Zen tao and crazy wisdom?

Post Reply New Topic

What are your guyses thoughts on these three? I love crazy wisdom. Aslan is tao. lol

I just know a little about Taoism. It seems to be mostly about perspective then rules or commandments. Or having a steadiness in dealing with life and trying to understand the Nature of things or "The Way" of things.

I know a bit about Buddhism but not sure what specifically Zen deals with.

zen is basically a combination of taoism and buddhism started in china as chan from the sanskrit word dhayana meaning contemplation or meditation. which is why in some forms of zen you meditate for like 8 hours a day or more.

Chán or Zen I can kind of relate to, especially the bit that is without thinking. Also Zen discipline is similar to operand conditioning, and a good approach to life. I like the idea of hard work, rather just stereotypical image of meditation being valid practice. In fact Kung Fu, is translated as hard work not martial art as most people think.

I'm an atheist, but it is true that you can regulate the brain's state, by virtue of breaking out of the normal neurotic thought or inner dialogue and just focusing the body and breathing. My cousin showed on fMRI visual perceptional dominance could be held for many minutes on on side by monks,something that is normally switching all the time the 'dominance' merely being the side with the greater incidence.

The control contemplating suffering didn't have the same effect.

It is a neuro-physiological skill rather then religious, but it is the dedication that enables them to be so good at it. It makes sense if you think about it. If you try order your brain or use your inner dialogue, it won't work because 'you' are just a sub function of you frontal lobe in essence. You basically have to get over you inner dialogue to have any change of controlling the brain state in that way.

Any form of Buddhism is a religion and has doctrine, but that part of it is anti-doctrine and a great thing, that I have personally benefited from it.

More effective still is some neuro-feedback which is capable of the same thing without years of practice. Other Bio-feedback technique work to some extent too. However on the move, it is great you don't need any equipment.

Chinese mysticism I tolerate up to point, but there is also a harmful side to it such as the less savory aspects of Chinese medicine, and the amount of money spent of getting body part of animals, at all costs, with no regard to the consequences.

lol

I've read some people tried to use Taoism as a basis for crude Alchemy drinking crazy potions. I think any time people try to think of sensible ways to live life some other people come along and attach their Demi-Gods or ancestral spirits to it.

yes drinking mercury and eating gunpowder.

intent intent intent!
let your tantien bellow out with pride

Sometimes a koan is best served with ice cream.

Pinkie pie is enlightene. You sure koans arent like cupcakes?

Hohoho, this thread is somehow related to one of my current special interests--a political ideology known as "The Taoism of the Yellow Emperor and the Old Sage". I have stolen some points from various Chinese websites. 1, 2, 3... MONOLOGUE!

Note 1: It reached its zenith during the early years of the Han Dynasty. During that period of time, sorcerers and scholars had a love-hate relationship with each other. Sorcerers popularized various potions and spells through Taoism while scholars gave rulers advice on how they could apply Taoist principles to politics.
Note 2: It isn't pure Taoism. It's actually a hybrid of Legalism ("carrot and stick") and Taoism.

1. A ruler shouldn't punish all criminals equally severely. He whose sins are mild should be punished lightly. He whose sins are grave should be punished severely. Never punish criminals' families and friends; punishing the criminals themselves will suffice.
2. Never pardon a criminal just because he is rich and powerful. Never torture a criminal just because he is poor and powerless. Everyone should be aware of the nation's laws, otherwise people might break laws unknowingly. Rewards and punishments should be codified, otherwise officials might mete out rewards and punishments according to their own whims.
3. A ruler should utter righteous words and do righteous deeds at all times. A ruler should remember that anything that he says or does will affect Heaven, Earth and all Four Oceans.
4. A ruler who rules as though he is non-existent is the most powerful ruler among rulers because his power has enveloped the universe. (My own analogy: Replace "ruler" with "air".)
5. An ideal ruler is able to balance Yin and Yang by doing little but accomplishing much.
6. Fate has already determined how much wealth you will accumulate. Fate has already determined how peaceful your life will be. Never rebel against Fate.
7. We should revere Shun as the ideal ruler. He himself had done nothing throughout his reign. Whenever he intended to do something, he would delegate that task to one of his many officials. While Yu the official was busy dredging riverbeds to alleviate floods and Kui the official was busy traveling from province to province in order to educate commoners in music, Shun the ruler sat on his throne and did nothing.
8. A life that is peaceful and quiet is the ideal life.
9. A ruler should avoid interfering with his subjects' lives if possible. A good ruler governs his subjects well. An outstanding ruler's subjects govern themselves well.

Ah, your post contained much in the way of wu wei ideas. I'm a big fan of the very real power of wu wei. Action through non-action. Achieving goals by not interfering with the natural progression of events until the exact right moment, and only interfering with the minimal changes and actions required.

I don't really know anything about Tao or Crazy Wisdom.

Zen is, without doubt, the religion I find most appealing. I like a lot of the ideas in Zen, and the attitudes it encourages seem to be already quite in line with my own attitudes. Plus, it doesn't seem to demand all the ridiculous metaphysical commitments and pointless behavioural restrictions that accompany most other religions (just my opinion there; I'm sure lots of things in Zen would seem ridiculous and pointless to others).

I can't say anything for certain, because I've not studied it seriously. I doubt I'd ever consider myself an adherent of Zen, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has a lot of influence on me, once I finally get around to exploring it in more detail.

It is unfortunate the relativisation of what is moral in (some) Zen. There is a reason for the existence of moral rules in buddhism: they help in meditation. How? The process is very simple: abstaining from imoral acts leads to absence of remorse. In the absence of remorse, joy arises. With the arising of joy, comes the arising of rapture through meditation. With the arising of rapture, the mind/body becomes serene. From serenety, comes pleasure. And from pleasure comes concentration. Concentration is the basis for insight into the nature of things in buddhism.

Crazy wisdom is the ugly part of this relativisation, where masters who are supposed to help us, instead give advice such as "fire your weapon with the mind of the buddha" or such as telling to a person involved in the production of nuclear wheapons that he should keep his job.

While it seems romantic and liberating to break the barriers of what is conventional, there is much more freedom and happiness in living with a tamed mind than with a wild one.

True, feeding down in the warm lush valley away from strong winds and amongst your herd is peaceful and safe, but some still choose the archetypal mountain goat lifestyle of jumping from freezing ledge to ledge, whilst on the precipice, looking down upon the safe seeking herds

Each to their own, though peacefulness and warmth is a preferred state for 99%

What do you think is meant by that phrase?

I think it means "fire the weapon without negative emotions". However, that's not possible, imo. It would imply that Buddhas and arahats can kill, which is something denied by the Buddha.

The Buddha said that arahats are incapable of killing. Now, is this a categorical statement? I have difficulties interpreting the Buddha's words as categorical statements. In my opinion, similar to people saying "He wouldn't hurt a fly" (at least in Portuguese that's an expression meaning one is very peaceful), the Buddha said the same about arahats. I think they choose not to kill, because they have no negative emotions.

So, if not even arahats kill, why would someone advise another regular human being to fire a weapon and kill another human being?

Ajahn Chah (a well known Thai monk) once said a very different thing, imo. He said "Just shoot to miss". That is an apropriate advice from the buddhist pov.