or words denoting any form of energy. And you won't find any such words in any other context definition either. At least none of which I am aware.
"Inner strength.. control of muscle and breathing", what is it that does the "control"? Is it "the Mind"? What is it that causes to muscles to function? Is it "bio-electric energy"? Keep in "mind" i am not contradicting the quote, nor do i have a differering understanding at this level of dialogue.. but, i am also aware that the symbol for Qi can represent a chemical reaction resulting in the physiological "energies" that manifest the Control as mentioned.. its not unreasonable to apply more recent scientific realities such as nutritional regimens, conservation/cultivation of energy methodologies, etc... there is much cross-over from Qi Gong and energetic work that can have excellent benefits..

Sometimes, we may hold to particular beliefs, or specific prejudices to the detriment of emerging realities.. i would be the last to jump on the "mystical magical energy" bandwagon.. but i am also curious enough to do the homework before discounting ALL references to energetics.. not unlike our autos, the quality of the fuel is as important as the quality of the machine.. it seems that there is room for multiple interpretations of Qi, but.. that room has very little space for quackery.. neither the applied physiology nor the cultivation/control of energies is mutually exclusive.. there should be middle ground that benefits ALL interested parties..

Be well..

Mike Patterson

06-27-2007, 01:44 PM

Greetings..

Oh boy, i hate this part.. but, to be fair, i gotta go ahead and open the door..

I am very familiar with Mike Patterson's skills and his understandings of the concept of Qi.. yet, i am compelled to ask, based on the following quote:

"Inner strength.. control of muscle and breathing", what is it that does the "control"? Is it "the Mind"? What is it that causes to muscles to function? Is it "bio-electric energy"? Keep in "mind" i am not contradicting the quote, nor do i have a differering understanding at this level of dialogue.. but, i am also aware that the symbol for Qi can represent a chemical reaction resulting in the physiological "energies" that manifest the Control as mentioned.. its not unreasonable to apply more recent scientific realities such as nutritional regimens, conservation/cultivation of energy methodologies, etc... there is much cross-over from Qi Gong and energetic work that can have excellent benefits..

Sometimes, we may hold to particular beliefs, or specific prejudices to the detriment of emerging realities.. i would be the last to jump on the "mystical magical energy" bandwagon.. but i am also curious enough to do the homework before discounting ALL references to energetics.. not unlike our autos, the quality of the fuel is as important as the quality of the machine.. it seems that there is room for multiple interpretations of Qi, but.. that room has very little space for quackery.. neither the applied physiology nor the cultivation/control of energies is mutually exclusive.. there should be middle ground that benefits ALL interested parties..

Be well..

No disrespect, Bob, but..

Well.., Duh! I don't believe I made a statement in any form about my personal beliefs. Or, perhaps I am misunderstanding your seeming implication.

I gave direct, literal translation of the Chinese Character and its base make up. Then, I rendered a little anecdote about my "upbringing" so to speak. I deliberately stayed away from this ongoing, broken record of an internet battle because I really don't care. And I'm not going to get sucked into it now either.

You be well also. :)

TaiChiBob

06-28-2007, 12:52 PM

Greetings..

Hi Mike: Well, i'm not sure what your point on the reply is.. i agree with your definition of Qi, within the context presented.. i also leave room for quantifiable expansions on that definition..

Def: "(in Chinese Boxing) the ability to use one's inner strength such as control of muscle and breathing." Notice the definition does not include any word or words denoting any form of energy. And you won't find any such words in any other context definition either. At least none of which I am aware.
I will only point to the elephant in the room.. "to use one's inner strength", i assume, incorporates energy, sort of the source of the strength, eh.. or "control of muscle and breathing", similarly requires some type of energy conversion.. it becomes too convenient to overlook the obvious in favor of a preferred interpretation.. "energy" is the source of strength and the result of its application.. a 70mph punch generates quite a transfer of kinetic energy on impact.. not to mention the benefits of good structural alignment and mechanics.. You can present a definition that doesn't use the word "energy", but you cannot escape its inherent place in the equation..

This is not intended to be a contradiction, rather an expansion of the concept.. and, by the way, i intended no implication regarding your personal beliefs.. my familiarity with you is by video only, and i greatly respect the skills demonstrated.. i have studied them well.. without personal knowledge, it would be pointless to address your personal perspectives/beliefs..

Again, Be well..

Mike Patterson

06-30-2007, 11:19 AM

Bob,

In your first post you said:

<snip>I am very familiar with Mike Patterson's skills and his understandings of the concept of Qi.. <snip>

Now in this post you say:

<snip>my familiarity with you is by video only, and i greatly respect the skills demonstrated.. i have studied them well.. without personal knowledge, it would be pointless to address your personal perspectives/beliefs.. <snip>

These two statements seem to be somewhat at odds? How can you both be "very familiar with Mike Patterson's skills and his understandings of the concept of Qi" .. but yet be familiar with me only through video. I don't believe there is a single reference or statement on any of my videos regarding my belief and/or perspectives about the concept of Ch'i (Qi).

I don't visit this forum that often and I certainly have not read anything else you may have written (at least that I am aware of). But it seems to me that you are stating the obvious just to state the obvious?

So again, I will say; Well, DUH!

I mean... if you somehow feel me to be ignorant of kinetics, physics, biomechanics, etc.. you are gravely mistaken. ;)

Let me ask you a question: Do you read, write and speak Chinese? If you do not, you are at a gross disadvantage when it comes to understanding what the Chinese culture thinks of the concept of Ch'i (Qi).

Now you are certainly free to assign any value you wish to the concept of Ch'i (Qi). I will not try to change your mind. Again, I don't really care. And I don't like to involve myself in this kind of squabble. I'd rather be practicing. And, unlike you, I have been at this a very, very long time with "no time off for poor discipline". :)

If you want to say everything in the body is motivated by some sort of energy, fine. That would obviously be a statement only an idiot would disagree with. But what I thought was being discussed is what the word/concept means as stated in orginal Chinese, not what any non speaking/reading/writing westerner thinks it means.

Then again, perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this whole thread. They seldom stay on any point of origin. You can have the last word on this one, Bob.

n00854180t

06-30-2007, 07:14 PM

Hi cjurakpt,
I got two words for ya....

