Listening to the Beatles, spiritual practice

If my dad had any other taste in music I could have been suing him for abuse but luckily it was mainly Dylan, Neil Young and other greats and then about 90% of all other time music was being played it was the Beatles. I heard a lot of Beatles. Hum a tune and I can tell you the next song on the album that would follow the one you hum.

Within the lyrics of the Beatles, especially the later stuff (my favorite) was a load of rubbish, stuff that fitted a particular melody, but also some great lines. Harrison was perhaps the most Spiritual, Lennon the most visionary and McCartney was no slouch. Even Ringo in his limited writings came out with some winners.

I can't think of them all now but will rattle off a few:

Here there and everywhere - McCartney

I am he as you are me as ... - Lennon

within you and without you - Harrison

New spiritual language

The new greeting when meeting is "I" - meaning "Hello my infinite self" and also recognition of the I in you and the I in them being one and the same.

The ultimate shall be called "I" as there is no difference between I and I.

The root of ego shall be called "I" as it likes the name.

Mind shall be called "I-mind" or "I-thought" and shall not be given much credence.

Feelings or references of individual self shall be called "I-self" or "I" for short.

An object, say computer, shall be called "computer" and we will adopt all other nouns from the well known and popular English language.

Ownership of objects will not carry the same weight as in English though and computer will be know to be owned by I.

"I, Can I borrow I computer?"

"I, sure, it belongs to I." 

"I, ok, I just wanted to blog on I blog about a new language. I return to I after."

"I it's ok, I can keep it." 

Divisions and relative concepts shall always be given the prefix "f'n" (fake notion).

"Where shall we meet?"

"Hmm, how about in the park near the f'n-large I-duck pond at f'n-one o'clock?"

"Are we f'n-expecting f'n-good f'n-weather?"

"yes, same f'n-weather all f'n-week"

"I f'n-see you there about f'n-one then." 

You can tell this is already quite similar to the spoken language of now but unifies swearing and removes the need for f'n spiritual inquest by f'n just calling everything f'n one from the f'n outset.

Hinduism vs Taoism

Not a serious investigation, you may not do well to quote this in school.

Hinduism has a f a n t a s t i c language for the inquiry into self.

Taoism doesn't really bother.

Hinduism can give you (at least) 5 names for versions of the self, 5 names for the name of God, 5 names for types of breathing, 5 names for ways to sit, 5 names for ways to lay your hand...

Taoism, ..doesn't really bother.

Hindus have Brahman, Brahma, Siva, Vishnu, and and endless list of other gods..

Taosim has none. But does have terms; Tao, Te, Yin Yang, Tai Chi, Gua and some others.

Given a multitude of Gods in Hinduism they are all aspects of the ultimate, Brahman.

Taoism has the above terms which all resolve to Tao.

Tao and Brahman are incredibly similar conceptually in that they are out of the bounds of reason, knowing, duality and so on. They are effectively the same thing and for me are absolutely the same, but Tao is easier to type.

