I’ve revisited the idea of slowness recently and touched again on Wu-Wei when I thought about accepting our limitations. I saw this article in the New York Times a week or two ago and remembered it as tying in with the things I was talking about quite nicely. The article makes the case very well that Yoga is not as safe as we’d all like to believe. My opinion is that this is true of anything; which is why, in my SitQuietly instructions, I give a warning to consult your medical practitioner before taking up a meditation practise. But this article makes specific mention of people who seem to be treating Yoga as if it were a performance sport, specifically one man who threw himself into a spine twist and had three ribs give way.

The article says a lot of things that ring true for me, that echo my own gym and Tai Chi experiences. I realised a long time ago that it was up to me to make things easy on myself, that I had to do this by realising and respecting my limits. Apply Wu-Wei, don’t do things at an inappropriate speed, don’t force yourself into exercises that are inappropriate for your body type or mental state. When growth in our abilities occurs it should be unforced and as a result of the “70 percent rule”, which I’ve talked about before. This says that you work to 70 percent of your potential, with the other 30 percent held back for growth and improvement. Eventually, your 70 percent is equal to what used to be your 100 percent, and you’re still only giving 70 percent!

My other observation is that practises like Yoga, meditation and Tai Chi are not performance sports. The wisdom of Wu-Wei and the Slow Movement comes back again to the fore, these things are healing arts without a doubt; but only when used appropriately and at the right pace! They can heal your body and mind, but will do so in their own time, to try to hurry things seems to me to be a mistake. One that can only end badly as well. We in the West seem to be bringing our own neurotic hurried flavour to these things, but in doing so I worry that we lose a lot of their essence and bring ourselves further pain.

I’d like to write briefly about something that has been on mind mind for quite some time. It’s not an original observation that our modern world is moving at an ever faster pace. Nor is it an original observation that this pace is responsible for quite a bit of human pain and suffering along the way; we are not machines.

It was a couple of years ago with a feeling of pleasant surprise, that I discovered the Slow Movement and decided to look a little deeper. This movement was inspired by the book “In Praise of Slow” by Carl Honore, and this movement has at it’s core the idea that faster is not always better and we should do things at the right speed rather than the fastest. In fact, that constant increase in speed does us more harm than good.

It goes without saying that I think they’re right on the mark with this. We have enough aphorisms and sayings that echo these sentiments “the more haste, the less speed”, “haste makes waste”, “look before you leap”. In the east we find the Taoist principle of “Wu Wei” one part of which is observing the worlds pace and doing things at the correct speed, neither too fast or two slow. Anyone who’s done Tai Chi or Qigong, as I have, will understand what I mean.  After all, you can’t make a tree grow by pulling on the branches; and as an IT example you can’t make a file transfer or disk check run any faster than the hardware or connection will allow, you must simply wait!

To rush things often leads to substandard results and problems further down the line that take up more time to sort out. So any time you may have “saved”, is now spent there instead and you’ve had the extra headache that comes with this as well! Still think it’s a good idea to rush? Better to take the time to get it right, “measure twice, cut once” as the old saying goes.

I will finish with a specifically British example “you can’t hurry a good cuppa”, and this is very true. Tea needs time to brew properly and a hurried cup of tea is certainly not a good one.  When asked how I seem to always make a good cup of tea in the past, guess what I say?

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished” – Lao Tzu

A friend made a comment to me today, a colleague was retiring and she felt that it would be nice to be able to retire early.  One thing that came up in the conversation was that rather than compare oneself to those who have it better than you, it can be better for your mental state to remind yourself of those who have it worse.  I understand and agree, technically, with this idea.  But I also feel, looking back that there is a further point to be explored here.

The Buddha makes the point that everyone faces problems in our lives, that even someone who seems much better off than us still has their share of problems.  We can look around us and see the rich, powerful and famous, they seem almost mythical figures, shrouded in glamour.  Yet, one can be bound to the wheel of Samsara with chains of gold as well as chains of iron.