Dark Matter.

Haven't found that yet either, the most prevalent 'thing' in the universe, sort of like the source of 10,000 things... no wait a minute, that's called something else by Chinese philosophy...

Then there is one other thing that people feel strongly, that motivates movement and behavior, but also can't be measured, something the Amazing Randi wouldn't recognize if it walked up and hit him in the head... love.

Now I know that's The four letter word on a fighting forum...
<startphysicsrant>

Dark matter has been observed actually. It's just far more mundane and doesn't account for the BS of String Theorists and Big Bangists: It's actually just the molecular (two H atoms) form of hydrogen. Because it is *far* more stable than atomic hydrogen, it is not easily detectable by radio telescope unless it is super heated (and these are the cases where it has been detected, in galaxies with molecular hydrogen which is heated, one can detect it with radio telescopy. The fact that it nearly perfectly accounts for "missing mass" is no coincidence).
See Paul Marmet's excellent site and paper on the matter: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

Unfortunately, much of physics has been ruined or messed up to a large degree by followers of the Berkeley/Copenhagen school of thought (that nothing exists outside the mind, which they use Heisenberg's experiments to justify...gag).
</endphysicsrant>

Scott R. Brown

06-30-2007, 11:57 PM

Unfortunately, much of physics has been ruined or messed up to a large degree by followers of the Berkeley/Copenhagen school of thought (that nothing exists outside the mind, which they use Heisenberg's experiments to justify...gag).

This is actually of Buddhist and/or Hindu origin. I wouldn't gag about something you don't understand, just as you wouldn't want someone who doesn't understand physics to gag about what they don't understand.;)

n00854180t

07-01-2007, 04:48 AM

Actually, I've studied Buddhism/Hinduism quite a bit, and Berkeley/Copenhagen is a gross misinterpretation to the very least, and definitely has no place in physics. So don't just assume I haven't done my homework when you absolutely have no idea.

The fact that you think they're the same also shows a gross misunderstanding or just complete ignorance of either of the philosophies involved. Nowhere does either Buddhism or Hinduism claim that the entirety of existence is created by a single observer collapsing the quantum states of matter. Either of them in some form speak of the mind causing *suffering* in corporeal bodies, which is definitely true anyway (i.e., people create stress with their thoughts etc.). Both also speak of there being an ascended/enlightened existence and "reality" being the illusory component, but this is definitely NOT the same as Berkeley/Copenhagen. It sounds like you may be confusing things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha Amitabha creating a buddhakṣetra by his good deeds with this tripe that inadequate scientists want to push on people.

Scott R. Brown

07-01-2007, 08:47 AM

Hi n00854180t,

I realized after my post that I did not take the time to be clear enough. I was not intending to support the Berkeley/Copenhagen argument. I am unfamiliar with it and neither am I particularly interested in it.

According to your comment their conclusion is "that nothing exists outside the mind" and this is what I am commenting upon. This view is clearly asserted in Buddhist philosophy which has its origins in Hinduism. I would refer you to the "Sutra of Hiu-Neng" for starters, but this view is asserted in other sutras as well.

The reason I am uninterested in the Berkeley/Copenhagen argument is because direct experience cannot be demonstrated/proven to a certainty using rational argument. Therefore, it is immaterial whether I am familiar with it or not. That is not to say I haven't played with rational argument myself in an effort to devise a method of reaching overly rationally minded individuals. However, I consider it a mental exercise rather than an effective means of communicating information about phenomena that occur beyond the capacity of rational argument to demonstrate with a certainty.

It is your comment that led me to conclude that you do not understand "that nothing exists outside the mind". Perhaps I misunderstood your comment and you merely meant that the Berkeley/Copenhagen argument is inadequate to demonstrate this to a logical certainty. If this was your intended meaning it was not made clear in your comments.

If, as I concluded, that your view is that those who consider "that nothing exists outside the mind" are foolish then I stand by my statement that you are commenting upon something about which you have no understanding.

I would point out that studying a subject does not by necessity result in understanding. It is like a person studying the written experiences of individuals who have eaten oranges, but have never actually eaten one. Their level of understanding is limited to what others have written about it and does not extend to a comprehensive understanding of how oranges taste. One must actually taste an orange in order to have true authority concerning how an orange tastes.

If a person disregards a statement about a phenomenon with which they have no experience or limited experience their comments concerning the experience are subject to criticism.

As you felt free to comment about dark matter in order to enlighten those of us with limited knowledge or understanding concerning it, so I feel free to comment on what appeared to me to be limited understanding of the fact ""that nothing exists outside the mind".

If my conclusion concerning your comment was incorrect please feel free to help clear my misunderstanding. If my conclusion was correct then I will free to comment in order to help clear your misunderstanding as well. :)

cjurakpt

07-01-2007, 09:36 AM

re: Berkley Copenhagen & Heisenberg:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HEISENBERG/Chapter2.html

re: existence outside of mind
maybe it is an oversimplicfication, but it seems to me that you can have 2 "coexisting" states of "reality" - reality such as it is, and reality as observed and inerpreted by the mind; perhaps we could say that the "goal" of Ch'an is to bring the second as close as possible to the first? just a suggestion...

n00854180t

07-01-2007, 03:55 PM

@Scott, I'd have to say your conclusion regarding my comment is incorrect. While I understand where you're coming from in regards to Buddhism/Hinduism, there is a subtle different between them. As I noted before, it's not precisely the same and the difference is rather extreme. Followers of Berkeley/Copenhagen believe not that reality is an illusion (meant to test us) with a greater reality beyond that (which is a basic tenet of either Buddhism/Hinduism) but that any existence whatever is a physical manifestation of thought brought into being by unconsciously collapsing base matter into one of a few (or two, depends on the particle really) states. Now, a keen person can already tell that there is circular reasoning there (what is there to collapse to a state if reality doesn't exist without reference from an observer?).

However, through an equally keen reading of Buddhist/Hindu texts, it is readily apparent that the above view is not *precisely* that expressed by these philosophies. Instead, it becomes obvious that these assert that reality is the illusionary component of existence, and that we experience it as such due to our linear-sensing minds (i.e, sight, taste, touch, smell, are all linear-over-time input mechanisms). It's unfortunate that these get lumped in with the absurdities proposed by the Berkeley/Copenhagen school of thinking, but it happens nonetheless.