The Hindus have their way, the Chinese another.

~~~

When it comes down to it, it must be said that Taoism is a lot more direct. Given the Tao Te Ching a person will have a pretty good idea of what is meant. Given a Hindu text, will probably be more than impressed by the poetic and wonderful stories but will likely, especially if not Indian, be a left a few dhal short of a curry.

While more straightforward though, the Tao is quite well complimented by the Indian wisdom. We all know of Zen and its predecessor Chan is just that; Hinduism, boiled down to Buddhism and boiled in a bag with Taoism. Taoism is straightforward and direct but the Hindus spiritual vocabulary is very useful for people to describe what they feel and explain unique concepts.

I for one thoroughly enjoy the Indian ideas on the self and inquiry. I like some stories but not so many. I find their vocabulary, although I surely butcher it, very useful. I find what many of their thinkers say very beneficial and consider it to be pointing right at truth.

Taoism though, as you'll get from the blog title is my root. Simple and clear pointing.

If you're not bowled over by that analysis then re read the disclaimer at top.

Can not be burned by fire

Why can't the person of Tao be burned by fire? How are they free from death?

The person of Tao is not attached to the body or forms and is beyond the universe in scope. Life and death are the coming and going of forms and their body is yet another of these. For this body to occur the mother divided herself and any new body is a continuation of the long line of 'human being' which is itself part of an ongoing line of life, this has no real death just reconfiguration. Mother becomes mother becomes son becomes father becomes daughter becomes mother. Each mother like a point where a branch divides and each father like where a branch grows seed.

There have never been two Oak trees, one tree is a continuation of the other. The labels of new sapling and old dead tree miss how one became the other in cycle, never ceasing.

That which is living, when recognized, removes death and renames it. Beyond even that which seems to be living is a place where words become faded in use and function. Beyond that is Tao.

On Suffering

Suffering is a mind state and is induced upon others by those who operate from the mind or ego. Suffering is ended by re-merging with the Tao and this comes in 3 ways. In wake, in sleep in death. Sleep is the most simple and we do it daily, wake is most beneficial as it can be used to help others, death is inevitable. It definitely being preferential to live absent of suffering than to hold out for death. But either way the cycle lives on.

Any re-merging is cyclic but separation and non-separation are in the mind. Separating and re-merging, or feeling in constant separation, are Samsara. Realizing non-separation is Nirvana. Yet Nirvana and Samsara are one and only given label and existence by the mind.

Slay mind, slay body, slay
The external: matter goes.
Then space remains; renew the pains!
Up! Front the final foes!

Slay space; then Naught abides.
Hold on thine holy hand!
When Naught gives back before the attack,
Serene thy Silence stand!

Ch'ing-ching Ching

This theatrical poem speaks of the act as if a battle. Yet no one is there to have the battle. Any battle with mind can be won with non-interaction. Ego and mind play their game and self simply has to hold true and they will give up.

You are deep asleep, then mind (little mind) comes on and gives rise to the ego. Ego will begin to paint pictures and play its game of shapes and forms. These are dreams. At a time you awaken when mind and ego are already in full flow. Ego paints the world for you and taints it to any presets the mind has. Bad morning or "oh so good to be alive" came from the presets mind had sitting in potential.

Meditation the night before, a particularly good sleep, absence of major mind issues or other factors can give you a nice start to the day but this day is owned by mind and ego. The practice now is to always uncover the true self before they get carried away.

Suffering is for those who allow the ego and mind to rule. Grand suffering of nations is because they allowed a leader to take guide of a ship, a ship of mind captained by a big ego.

The fear and limitations carried by ego make for a ship you would be best not sailing on.

I-I

Anyone who is interested, please try the following meditation and report back in the comments section.

It is a method in another Sri Ramana Maharshi book I just dipped into.

You simply sit and repeat I I I (with attention inwards and repetition internally also), perhaps in time with your heart or at any similar comfortable pace.

I found this quite amazing having never done it before. The ego it seems LOVES to say I and so is completely transfixed by the process. All you are left with it seems is the watcher, the consciousness of the event, at peace.

Lovely.

Ask the Yogi

Will I find Enlightenment through Yoga?

Yes, if it is under your toes.

Reflections

Solala Towler is responsible for a very nice and fairly modern Taoist story. In the Kings castle, Confucians and Taoists are placed either side of a grand hallway which is separated by a curtain. Both are set the task of impressing the King by displaying their knowledge. The Confucians set out with earnest to paint their wall with the most delightful picture ever to be seen. The Taoists get drunk and rub their wall with dry cloths.

Come the day the King, who was aware of all the work the Confucians had done to impress him, stood and admired their painting. It was great indeed. As if to shame the lazy, drunk, Taoists he withdrew the curtain that separated the two parties. What blew the King and the Confucians mind was amid the mess of rags, empty bottles and drunken Taoists was a perfect, yet more perfect, shining 3D rendering of the Confucians painting, yet with more depth and clarity. One Taoist hiccuped, "Wu Wei", farted, fell over and passed out.

(Solala didn't write it quite that way)

The mind is a reflection of the true self but is tainted. The lake reflects the passing clouds and forgets them instantly. Emptiness is fullness. Simple truths sound stupid.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

What is Mind What is self?

Someone asked "What is Mind What is self?" and the reply was an action. The master leaned forward slightly and knocked twice on the floor. "tap tap".

Atman is fake too, and Tao is on rocky ground

I think the Buddha beat me to this one by a few years but this idea of Atman, the recognition of the root of life in all of us (or however you wish to translate this concept) is not real.

This quote also reinforces the point and I hope I do not take it out of context as my source is not great: (on the necessity of finding Atman)

"Without contacting the entity that is imputed, You will not apprehend the absence of that entity"
Bodhicaryāvatāra

I like that, quite a lot, and will take it to mean what I want it to mean as if it does not I will restate it now in my own words.

You must inquire wholly to each idea to be able to convince yourself without doubt that it is absent of reality.

Having worked on the reality of God, The Ego, the Self, I, Consciousness, and so on to the point of certainty that none either exist, have reality, or even the possibility of a reality, then this concept of Atman had to be next. Now, there are serious get-out clauses for Atman as so many definitions exist that it can be like catching a wet bar of soap - but it has no reality. Mainly for it being something we can know it has to fail the reality test. I don't want to thrash out the details but as something known it becomes unreal.

The only thing that can have reality is not a thing. So, what should be said is that no thing can have reality. Only Tao, with the risk of blemishing the only word I have left, can have reality as by definition it is that which can not be named (although it has name) and falls squarely outside the bounds of definition, duality and so on.

Importantly, and if I post anymore I am simply going to have to post blank pages, Tao can not be known as knower would make for duality and delimit Tao to thing. OK, this is very well stated in the first verse of the Tao Te Ching but we all fall into the trap of talking about it.

As Tao can not be known then it fits the statement of Bodhicaryāvatāra in that it proves its non absence.

I have to leave this open here and there is a gaping hole that someone can poke a small whale through but language simply ceases to be of any use here.

Back to the meditation cushion for me.