Let’s consider this, celebrities have the above plusses but these things have their downsides.  The price of fame is papparazzi and stalkers, the inability to ever fade into the crowd again.  The price of power is having to wield it and be held responsible for the consequences of using it.  But fortune, who could argue against having millions? Lao Tzu does, arguing that the accumulating of riches makes you a target for thieves, thus bringing it’s own risks

So, I contend that things are far from as simple as they first seem, once you look a little closer the grass on the other side of the fence is often far from greener.

I heard this remark tonight from my instructor regarding the practise of mindfulness, the class was talking about it in relation to Taijiquan.

“We’re Human Beings, not Human Doings”

This is actually a very good quote, and I’d like to say a little more about this subject.  I’ve said before and I will always maintain, that it’s very difficult to penetrate Taoist philosophy deeply without at least some Tai Chi practise.  The (often) not so simple act of playing with the principles physically enables an intuitive view, not an intellectual one, that is a great help.  This also helps a lot with Buddhism.

As we attempted to move each other around, it became more apparent that the act of attempting to do something blocks mindfulness.  In fact in attempting to influence, force, or otherwise get at a result from our actions, we can lose our grasp on the thread of things and we fail.  Even the intent seemed to cause me to lose the thread of what I was doing, all very strange and quite unnerving.

It became clear to me tonight that a large part of mindfulness involves getting your mind out of the way.  So, mindlessness?  No…

The trick seemed to be to be present, but unattached to an outcome in a relaxed way, don’t try to force it.  It reminded me of some of my best meditation sittings, I didn’t focus, I just got out of my own way and let it happen.

There, I can’t explain it very well.  But hey I’ll let it be, and who knows, maybe this can be used as a start?

I saw the statement from Stephen Hawking last week about his view that the universe didn’t need a divine creator.  This was reported far and wide and as you have probably noticed, this has kicked up a bit of a fuss.

I can’t help but look at this and shake my head and wonder when people will make the realisation that all of this fuss is fruitless?  The Buddha warns us away from these questions, saying that they only cause suffering and angst, from  what I can see he was bang on the money!  Also, Lao Tzu also makes it clear that certain things are simply beyond our knowledge, in fact Taoism tends not to encourage knowledge hoarding.  I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with this, we have no evidence on which to base any speculation on the events prior to the big bang.  In the same manner we have no real idea what things are like outside the universe.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there are a lots of times when the only honest answer is “I don’t know”, and I feel that this realisation is quite freeing.  The recognition of limitations and the acceptance that there are things out there that are beyond our capacity is liberating, in a way it gives you your mind back.

That’s quite something to say, almost heresy in todays society.  We almost worship knowledge and to be the expert on something is considered to be quite the excellent thing.  I am starting to wonder if this is the “Information Age” or the “Information Fetish Age”?

The Tao Te Ching warns us against this in chapter 19:

“End sagacity; abandon knowledge
The people benefit a hundred times

End benevolence; abandon righteousness
The people return to piety and charity

End cunning; discard profit
Bandits and thieves no longer exist

Reduce selfishness; decrease desires

These three things are superficial and insufficient
Thus this teaching has its place:
Show plainness; hold simplicity” [1]

We hoard knowledge, which isn’t a bad thing all in all, but it can breed arrogance if you’re not very careful.  If you’ve seen Star Wars Episode 2 AotC, remember when Obi Wan suggests to a Librarian in the Jedi Archive that a planet is missing, that their records might be incomplete?