I don't know if I'm absolutely being clear, but I think at the very least I've shown that I do know *a little* about Buddhism/Hinduism, and that my above posts were not even directed towards them. What I do find foolish is the assertion by physicists that because of some (poorly executed...but that's another matter (regarding Heisenberg's experiments)) experiments, nothing exists outside the reference of an observer, because there is no one to collapse the state of matter into form. It's an artifact of Heisenberg's own preconceptions before conducting his experiments, and has only grown more preposterous over time. Paul Marmet's site has an excellent overview of why Heisenberg interpreted his results the way he did.

I have utmost respect for Buddhism/Hinduism and very little for the likes of people that call themselves "scientists" but fail to follow the basic guidelines required to do good science (i.e., not imposing one's own preconceptions and notions onto results, as Heisenberg did with his experiments). Of course, not knowing me you can't know that, but it's true.

@cjurakpt, I think that's a pretty good summation, actually. And I agree with it for my own reasons. To follow your summary, Berkeley/Copenhagen actually assert that the first part of reality doesn't actually exist outside the reference frame of an observer, and that there is no further part at all. Which is why I mentioned that there is a large difference between that school of thought and Buddhism/Hinduism.

TaiChiBob

07-01-2007, 04:50 PM

Greetings..

Hi Mike: You are correct in your observation of an inconsistency in my posts.. it seems that by studying your videos i developed a certain belief regarding your skills and your personality.. i was incorrect about the personality thing, as evidenced by your posts..

But it seems to me that you are stating the obvious just to state the obvious?

Well, sort of.. Since you fail to acknowledge the obvious in your post ie: And you won't find any such words in any other context definition either. At least none of which I am aware... your reference to energy relative to "Chinese boxing".. It is "my" opinion, for what it's worth, that it is irresponsible to discount the obvious to make a linguistic point.. Sure, ancient Chinese used the knowledge available "at the time" to develop the "definition" of Qi, but.. that was then, this is now, and we know more, we understand the relationship of energy to mechanics.. to assert that energy is not an essential part of the equation could lead the less experienced students to a false and detrimental conclusion..

Do you read, write and speak Chinese? If you do not, you are at a gross disadvantage when it comes to understanding what the Chinese culture thinks of the concept of Ch'i (Qi).
Yes, informally.. i am currently studying the language formally, but.. the nature of my "informal" familiarity is not so shallow as you might think.. so, while i may have some disadvantage in linguistic comparison, i am well studied in translated material, and in lengthy dialogues with those that are native Chinese scholars.. but, Kudos to you for the disciplines mastered..

And, unlike you, I have been at this a very, very long time with "no time off for poor discipline".
Well, i've been at this" since 1964, with about 2 years off in the mid '80s to start a family and a business.. but, i am not interested in comparisons of this sort.. i have already conceded skill in your favor.. my interest is in balanced perspectives presented fairly.. and, the time i have invested did yield a practical level of skill..

But what I thought was being discussed is what the word/concept means as stated in orginal Chinese, not what any non speaking/reading/writing westerner thinks it means.
Considering this perspective, i asked my Chinese language teacher the question.. her reply: Qi is energy, rice representing food and air are converted to energy by the body, as indicated by the symbol of rice and air.. i suppose there is more than just your perspective on this issue..

Now, it seems that, by your replies to me, i may have offended you in some way.. i certainly had no such intention.. if i have, i sincerely apologize.. my only intention was a differing perspective, perhaps a little broader perspective..

So, if this is the last word, i hope it is received in the spirit intended.. balanced and non-confrontational..

Be well..

Scott R. Brown

07-01-2007, 05:03 PM

Hi n00854180t,

Thank you for your response. I think you have made your point very well. I would agree that you have expressed more than a cursory understanding of Buddhism. :)

Hi cjurakpt,

I prefer to think of it as differing perspectives of reality. We interpret reality according to our mental conditioning. The mind is conditioned to interpret reality according to incorrect assumptions. The state of mind that perceives reality erroneously is referred to as the conditioned mind. The state mind that perceives reality directly without error is referred to as the unconditioned mind or the essence of mind. Taoist thought uses other terms, but they are essentially merely different expressions used for the same state/perspective of mind.

I always benefit from your comments so thank you for participating in the discussion. :)

n00854180t

07-01-2007, 07:03 PM

cjurakpt

07-01-2007, 07:12 PM

I prefer to think of it as differing perspectives of reality. We interpret reality according to our mental conditioning. The mind is conditioned to interpret reality according to incorrect assumptions. The state of mind that perceives reality erroneously is referred to as the conditioned mind. The state mind that perceives reality directly without error is referred to as the unconditioned mind or the essence of mind. Taoist thought uses other terms, but they are essentially merely different expressions used for the same state/perspective of mind.

agreed - and to add in some 20th cen. lingo, Krishnamurti uses the term (which I happen to like very much) "choiceless awareness", which I believe is essentially the same thing...

I always benefit from your comments so thank you for participating in the discussion. :)
oh, too kind, too kind - of course the feeling is quite mutual;

woliveri

07-01-2007, 08:04 PM

i asked my Chinese language teacher the question.. her reply: Qi is energy, rice representing food and air are converted to energy by the body, as indicated by the symbol of rice and air..

This is a TCM perspective and is correct. What about Universal Qi, the qi which permeates everything.

Even in TCM there are many types of qi.

Mike is right that in Chinese "qi" is used in many, many different ways. For instance, 生气.

生【shēng】give birth to; bear; grow; existence; life; livelihood; living; get
气【qì】 gas; air; breath; smell; odour; weather; airs; spirit; morale; make
angry; enrage; get angry; be enraged; bully; insult; <Chin. med.> vital
energy; energy of life.

But 生气 means to get mad, angry, to take offence.

气 has bunches and bunches of combinations in Chinese and the context of the sentence is sometimes needed to understand what someone is talking about.

Someone who studies Qigong may have or most likely will have a different idea than perhaps someone who is strictly an Internal Martial Artist. Even in Zhan Zhuang training, the ideas may be different. One may be trying to gain root, while another might be trying to open channels and increase qi.

