A Conversation On Thought and Its Association as a Self

i understand more clearly now, what you mean about not being so invested in assumptions.

well, its the association with the assumptions that is the problem

assumptions in themselves can sometimes be alright, but when we define ourselves by our 

associations then we feel the need to defend them and that causes problems

that's what i meant by invested in the assumptions.

you have something riding on them, emotionally or intellectually, i guess.

yeah

your identity?

well, its a bit more than that

we mistake ourselves as those assumptions

and most action is based upon defending those assumptions as coherent and relevant

right. like 'i believe in this idea and that says something about the kind of person i am, and i have to 

stand by that"

yeah

so one looks upright, or respectable or whatever in others eyes

well screw that.

why don't we focus on finding out what is true together instead of worrying about being wrong because 

we've aligned ourselves already?

not sure what you mean by that

i mean 'we' in general, not you and me.

isn't that dialogue? talking with eachother instead of defending our assumptions?

right, like meaning flowing between 2 people, finding out together...

what do you mean by aligning?

aligned ourselves with assumptions

"this is what i think and i need to stand by it because it's part of me'

right

yeah

i think some people close themselves down to new information because they're so identified with what 

they think they already know. that seems very limiting.

like, man. there's always more to learn.

always.

well, if we truly believe that we are our associations, our ideas, then we dont want others 

dismantling 'us'

exactly

but we aren't. what is, is, but it isn't anything or anyone else.

do you think there is such thing as objective truth?

well of course

i mean you could philosophize it and say that 'the sky is blue' is only true if you aren't colorblind.

but that's pretty impractical.

you know, like, 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?"

right, well, thats where some of the new agers take this and say, 'everything is relative'

its not

there is a reality

how do you know?

(laughter)

i'm playing devil's advocate.

i believe in reality.

but i do think it is a belief.

one cant know reality

right.

you ask, 'how do you know?'

that is just coming from the program 

the program is asking 'how do i capture it?' It wants to come first

by first i mean... we think the thought is 'what is', but the thought is only the 'what was'... 

it doesnt perceive its own backside, so it runs in circles chasing its own tail so to speak

it puts thought first, as most important, so it is confused and says, 'yes, but how do i know reality... 

how do i capture it?'

i understand.

and so it gets faster and faster at being reactionary, and continually disguising itself as the 

'what is' in order to remain coherent to a dynamic environment... but thats the thing, its thought 

and thought is memory, which is the past as it was percieved and recorded, and therefore it is limited

it can never be rational when it is first

when the cart is in front of the horse

but how can we have dialogue without thought?

i guess what i'm saying is we perceive a reality. how can we be sure our perception of that reality is accurate?

we can't, can we?

yes, well you see, this is where many people are confused. although it has already been established 

in our conversation that the problem is not thought in itself, but the mistaken identity as thought 

being the center, or central to the makeup of an 'individual' 

It believes it is the ideas it associates with and so it tries to defend , 

the associations are the ideas it has created from memory

okay

i'm following

thought has its place, but it is not primary

we may have mistaken it as primary and, as we can see it leads to this whole mess

putting the cart in front of the horse

can we define 'thought'

i'm not asking that rhetorically

well i think thats pretty simple

i mean define it for me so i know what we're talking about specifically

thought is based on memory

OH!

thought is the active process of awareness mixing various memories in orders that appear coherent

wait

oh, nevermind.

(laughter)

my mind just went in 15 different directions

it can also maintain its creations, what we call 'ideas', and in a way sort of 'overlay' these 

ideals/ideas in our perceptions... actively

so really it is just our previous conscious and/or subconscious perceptions, represented 

in a sort of theatrical way to awareness in the present moment.

alright, tell me if I've got this straight

are 'the present' and 'reality' the same thing?

in the sense that all that really is is what is now

well, reality only exists in the present, there is no past

or future 

and everything before and after is thought,

memory or prediction

right, i would say that

so to question reality is to question the present, which is the only thing that is, at all?

we have this distorted view of time, as if there is a past and future... of course, this is useful 

in a certain field, but when it is used as becoming (the psychological becoming) it is just 

meaningless, it has no place cause this implys escaping from 'reality', the present, to this image 

we have of the future, this ideal...

this only causes conflict and prolongs our suffering state by 'suppressing' it... we say, "i feel hurt, 

i will become happy"

you see? 