“JOCASTA NU: Well, I’m sure you didn’t call me over here for a history lesson. Are you having a problem, Master Kenobi?
OBI-WAN: Yes, I’m trying to find a planet system called Kamino. It doesn’t seem to show upon any of the archive charts.
JOCASTA NU: Kamino? It’s not a system I’M familiar with… Let me see…
JOCASTA NU leans over OBI-WAN’S shoulder, looking at the screen.
JOCASTA NU: (continuing) Are you sure you have the right co-ordinates?
OBI-WAN: (nodding) According to my information, it should be in this quadrant somewhere… just south of the Rishi Maze.
JOCASTA NU taps the keyboard and frowns.
JOCASTA NU: No co-ordinates? It sounds like the kind of directions you’d get from a street tout… some old miner or Furbog trader.
OBI-WAN: All three actually.
JOCASTA NU: Are you sure it exists?
OBI-WAN: Absolutely.
JOCASTA NU: Let me do a gravitational scan.
OBI-WAN and JOCASTA NU study the star map hologram. Episode 2, Jedi Archives Episode 2, Jedi Archives
JOCASTA NU: There are some inconsistencies here. Maybe the planet you’re looking for was destroyed.
OBI-WAN: Wouldn’t that be on record?
JOCASTA NU: It ought to be. Unless it was very recent. (shakes her head) I hate to say it, but it looks like the system you’re searching for doesn’t exist.
OBI-WAN: That’s impossible… perhaps the archives are incomplete.
JOCASTA NU: The archives are comprehensive and totally secure, my young Jedi. One thing you may be absolutely sure of – if an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist! “

… and we all know how that turned out, don’t we?

Sources

[1] – Tao Te Ching: Annotated & Explained, published by SkyLight Paths in 2006. (www.taoism.net)

Creative Commons

The Big Bang image above is by pshutterbug and is under an Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

It’s been a bit of a bad day.  This morning I suffered what I can only describe as an anxiety attack, I’ve been doing too much.  So I returned to Tai Chi after a long hiatus, the class wasn’t on but a few other rogue students were there and we conversed and ran through the form.  I can recommend the practise of Taijiquan, especially if you’re studying Taoist writings.

Earlier today I was mulling things over on my lunch break.  With a little help from a friend, I decided part of the problem was not just that I was trying to do too much.  It’s that I was straight jacketed by my structures and methods.

My mind wandered into a few of the lessons I learned from Taoism and Tai Chi and I realised that the the lesson was there.  I was in the garden of a cafe and looking at a flower I remembered the Taoist teaching that things are self organising.

So, I thought, what does that mean for me?  Well, I think that the wise course is to organise to a point, but not be stifled by it.  Guidelines not rules, light sketches not heavy ink.  You get the picture.

But most of all, lots of room to manoeuvre to change and to flow.  Most of this will arise from the situation the moment, and like the flower in the cafe garden it will take a structure all its own.

If I use the Taijiquan principle of 4 ounces of force, and also simply yield to the moment, it will organise without needing organising.

I like that.  Maybe not such a bad day after all?

I was reading an article on a web page that came to my attention courtesy of the Birmingham Humanists blog a few days ago. In it the author covered a few things, mainly related to Humanism and differences among some sub groups.  But while doing that, he mentioned the fact that we usually focus more on our differences than the things that we have in common.

What piqued my interest further was the mention of ‘pushing away’ as a process.  The idea was that the author had defined himself during his formative years as a Humanist by pushing away from elements of religion and superstition.  He then pointed out that we tend to carry this process over to people.

The author described his own growth into Humanism in these terms, he talked of the things he was pushing away from.  He then observed that many Humanists still do this, which helps to cause much fracturing in the community.  The whole thing put me in mind of “The Judean Peoples Front” and the “Peoples Front of Judea” in Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.

In my view the author was describing a Taoist style process of definition by negation.  In other words that’s when you define a thing by what it’s not.  The Tao itself tends to be defined in these terms, and as you’re tend to be thinking in terms of emptiness it’s a natural way to do it.

Defining a stance by negation might seem like allowing others to take the initiative, that Humanism can only be defined by it’s opposition to much of religious thought, but it isn’t necessarily the case.  Of course, the danger for Humanism in this is that we risk losing sight of the positive expression of our stance.  We know what we’re against, but what how well do we put across what we’re for?  Do Humanists risk becoming better known for haranguing believers than offering a better alternative to religious indoctrination?

My comment here is that definition by negation does not have to be seen as reactionary and negative.  I could say that I’m “against indoctrination” or I could say that I’m “for free thought”.  This goes deeper than spin, as expressing these things positively will build habits of thought that I feel will prove very beneficial and much more attractive.