Now, that said, I've seen some who encompass both schools of thought, perhaps like the lady TaiChiBob met, miss Cai?? A Chen style taiji practioner if I remember correctly.

Anyway, the point being, everyone looks at one thing a little different based on their training and the things they've seen and felt in the past.

woliveri

07-01-2007, 08:06 PM

By the way Bob,

Please see my Shanghai Links page for many resources on learning Chinese:

http://members.bigvalley.net/wuji/china/shanghailinks.html

Hope this helps,

Bill

Scott R. Brown

07-02-2007, 01:05 AM

@Scott, while I agree with some of your comments to cjurakpt, I think the issue is more fundamental than just the incorrect assumptions people are ingrained with. Certainly that is one part of the problem. If you've ever heard of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (and while it's flawed, I think it is so because they're missing the larger issue) that language shapes the way people compose thought? I think they touched upon the more base issue but failed to see it clearly. To explain, please do a simple thought experiment with me. Consider a non-linear system, or in fact, a non-linear reality(non-linear time component). Given a sentience that existed in this reality but could only conceive of it with linear input devices, my suspicion is that it follows that this sentience could never properly understand its non-linear reality. It would conceive all its thoughts in a fashion alien to the true nature of the external existence. I suspect this is the nature of the issue we deal with in our own reality. Perhaps not exactly the same or even close, but maybe similar.

Hi n00854180t,

I completely agree with you.

Language conditions our thought patterns which influences how we perceive reality. Language clearly affects the manner in which we interpret phenomena and controls what we perceive. I have discussed this on other threads in the past.

In short, all thought originally occurs as what I have called a “Fog of Knowing”. This Fog of Knowing is formless and non-discursive. This non-discursive, formless thought must be directly experienced to be understood. Our mind translates non-discursive thought into a linear language in order to communicate our thoughts with others.

Commonly, we are so conditioned to think in a discursive manner that we do not notice our thoughts originate in a formless state and are translated into words for communication by the mind. Of course, since thoughts/direct experience cannot be accurately communicated with words, the complete meaning or essence of thought/experience cannot be accurately communicated. I use the direct experience of the tasting of an orange to illustrate this experience. In short, the description of the taste is NOT the taste. The taste is the taste. Once we think about (translate into words) the experience of the taste of an orange we separate ourselves from the experience; we no longer experience the phenomenon directly and the quality of the experience is diminished.

Language conditions us to discursively comment upon our experiences to the extent that we no longer actually experience phenomena we comment upon it and this separates us from the essence of reality. We are so conditioned that nearly all of us think using words. Consequently we must re-condition the manner in which we perceive/think in order to return the to mind’s inherent manner of perceiving.

The "thoughtless thought" referred to in Ch'an is this non-discursive "Fog of Knowing".

I also contend that how we experience time is affected by discursive thought.

TaiChiBob

07-02-2007, 06:05 AM

Greetings..

Hi Scott: It occurrs to me that we are dealing with theoretical scenarios and applying them to "illusory" realities.. which, is a recipe for chaos..

I have recently been "simplifying" my perspectives.. by sensory examination, my physical existence is confirmed.. by thoughtful consideration, i comprehend a mental processor, my mind.. further consideration reveals information appearing in the processor that is beyond any existing frame of reference, i refer to that information as insight or intuition.. so, i deduce that as a physical being, certain information is confined by sensory input and mental analysis, and.. there is information beyond my physical/mental state that manifests itself inside the confines of my physical existence..

In "my" recent experiences, i have been less concerned with the nature of reality (having invested much time examining that subject), and more concerned with the immediate physical Living.. i have reduced my levels of experience to, as you might say, "discursive and non-discursive".. and applying both to what is in front of me.. and, rather than looking backward to the source of "insight or intuition", applying that to the immediate physical living.. after-all, that is the actual reference point we ALL have in common..

My conclusions thus far are that i have been a bit distracted from the Art of Living Well, in favor of dancing in my head.. that there are observable relationships between discursive and non-discursive thought, but.. the relationships are only evident in Living them, not in analytical academics.. i find that insight and intuition are applicable to something tangible in the physical experience, that their effects shape a more comprehensive physical experience.. i have come to regard physical existence as the Universe's Masterpiece, a remarkable intersection of Consciousness, energy, and possibility.. that so much mental pursuit of the hows and whys distracts us from the brief time we exist in the physical experience.. "non-discursive" thought reveals more of the essence of an experience, while "discursive" thought applies that essence to our current condition, physical being.. to discipline our discursive thinking to be less "label" oriented (i.e.: Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, scientist, etc...) is more experientially beneficial than Heisenberg's experiments or Schrodinger's cats.. simply because those notions are the product of physical existence.. Physical existence expands outward, an intangible consciousness seeking its tangible experience.. i am considering whether or not our "journey inward" is contradictory to the over-all process..

Back to the Qi issue, it is likely that for anything to exist there must be a medium that supports that existence.. philosophically, i find Tao to represent that medium well.. then, as a densfication of "Tao", Qi represents the energy that animates our physical being.. and, its symbology in Chinese language refers to the physical ingredients used by our physical bodies to produce that energy and support the physical being..

I was sitting on my porch one day, contemplating such intricate notions as quantum relationships, relativity, and existence as the product of consciousness.. and a Hummingbird visited my Honeysuckle Vine.. so much more profound was the visit by the Hummingbird, such clarity merged with a sudden insight/intuition of just how important it is to be present for the experience unfolding directly in front of me, that the "intricate notions" faded exponentially in levels of importance.. Odd, how such a simple thing as a passing Hummingbird so profoundly shifted my awareness.. "Life" seems so much simpler, now.. much more expressive, much more exciting.. much more "real"...

Be well..

TaiChiBob

07-02-2007, 06:23 AM

Greetings..

Hi Bill: Good to hear from you!! i hope all is well.. it was Ms. Cui Lu Yi, a remarkable Lady.. her limited english and, at that time my limited Chinese, left us with a certain gap in communication.. she did, however, give several excellent physical demonstrations of her version of Qi.. without "knowing", i speculate that she had no rigid definition of Qi.. her application of FaJing that put me on my butt was followed by her saying, "Qi", and smiling a bit impishly.. when we were hiking up in the Olympic Mountains we were engulfed by a really thichk fog for a while and Ms. Cui opened her arms and said "good Qi".. again i speculate, but.. it seemd that she was indicating a particular element other than the purely physical..