and now we are just where we started, we are caught in the whole mess of chasing our own tails... 

our tails being the past, which is limited and can not be the 'solution' psychologically, to freedom... 

it puts us in a state of ignorance, cause we are ignoring what is and 'striving' for what we 

desire to become

hate to use the word ignorance cause it is such a loaded word, but we are using it in the true 

sense of the definition

we are taught to go have fun when our mates hurt us or break up with us; to strive when 

we are feeling down.

you don't have a lot of people to talk about this with, do you?

well, not many people are interested in this, they are so caught up in creating their pet monster 

that they believe is them (as if they can) and in one sense they can, but as we see its just 

causing all this conflict in the world

this is why its such a dangerous thing... it is exactly not what appears to be what it needs to escape.

(laughter), that may be a difficult sentence to understand

if it is aware of the process... like it is aware of the fire that burns the hand, there is no confusion then

but you see, it doesnt see this whole process cause it is ignoring purposefully that very thing 

that may be capable of freeing itself

but i think if the mind is capable of seeing, by some means, the whole workings of it, it may 

then be free of the incoherence. 

when there is enough discomfort it seems that then the mind starts to question... 

or if by some other means it happens to be sensitive enough to get a clue as to 

what it is doing; chasing its own tail

okay

too many "it's"

let me try to rephrase this back to you

okay?

* i meant if the mind is capable

(laughter)

i know

nice catch, though. that could've been taken pretty badly

anyway

so

what is "the process"?

the process of trying to create oneself by identifying with our thoughts?

yeah

ok

the whole process of identification issss the 'my mate broke up with me, i will become 'happy' thing

the whole of it... the becoming

well, yeah, please dont accept what i say, or believe me, you must find out if its true and see it 

yourself if you are so interested ('must'

i mean that you will find out

if so interested)

(laughter), you know what i mean? it is difficult to say

that last part

right

haha

i am definitely interested

Meditation, Boredom, and The Animals Mind

Some people have said that meditation can be quite boring and futile and that this creates frustration. Yet we dont seem to see this divided self, between intention and action, in the animal kingdom. Why is it that the animals appear completely content to 'do nothing', and we as humans have this sense of boredom and yearning inwardly?

The problem is the 'doing something'. The animals mind has a quality of being empty when they 'arent doing something'. We as humans, on the other hand, have created a movement in the psychological area... but it is a gap that can not be filled. There is no achieving psychologically; the achieving is an illusion that the mind has created, not realizing that it is a gap that can not be filled. 

On the outward... we can fill this gap. We achieve feats outwardly such as building a house, or obtaining food, but inwardly does this movement have any meaning? There is no 'becoming more' psychologically. Our attempt to achieve psychologically is division from what we are to an illusion of what we want to be. That movement from what we are to what we want to be is the essence of the divided mind. We have learned to meet our pain, our fear of the unknown with strife. We strive to be better or whatever it is. Meditation (can be) the realization of this... it does not matter, because it is observing; it is not achieving. It is not adding something, it is the awareness of that movement... and therefore that movement comes to an end. Not through strife, but it comes as a byproduct of being aware of that division. 

So meditation comes into being when it is observing this desire. And it may be that the mind has gone beyond observing that movement inwardly (that strife, conflict) and it is observing the ten thousand things (like the animals state[for lack of better word]). It is not biased. It is without a goal of achieving inwardly. 

Yes, thought has its place; even in the animal world. But they have not brought strife inwardly... in other animals it remains on the outward. Achieving inwardly is meaningless. Meditation is like the peels of an onion falling away. Achieving something inwardly, which is what you are trying to do, is conflict and the utter definition of division (in the sense of human conflict). 

So we must ask ourselves: Are we trying to become kung fu masters, or gurus, or whatever it is that we aspire to become in order to escape what we are? Or is it that we see all this disorder and out of the awareness of that disorder something else is born, which here, we are calling meditation. Animals (besides the human ones) do not aspire inwardly... they are empty of this movement. They have not brought achieving, strife, inwardly. Inwardly it has only created this division, conflict. 

Dantien Movement and Falling Force

I had a talk with Rick once, and we were inquiring into the nature of physical force in movement. He talked about how utilizing power via a wave from the ground and into the opponent is different from the expansive/contractive force that is generated in Wujifa and various other styles of internal martial arts when practiced correctly . I used to generate force from the ground and into the opponent in a wave like manner and was taught this way as well. But as i started to do push hands more and more i became confused as to how the connection to the ground could remain....