I am studying Chinese at the new Buddhist Temple here in Orlando, it's free and the teacher taught english as a second language in China.. now, she's teaching Chinese as a second language, here.. first she is teachingbasic strokes and sounds as foundation.. then, we will copy Sutras to develop a sense of imagery and context.. then, we will develop conversational skills.. she says it will take about 3 years to be generally conversant and reasonably literate.. she was happy that i had some existing skills.. Thanks for the Links..

Be well..

woliveri

07-02-2007, 07:13 AM

oh, she's using Sutras to teach Chinese... ouch!

I hope she's using other material as well as that's a tough way to go.

TaiChiBob

07-02-2007, 07:20 AM

Greetings..

Hi Bill: Yep, that was my first reaction.. but, they ARE Buddhists :).. any way, she says that we will spend the first 6 months on basics.. phonics and inflection seem to be the toughest for me, that and the multiple use of sounds that sound exactly alike to represent wildly different concepts.. but, on the bright side, the teacher is patient and tolerates western humor quite well..

Be well..

woliveri

07-02-2007, 08:04 AM

Hi Bob,

I'm curious, do you know where she's from in China? Where she taught English?

Also, there used to be a Chinese American association set up for Chinese in Orlando to study Chinese (mostly for their children who were born in the US). I think it should be there and you could probably make some good contacts there. At least find some friends to practice with. When I was in Kissimmee I took advantage of such a place and it was either free or a very low fee.

mantis108

07-02-2007, 12:13 PM

n00854180t

07-03-2007, 03:45 AM

Mantis, agreed, it is quite in line with Hindu thought. However, I personally lean more to Buddhism for the reasons you mention (among others). I think that only by expressing the contradictions of our assumptions to reality may we gain a better understanding.

I also think that Sapir-Whorf were onto something, but there have been many critics of their theories. As I noted, I think this is due to the fact that they were touching on a more generalized issue that they failed to notice: that is, that human input organs are entirely linear-over-time mechanisms. This, I think, influences our thought even more fundamentally than language (since obviously, these inputs are the foundation of language and thought).

I also think you may be right (critical mass), though I strongly think that keen analysis of the assumptions we make is also important.

woliveri

07-03-2007, 04:40 AM

I tend to stay away from any Religion which uses "negative reinforcement" in it's teachings.

You all are much more educated than I on this subject but why must there be "18 levels of hell" or "follow this or you'll burn in hell forever", etc, etc.

I've totally been turned off by most, if not all religions and only the Tao has been left in my view.

n00854180t

07-03-2007, 05:36 AM

Well, I may be totally mistaken Woliveri, but from my understanding, Buddhism at least only has negative reinforcement in the sense that the typical "pleasures" et al are one of the causes of suffering in general. As I recall, there isn't really a concept of "evil" per se, just that actions that will contribute to suffering or take one away from the path of awakening (i.e., doing violence, excessive pleasures (recall that Guatama Buddha ate meat (if I remember correctly) before he passed on, according to the legends)).

Hinduism is a little different in this regard (people correct me if I'm wrong, I am going on little sleep and half memories) as one may be reincarnated as an unpleasant form or end up in a "hell" of sorts, though these differ extremely from the Judeo-Christian "Hell" in quite a few ways. I think it is actually much more similar to the Egyptian underworld in some ways. However, I am personally not religious, but have great interest in the study of certain religions (though I am wary of classing either Hinduism or Buddhism (especially) in with the likes of Judeo-Christian religions) for philosophical reasons. Buddhism is known as the "Middle Way" for a fairly good reason in that it does not necessarily advocate the extreme asceticism of Hinduism, but more an awareness of the causes of one's own suffering (and truly, the lexicon and concepts used to express these were extremely advanced to the point of even classifying the emotional causes of human action, which were not understood at such a level in "Western" science until quite recently).

Also, apologies for the thread hijack!

woliveri

07-03-2007, 07:10 AM

TaiChiBob

07-03-2007, 07:42 AM

Greetings..

Here's the rub.. all the while we are conceptualizing so many theories and possible "realities", we do so from an inescapable "human" perspective.. Religions, philosophies, etc.. are the product of "human" experience, often interpreted as "Divine", but experienced and communicated in "human" conceptual terms.. Each human's time for the physical experience is limited by the operational length of service of the physical body.. not accounting for reincarnation, if such a notion is an actuallity.. My point is that we are here, Now.. blessed with the opportunity to have a physical experience of an intangible condition.. energy condensed into matter, endowed with consciousness and self-awareness.. it is a beautiful thing to use the mind so creatively as to speculate so many interpretations of the nature of existence.. so much more-so beautiful to simply Live it..

Hence, i, like Bill (woliveri), find comfort in the simplicity of Taoist thought.. Tao seems to have little to no conditional dogma, it is a reverence and seeking of the natural (existent) rhythms amd cycles that support Life as we know it.. Tao seeks the unprejudiced direct experience as witness to, and as a guide for, Living Well.. it seeks the common threads of consistency in our experience of Living, and builds on the harmonies..

Does the butterfly dream the man or does the man dream the butterfly? Whichever is the case, i am fully aware of the "man's" perspective and only witness the butterfly's existence.. i can struggle to know the nature of that devious little question, or.. i can simply admire the butterfly's existence and go back to training.. go back to living in the Now.. i examine Life, its processes, its necessities, and.. i try to find the most beneficial expression of Living in this physical gift.. i'll have plenty of time to explore the mysteries of the Cosmos after my physical vehicle expires..

"Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional".. simple enough, Buddha could have stopped right there.. but, heck no!! he decides to create some contrived system for mitigating the suffering, which is self-imposed anyway.. better to understand the need to suffer, than seek its elimination.. it obviously serves a purpose.. One man's perception has motivated millions to struggle against their "nature".. people will suffer until it no longer serves them, they don't need Buddha or anyone else to navigate that element of reality.. endless cycles of reincarnation to "get it right" seems contrary to the simplicity evident in the observable physics of existence..

Mankind has explored these philosophies and these sciences to the "nth" degree, and still.. we get up, we live our days, we sleep, we nourish ourselves.. we Live.. precious little benefit has manifested from such "spiritual" endeavors, but.. much harm has been perpetuated in the name of religion and philosophy.. so, i have come to respect the entertainment aspect of such notions as religion, philosophy and the search for the meaning of existence.. yet, i have so much more respect for the person that simply Lives in harmony with their environment and their brothers and sisters..

Be well...

n00854180t

07-03-2007, 08:27 AM

Well, my knowledge of the core beliefs or practices are good. However, as I've been to lectures on Buddhism in Buddhist Temples, hugh amounts of time are spent on the "many levels of hell", "reincarnation into animals", etc. They also had defined the many directions which the spirit can go after death with pin-point accuracy.

I've even had one place show me pictures of half man, half fish, to "prove" what might happen if we are not "good students"...

This, in my opinion, is what happens when "religion" over takes "spirituality".

Then you sir, definitely know more than me :p I am only a passing study of such things, and am prone to putting my own interpretation too far into them perhaps. But again, I am not religious really in the slightest, and understand well that things quickly become absurd when crossing into the realm of "belief" from that of "ideas."

@TaiChiBob, I agree, but am at work so no time for a proper reply!

Scott R. Brown

07-03-2007, 10:44 AM

I agree with Shrek when he says, “Ogres are like onions, they have layers!” I would expand it a bit and say “Life is like an onion, it has layers!” Each layer has purpose, meaning and value according to the level of understanding and goals of the individual. Those with lesser understanding perceive life according to a more limited context while those with greater understanding perceive life according to a more expanded context. This should not be misunderstood to mean those who perceive according to a more limited context are of lesser value or importance as individuals. These individuals have lesser understanding in a manner similar to a person who has a lesser understanding of, let us say, advanced mathematics, than those who have studied advanced mathematics. Nearly everyone has the potential to learn and understand advanced mathematics; it is just that some individuals are not interested in putting in the time and effort to do so. There must be some perceived benefit in order for an individual to choose to put in the time an effort. Not everyone is inclined to expand their understanding of the underlying principles of life, therefore they are satisfied living according to a more superficial perspective, and this is okay!

I will use my favorite visual metaphor to illustrate my meaning more completely; the Old Woman/Young Woman optical illusion. If you are not familiar with the Old Woman/Young Woman illustration please see the link below.

This illustration may be perceived according to a number of perspectives/contexts. An individual may perceive the illustration as:

1) Just the Old Woman,
2) Just the Young Woman,
3) The Old Woman when they so choose or the Young Woman when they so choose,
4) Neither the Old Woman nor the Young Woman, i.e. just a bunch of lines and colors randomly composed.
5) An Old Woman AND a Young Woman together superimposed upon each other,
6) All of the Above!

None of these perspectives is inherently incorrect, but only one perspective is a “complete perspective” (#6: if you couldn’t guess, ;) ). If a person perceives according to the #6 perspective they have the freedom to perceive any of the other perspectives according to their purpose at the time. This person is the most free so to speak because they are not limited or bound to only one or two of the potential perspectives. This person with the more complete perspective would be said then to have greater understanding and so it is with spiritual understanding or understanding of advanced mathematics.

Religions tend to complicate themselves over time according to the needs of individuals and the community. Rituals and fantastic (foolish?) beliefs serve social and psychological needs. While they do not always accurately reflect the larger perspective they do have seeds of the larger perspective that adherents may discern when they are ready to expand their limited perspective.

We often find those who perceive the larger or more complete perspective attempting to direct those of limited perspective to perceive the larger perspective. Bodhidharma was trying to direct the Emperor of Wu to the larger perspective when he told him that he gained no merit by building temples and donating for the benefit of Buddhists. Outward actions are not a true reflection of inward transformation. According to Bodhidharma outward actions confer felicitations, that is, good karma on the physical plane, but do not transform ones inner condition; inner transformation confers merits. When we are inwardly transformed our reason for performing “good” actions (donations that benefit Buddhists, for Emperor Wu) is different and the actions become pure so to speak.

The world always benefits from good actions, it is the individual who does not necessarily benefit in a spiritual (merits) sense if they have not understood from a more complete perspective.

Scott R. Brown

07-03-2007, 10:51 AM

Hi Bob,

It occurs to me that we are dealing with theoretical scenarios and applying them to "illusory" realities.. which, is a recipe for chaos..

I understand your point, but I must disagree. What I have described is not theoretical; it is “one” manner of describing the process that occurs when we translate formless thought into formed concepts, linear words. This process is directly perceivable for anyone who has learned to perceive it. Words do influence how we perceive and contribute to a limited perspective. I might add this is a well understood process that is discussed in both Taoist and Ch’an writings.

On the other hand, there is nothing that may not be considered as illusory according to a specific context/perspective. All perspectives attend to them specific rules and principles. Rules and principles provide structure to specific perspectives which allow them to be understood, experienced and discussed according to their context.

Chaos is just another form of Order and Order is just another form of Chaos!

In "my" recent experiences, i have been less concerned with the nature of reality (having invested much time examining that subject), and more concerned with the immediate physical Living.. i have reduced my levels of experience to, as you might say, "discursive and non-discursive".. and applying both to what is in front of me.. and, rather than looking backward to the source of "insight or intuition", applying that to the immediate physical living.. after-all, that is the actual reference point we ALL have in common..

I agree with this process of perception. From my perspective it is but one of many potential perspectives from which we may learn and experience life. Each perspective has its purpose and benefits according to specific contexts; I choose not to try not to limit my perspectives to any one means or method, but expand my perceptive potentials. To me this creates a flexible means of learning and understanding. Greater flexibility of perception/perspectives/contexts results in greater freedom.

My conclusions thus far are that i have been a bit distracted from the Art of Living Well, in favor of dancing in my head.. that there are observable relationships between discursive and non-discursive thought, but.. the relationships are only evident in Living them, not in analytical academics.. i find that insight and intuition are applicable to something tangible in the physical experience, that their effects shape a more comprehensive physical experience.. i have come to regard physical existence as the Universe's Masterpiece, a remarkable intersection of Consciousness, energy, and possibility.. that so much mental pursuit of the hows and whys distracts us from the brief time we exist in the physical experience.. "non-discursive" thought reveals more of the essence of an experience, while "discursive" thought applies that essence to our current condition, physical being.. to discipline our discursive thinking to be less "label" oriented (i.e.: Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, scientist, etc...) is more experientially beneficial than Heisenberg's experiments or Schrodinger's cats.. simply because those notions are the product of physical existence.. Physical existence expands outward, an intangible consciousness seeking its tangible experience.. i am considering whether or not our "journey inward" is contradictory to the over-all process..