 I had practiced with various people often and we would take turns pressing gently upon each other. When the push was light and slow it was easy to see the importance of the connection with the ground. I noticed that as i applied force to the opponent the connection to the ground was breaking. So i learned to maintain this connection throughout the entire push. This appeared to defy my previous training which purported a wave-like action that transfered force from the ground and into the opponent. 

The problem was... "How do i maintain my connection with the ground and send force into the opponent and/or object without loosing my own connection to that ground?" You see, if the force was applied strongly, the wave, having so much momentum would eventually lift the body slightly and make an opening for the opponent.

As i continued to train, i developed the ability to stay connected to the ground better and better throughout my training, but it wasnt until i was at work one day when i was suddenly enlightened as to how the force is generated without loosing that ground. I was learning this concept subconsciously, through my training, and had developed a descent 

ground, but everything fell into place as the insight came: when i saw the entire process at once as it happened while trying to rip a piece of wood off the side of a wall with my hammer. 

If one was to be on top of a step ladder and have to apply a strong pulling force, such as trying to rip a piece of wood off the side of a house with a hammer, one would hope that the wood would not give unexpectedly. If the man on the ladder was to pull with great force and the wood gave easily, the momentum would surely be enough to off balance the man and send him flying off of the ladder. So when working on a ladder the learned man is very aware of the precarious situation he is in while applying force in either direction. 

The common way that i see most anyone do this (in fact i have never seen anyone who doesnt use this method besides people who are of high level skill in the martial arts) is to calculate two basic forces and hope that the wood doesnt give. The force of the man is applied as a pulling movement at the arm. If the wood on the wall is to be pried off, the man pushes his weight backwards, and in essence hopes that the wood does not come free with a net total of resistance that is less than the amount of weight that the man has applied in a backward direction. If he has miscalculated, and the wood gives way the man looses his balance and falls (hopefully not to his death or injury) or he must quickly catch himself before then. 

This method is a common problem in push hands. When force is applied to another it is resisted by 'falling' back into the pusher. If the pusher is to reverse his direction then the one who is resisting will succumb to his own inertia of resistance and fall forward, loosing his balanced connection with the ground. This principle applies either way, to pushing or pulling. 

               

                           

                           Video illustrating the 'falling' action of a man walking

                                    through a door. The door suddenly gives way, revealing 

                                    the strained unhealthy habit of an ungrounded push. 

This problem is not so easily remedied. This resistance, in my experience, is the explicate manifestation of the psychological way in which we deal with situations. It is the result of the ego and its fight to establish itself as a coherent individual. This is the result of (trying to escape from)  feeling insufficient. The mind is fragmented and in turn uses force or a 'positive' action to create the illusion that it is coherent to itself. This kind of action i refer to as 'strife'. The mind is striving when it is incapable of listening; or you could say the listening is not creating the intention (the action) but it is the ignorance (the running away from the truth of what it is) that is creating the action. The latter is the strife that i am referring to. 

Similar to the way in which the mind resists others as a product of its content trying to present itself as coherent (cause it is not, otherwise it would not have to try [or strive]), one man resists the other mans force. In nature the path of least resistance is taken*, yet in man we have created a resistance to meet resistance. Some may say that our path of resistance is the path of least resistance due to our condition. This is true, but the fact is we are alive, and therefore are able to discover ever more efficient ways of being, which is proven here by the insight i had into the nature of the incorrect way that i was issuing/releasing force. This insight is what prompted the awareness of the new way of movement. It is important to note here that the insight was the motivating factor, and not a matter of ignorance, of running to another way of force out of my reluctance to pay attention to the way i was utilizing force. In fact, it was quite the opposite; it was the insight into the nature of the way i was issuing force that allowed the noticing of the new way in which to move. The mind did not have to strive to attain, but instead it was passively aware and open enough to allow the new way of movement be perceived. 