These are very thought provoking comments Bob. I think we should keep a few things in mind here:

Discursive and non-discursive thought both serve specific functions. Neither is to be necessarily considered of greater or lesser value. We use discursive thought to communicate our non-discursive experiences with one and other, so we need not discard discursive thinking. But to dwell in a perpetual state of discursive thought is limiting to our understanding and appreciation of Tao. Clinging to either discursive thought or non-discursive thought has the potential of trapping our minds and thus limiting our freedom of perception/experience.

The second thing to remember is that discussing a principle, thinking about it, and understanding it discursively is not the same thing as doing it. In short we could say, “Stop thinking about it, just do it!” but we must remember that for many people understanding precedes doing. For these individuals intellectual exploration is the method by which they come to learn about the non-discursive mind.

Each individual has their own inclinations and personality. Each person is reached and will learn and grow according to their inclinations and personality. Some people are intellectually inclined, some are poetically inclined, some are emotionally inclined, some are action oriented, etc. Each inclination may lead to the same goal. As I have mentioned in the past, Hui-Neng recommends using “useful expedients” to reach each person according to their inclinations and personality. This is the principle of flexibility in action and one I favor.

There is nothing wrong with using labels/words and strict meanings to distinguish thoughts, principles, and processes, etc. We need only understand that the context changes according to the circumstances and the individuals involved. Again, flexibility is the principle here; for me the purpose is to develop the ability to apply words, labels, metaphors etc. effectively according to the context at the time.

I was sitting on my porch one day, contemplating such intricate notions as quantum relationships, relativity, and existence as the product of consciousness.. and a Hummingbird visited my Honeysuckle Vine.. so much more profound was the visit by the Hummingbird, such clarity merged with a sudden insight/intuition of just how important it is to be present for the experience unfolding directly in front of me, that the "intricate notions" faded exponentially in levels of importance.. Odd, how such a simple thing as a passing Hummingbird so profoundly shifted my awareness.. "Life" seems so much simpler, now.. much more expressive, much more exciting.. much more "real"...

My intention here is in no way intended to diminish your experience. I would like to return to the principle of flexibility, or perhaps illustrate the variety in which Tao may be expressed and experienced by pointing out that while you find meaning and expression of Tao in the simple experience of watching a hummingbird, there are others who find the same experience through the consideration of more rational pursuits such as Quantum relationships. One is not inherently preferable to the other. Each provides unique experiences according to its context. All things are expressions of Tao, therefore anything and everything points to Tao. Each person will come to appreciation and understanding according to their unique inclinations and personality.

From my perception your nature is expressed very poetically and that is to be appreciated. It is not any less valid or valuable then hard science. Each provides a different experience of Tao. From my personal view I try to adhere to the principle of flexibility and try to appreciate the expressions of Tao from as many perspectives as I am able.

As always I appreciate reading your thoughts, thank you for expressing them. :)

Scott R. Brown

07-04-2007, 05:16 AM

Hi Bob,

i, like Bill (woliveri), find comfort in the simplicity of Taoist thought.. Tao seems to have little to no conditional dogma, it is a reverence and seeking of the natural (existent) rhythms amd cycles that support Life as we know it.. Tao seeks the unprejudiced direct experience as witness to, and as a guide for, Living Well.. it seeks the common threads of consistency in our experience of Living, and builds on the harmonies..

To consider Tao at all and to choose to follow its principles is to contrive a dogma. Living in accord with Tao does not happen spontaneously at first, it occurs as a choice and practice follows. This is contrivance. There is nothing wrong with contrivance. To contrive is part of the nature of man. The question is, do we control our contrivances or do our contrivances control us?

Does the butterfly dream the man or does the man dream the butterfly? Whichever is the case, i am fully aware of the "man's" perspective and only witness the butterfly's existence.. i can struggle to know the nature of that devious little question, or.. i can simply admire the butterfly's existence and go back to training.. go back to living in the Now.. i examine Life, its processes, its necessities, and.. i try to find the most beneficial expression of Living in this physical gift.. i'll have plenty of time to explore the mysteries of the Cosmos after my physical vehicle expires..

This too is contrivance.

"Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional".. simple enough, Buddha could have stopped right there.. but, heck no!! he decides to create some contrived system for mitigating the suffering, which is self-imposed anyway.. better to understand the need to suffer, than seek its elimination.. it obviously serves a purpose.. One man's perception has motivated millions to struggle against their "nature".. people will suffer until it no longer serves them, they don't need Buddha or anyone else to navigate that element of reality.. endless cycles of reincarnation to "get it right" seems contrary to the simplicity evident in the observable physics of existence..

You misunderstand Buddha’s intention. Buddhism is not a contrivance that teaches people to struggle against their nature. Struggling against ones nature is a natural process of being human. It is by struggling against it that we learn to flow with it. It is the contrasting of the two that teaches man to accommodate to Tao. As such it is in man’s nature to seek to avoid pain and suffering. To transcend pain and suffering is not to ignore or refuse to learn from it. One does not learn to “live with” hitting ones finger with the hammer when nailing. By hitting ones finger one learns NOT to hit their finger in the future. To contrive a means to avoid hitting ones finger is not against the principles of Tao, it is Tao in its process.

The purpose of pain and suffering is as a measure to inform us when and what actions and attitudes are harmful. Any method used to understand this and transcend it is part of the natural process of Tao. The key is as I have already mentioned, do we use the method or does the method use us. It is not Buddhism or Christianity or Taoism that is where the error is located, but in the mind of man.

To tell someone they are suffering because they choose to suffer is incredibly insensitive and uncompassionate. When a child is crying because they have tied their shoe laces in an inextricable knot you do not tell them it is of their own doing and leave them to enjoy the experience. You teach them how to untie it and then how to avoid creating another inextricable knot in the future. This is where compassion is found. When the child ties another inextricable knot, they are treated with patience and understanding and guided through the process of untying once again.

Mankind has explored these philosophies and these sciences to the "nth" degree, and still.. we get up, we live our days, we sleep, we nourish ourselves.. we Live.. precious little benefit has manifested from such "spiritual" endeavors, but.. much harm has been perpetuated in the name of religion and philosophy.. so, i have come to respect the entertainment aspect of such notions as religion, philosophy and the search for the meaning of existence.. yet, i have so much more respect for the person that simply Lives in harmony with their environment and their brothers and sisters..

Once again Bob, this attitude is itself a contrivance not better or worse than any other used to teach or manipulate others. The teaching, manipulation and harm caused by religion and philosophy do not originate from the religion or philosophy they originate from men. The common denominator is always man. To condemn or discard any method is to not understand its natural and spontaneous place in Tao or its natural accordance with Tao. For the abuses found within all methods we must place the responsibility where it belongs. Inability to accept the expressions of Tao we find odious creates just another contrivance to be overcome/let go of!

TaiChiBob

07-04-2007, 05:42 AM

Greetings..

Hi Scott: Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful reply.. as always, you present thought-provoking alternatives.. I suppose the primary distinction in perceptions among most "seekers" is between a mechanical "explanation" (science) and an organic "experience" (Tao).. and, i do tend to distinguish a difference.. while at the same time acknowledging the Tao as present in ALL things.. experiencing life/existence as an "organism", whole and complete within itself, a living continuity, abandons the need to discect it.. it is, of itself so, not something constructed of parts.. the concept of "mutually arising" applied to consciousness suggests that consciousness mutually expresses its contrasting compliment, energy.. from which, like a seed, the universe/life/existence simply grows a Universal Organism..

One evening some years back, some friends and i were discussing the "layered Onion" effect.. and during that conversation someone suggested that as we peeled back the final layer.. it revealed the seeker peeling another onion.. a good giggle at the time, but subsequent consideration suggests more than i first thought.. which led me to the following statement which i still regard as one of my personal axioms.. "we are traveling to where we have always been, from ignorance to enlightenment.. awareness is the vehicle.." it's all the same, a unified organic experience.. the only variable is our awareness of it..

Anyway, a short reply as i must engage the day.. Be Well..

n00854180t

07-04-2007, 08:47 AM

Greetings..
[snip]

I was sitting on my porch one day, contemplating such intricate notions as quantum relationships, relativity, and existence as the product of consciousness.. and a Hummingbird visited my Honeysuckle Vine.. so much more profound was the visit by the Hummingbird, such clarity merged with a sudden insight/intuition of just how important it is to be present for the experience unfolding directly in front of me, that the "intricate notions" faded exponentially in levels of importance.. Odd, how such a simple thing as a passing Hummingbird so profoundly shifted my awareness.. "Life" seems so much simpler, now.. much more expressive, much more exciting.. much more "real"...

Be well..

This here is the crux of the issue. You were sitting contemplating complex notions about existence, and probably had done so in other ways prior to specifically these areas of science (QM, etc.). Now, if you were a man that did not contemplate, would the humming bird alighting onto the vine seem nearly as profound? Perhaps he might have noticed the passing beauty, but it would not be nearly so moving an experience as it is to the man that does contemplate such things. It is only with these contrasts that this become apparent. So I think there is inherent value in contemplative thought, but it is when it becomes more than a tool to greater awareness that it can be a hindrance rather than a boon.

Myself, I've studied just enough science to recognize that there are largely "broken" areas of physics (astrophysics, cosmology, QM in some ways) and that it would be not so worth my time to dwell on these as to make the most of my time in other ways. But I feel that not learning enough to decide that would have been a detriment. I managed to pick up some useful skills along the way as well (adv. maths).

Scott R. Brown

07-04-2007, 09:04 AM

Hi Bob,

One of the potential errors in your view that I perceive as a reoccurring theme is the consideration that others “need” to dissect Tao/the continuity of being, rather than choose too. This view tends towards the insistence that the glass is “half empty” rather than “half full”! You must consider that those who dissect Tao/the continuity of being do so for the enjoyment of the process. There is much to be learned and enjoyed from either perspective and neither is inherently better or worse than the other. There is no need to “abandon dissecting Tao” as there is no inherent negative value to the endeavor. In fact, to consider the endeavor a negative quality is to participate in contrivance. We fall into error not when we choose to dissect Tao, or when we choose to experience the continuity of Tao; we fall into error when we cling to one perspective over another or establish one as of more inherent value than the other. Each practice provides a unique perspective of Tao. The benefit is individually enjoyed. Benefit or detriment occurs as an individual consequence, not as a universal occurrence. Detriment is not found inherently within any specific view or activity; detriment occurs as a consequence of clinging to one view over another. This goes back to my previous comments concerning flexibility of mind and perspective. It is clinging that produces erroneous perception/experience not any one particular perspective. Tao contains both perspectives and many more; each has value according to its context.

"we are traveling to where we have always been, from ignorance to enlightenment.. awareness is the vehicle.." it's all the same, a unified organic experience.. the only variable is our awareness of it..

Very well said! It is all just a game; there is no where to go and there is no hurry getting there, there is merely the journey and how we choose to make it.

Some other thoughts concerning contrivance:

Taoist and Ch’an writings teach that non-contrivance is born out of contrivance. We use method (contrived means) in order to rise above method (uncontrived spontaneity). This is a well established process in Japanese Zen and is well demonstrated in their methods of Tea ceremony, Flower arranging, etc.

This process is also well illustrated in Chuang-Tzu’s story of The Butcher. The Butcher did not just one day pick up his utensils and spontaneously become in tune with the processes of the Tao of Butchery. He learned the mechanical process from another butcher and then applied himself to practicing those mechanics. This is contrived behavior. As his ability improved his dependence on intellectually applying himself diminished until his skill became a spontaneous expression of Tao. His skill eventually transcended intellectual thought through the contrived process of practicing the mechanics of butchery. From contrived action sprang un-contrived skill of itself (tzu-jan). That is, the contrive actions produced spontaneous skill simply as a natural consequence of the practice.

The potential for expressing un-contrived skill is inherent within all human endeavors. It is not what you do, but how and why you do it!

Always a pleasure my friend! :)