In internal martial arts there is an idea of connectivity. This connectivity is central to allowing the body to move properly. 'One part moves all parts': i remember someone asking master Chen Xiao Wang once, "Where does movement start?" He answered, "The dantien is the center, but if one part moves, all parts are already moving." This idea of the dantien 'interpenetrating' the entire body through practicing zhan zhuang is, as i understand it, at the root of my situation on the ladder. I have the option of falling into the weight, which is dangerous and unstable, or i can allow the connection throughout the body to travel through different 'pathways' that are connected to the dantien area and are an expression of my entire being simultaneously. 

                          

                           The center is allowed to spin freely, rotating, and

                                    giving the force a pivotal point that remains

                                    inside the body as opposed to leaning, which makes

                                    the pivoting point outside of the body.

To better illustrate this, imagine a ball... On each side of the ball there are sticks that are connected to the ball via a joint (in the case of the body there are multiple joints and interconnected pathways that run through the fascia and connective tissue). This ball is the center of the bodies weight, the dantien. As this ball rotates it transmits force in a centrifugal fashion. This force travels throughout the body and, depending upon the way in which the fascia is connected at that time, is able to transmit in an outward fashion. Without the freedom to move in a connected fashion, the force will be unable to travel correctly; ie. if there are tensions that hinder that connection.

                                        

                                        Force has somewhere to go, without disrupting 

                                                     balance.

This is very different from the previous model of 'falling' into the subject which is to receive force. This model of the dantien as the pivotal point allows force to be either transmitted or received via a rotational motion as opposed to a backwards or forwards rotation directly. It is instead a product of all parts moving at once in response to the centripetal or centrifugal motion of the center. As you can see, any tensions would hinder the force from traveling in this motion and get 'caught up' in a sense, and therefore would send the direction of force in that forward or backward direction which is detrimental to the bodies center of balance. This is illustrated in the following video...

                                       

                                       Force is disrupting balance because of tension, 

                                                    theres nowhere for it to go within the body. Therefore

                                                    it propels the entire body backward.

To understand this motion intellectually is very different from understanding this kinesthetically. It can take many years to 'develop' the dantien area. The practice of zhan zhuang i have found to be the most vital in all of my training. I have been fortunate to have learned many great things from various teachers that i have had. Putting everything together and searching for that middle ground, carefully considering what people have told me and questioning all of them equally. To follow anyone blindly, accepting what they say is not necessarily learning. Until we can see what others are saying by listening without judgment we will be susceptible to error. I see judgment as different from listening. Instead, by learning what it is that the other is meaning and their intentions, we can then understand. Even this post must be questioned. Do not accept what i say as being the ultimate truth, cause truth can not be put into words.

*The only exception to this is in quantum physics where the behavior of particles is probabilistic  rather than determinant. 

Potential and Awareness

"With the practice of functional discernment, there is a potential with this internal and external noticing in one’s awareness as we allow, accept, and notice change."  Rick Taracks ( Suggested Mental Unification Paradigms of Wujifa Practices [Part 3])

In reading this i wondered about the nature of this potential. The statement in this article written by Rick, seems to imply the actual definition of  what necessity is. Necessity, like this potential, is not the same as desire. Desire is like a loaded question. When we ask a question, we sometimes arent asking out of curiosity, but instead we ask in an attempt to do something. The key point is in the intention behind the action. The action that is born of awareness, or this noticing, is the potential as opposed to a desired outcome. 

  If i have the desire to feel, say, an ecstatic moment during my practice then the mind creates a filter of ecstasy to overlay perception. This filter which is laid over our perception is really the past. It is our memories of what we have experienced in the past, maybe an ecstatic moment, and we try and achieve this. Trying, which is desire, is based upon illusion. The illusion is the past memory that we are searching for in the now. Sometimes it is easy to get caught up in desire, and we then have so many filters distorting our perception that it is quite difficult to be aware of anything besides what we are searching for. That is why this is a delicate thing. On one end we have this desire, this searching, this trying, and on the other end there is this other thing which is really the result of not having these thoughts, these desires. Awareness is therefore not something that can be striven for. To see something new is not the product of our desire, but it is, essentially, what comes as a result of the filters not being there. 

  This potential is the byproduct of being aware, of noticing. It is as J Krishnamurti would say, something that comes uninvited. Allowing, noticing change, is not doing something. It is actually quite the opposite. I feel it is very important to understand the difference between the two types of intention. We have intention that is born of desire, and we have intention that is the byproduct of being aware, and in that awareness is the potential, is the energy.  There, there is no separation between action and intention, there is no gap. The awareness is the energy for doing. We have created a distance from the now by striving for things, which is really only us meeting the present with the past.

  When i was younger i remember there was a concept that was talked about often in the martial arts, but i dont hear it as much today... the art of effortless power. It seems as though this concept has been lost to empty idealism and has faded away a bit. But to understand the principle of effortless power we can see that when we consider this on a deeper level, the arrow points towards the nature of intention. Physically, externally, we can see that the principle sounds a bit silly, but at this other level there is something of interest. The question of intention lies in putting the cart before the horse; is intention born of desire, or is a byproduct of noticing, of being aware, which does not imply thought, or strife, but a passive, alive mind that has silence, and therefore is capable of noticing.

Wujifa: Side to Side

Wujifa practice: Video of side to side.
for more information go to: Wujifa Liangong

Ability to Shift Perspective

I was listening to mike talking about his shoulder alignment at Wujifa class the other day. Rick was telling him not to focus directly on the shoulder but to get an over-all feeling of openness. This is after years of focus on the subtle adjustments and attention to detail that he has put into alignment.

I went to a seminar that was held by a Qigong practitioner who had developed a way of healing eyesight. I took a friend of mine who wore glasses. The man stated that the single best practice for developing ones eyesight, and/or healing it completely, is to look at something very closely, as close as possible to where it almost hurts slightly, then fix the gaze on something as far away as possible, interchanging between the two views.

At class, Dan was asked by Rick to look out into the clouds, not focusing on anything in particular, but to see as far as the eye could see. This was an experiment in perception and Dan, when asked, said he was also able to notice much of the minute details in the foreground of his perception simultaneously.

I was in china learning Yiquan under master Yao Chenguan. He told me that most styles of martial arts keep fajing or fali as a secret that is to be learned after many years of practice. In his system he said it is important that someone, from the very beginning, should learn fali even if they are not doing it correctly. He told me that practicing shili, moli, and a limited amount of fali helps one to get a better grasp and in turn speeds up the development of ones training. Fali helps to develop shili, and shili helps develop fali, as well as moli, all three practices he said help to support the other.


It seems clear that the ability to shift perspectives between the detailed and the 'broader scope' of things is an important part of the learning process, or at least that this is something to consider. So what is it that keeps us fixated or stuck in our perspective? Is it fear of letting go of something that we think we are? I notice that the very thing that causes frustration or friction when people, including myself of course, argue amongst one another is the association. When we associate ourselves with ideas we feel that they are us. And when someone questions what we think is ourselves, we naturally try and defend. We take it as an attack against what we think is us. This immediately initiates our survival mechanisms because we believe that we are being attacked or that we are in danger of being dismantled. Our blood pressure rises, maybe our adrenaline kicks in, we sweat slightly to keep the increased heat down thats caused by our increased heart rates, we tense up. Whether these effects are subtle or quite apparent, they are the result of us defending what we think is 'our' perspective. So can we put this question to ourselves... are we our opinions? Is it even possible? Is our association with various ideas, whether they be religious, intellectual, or otherwise; is that what makes us who we are? Is it possible to not associate with any ideas? Ask these questions yourself if you are simply just following along with what is typed here. I did not write this to entertain you, or to give you another perspective to associate with. This is not another idea to call your own, but a serious inquiry. We associate ourselves with so many things to tell the story of who we are, and i question choice. Can we choose who we are? We choose to associate with our music, our beliefs, our religions or non-religion, our groups.... see? We all have our little groups in life, our own little corners that we choose. Do we feel so insignificant inside? And if you can put this question to yourself... what need is there for these associations? If you have seen the trouble that associations have caused because you have been listening, and inquiring within, and you see the whole process of this association as futile and destructive then the question arises. The question comes as an inevitable result of inquiry, of attention, or listening. If you see the destructive nature of association the question is put to ones self; are associations necessary?

We have this tendency to get stuck, and its not until we are able to see that we are stuck that we are vulnerable to it. And in that vulnerability is freedom. Cause when we are vulnerable we are able to feel, to be hurt, to be happy, to live. And only by sensitivity are we able to respond, not respond with the known; not responding with a prefabricated perspective, but with intelligence. Intelligence is alive, not dead, it is not a result of putting forward the past to meet the present with. Intelligence is not something that is known, it is the uninvited result of listening with everything. It is alive.