I’d like to continue from a previous post,  about The Cult of Knowledge.  I’d like to do a little musing.

I was musing on the Taoist idea of emptiness recently, emptiness in Taoism doesn’t mean the same thing as we Westerners are used to.  It’s more the idea of a space filled with potential.  In fact it’s emptiness that gives things their value.

Don’t believe me?  Consider a cup.  There’s a handle, and possibly a nice pattern, but what makes it a cup is the space for the drink, the emptiness where the contents must go.  In fact the handle wouldn’t be much use without a hold in the middle would it?  It’s the same with more or less anything you look at, the emptiness it what gives a thing value, the thing that really brings it to life.

Okay, let’s start working back to the subject of my previous post.  I suggested last time that knowledge wasn’t the be all and end all, that the fixation with the accumulation of knowledge could be a bad thing.  Which is, as far as I am concerned, true.  There’s nothing worse than a know it all, and the know it all misses a lot because his or her head is full.  But I will allow a short Zen story to illustrate my point:

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor’s cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. “It’s overfull! No more will go in!” the professor blurted. “You are like this cup,” the master replied, “How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup.”

In the martial art of Taijiquan, we are not taught lists of counters and blocks.  Rather, we are led to a way of moving and being.  Not rigid and full, but flexible and empty.  It is this emptiness that frees us to react.

How does this relate back to my point on knowledge?  Consider that knowledge provides a space, it can frame an area, in the same way as our cup.  Within this framework, we deploy our skills and abilities, we adapt and change.  These qualities are the things that make this knowledge actually useful.

When we hoard too much knowledge, it  will fill the space, thus putting us in a position of inflexibility.   We may be unable to innovate and unable to move, we suffer “Paradigm Paralysis”, becoming so fixated with current models and knowledge that we cannot see beyond them and it.
Creative Commons Acknowledgement.

The yellow cup image is by Eric Brian Ouano and is under by-nc-nd.

Quite some time ago (in 2006 in fact), I commented on the difference between Spirituality and Religion.  Over time I’ve stuck to my guns, that they are NOT the same thing, and I’ve seen a few comments around the place that have made me want to revisit this old territory for a quick post.

I like to define Spirituality as a sense of that which is common between us, regardless of Religion; that we are not islands in the world and that we are not separate from, but intertwined with the world around us.  It provides a sense of the sacred in the world, that some things go beyond our materialism, and that we should look beyond the daily grind and the “rat race”.

Some of what I just said can be said of what it though of as Religion.  I think that Religion is a set of rites, rituals and customs that sit on top of Spirituality, that provide more of a framework and structure.  To a degree this is needed, I don’t argue that point, but it is not a good thing it it should grow to stifle things.

The comment that spurred me to write this was that if you have Spirituality without Religion you just have a vague feeling of goodwill, in my view, that isn’t accurate and is quite derisive.  I’ve come to realise more and more over time that there’s a lot more to a simple Spirituality then a vague feeling of good will, it seems to be a much more intuitive thing and it also seems more feminine to my sense of it.  As any Taoist or Zen Buddhist will tell you there is a thing that can be dimly sensed that is beyond being articulated in words, that can only be glimpsed intuitively and can’t be grasped by reason as is the case with the scriptures of a by the book religion.  Further to this, you must do the glimpsing yourself, a priest cannot do the work for you, you must work to your own salvation!

To try to bind it in scriptures is (as Alan Watts so brilliantly said) to walk into the restaurant and eat the menu instead of the meal.  My own conclusion that has been spurred by the comment I read, is that Spirituality without religion is quite valid if difficult to grasp and also not so easy to fit into neat categories with names.  It can live without overt Religiousness quite happily.   Religion without Spirituality on the other hand is doomed from the outset.  It would seem to me to be a set of scriptures and rules and rituals that have had the original point somehow lost along the way, if this is the case, then is religion without spirituality a hollow soulless shell?

I was reading a thread on a forum the other day, a guy had commented on the new “Ardipithecus ramidus” fossil find and said “so much for creationism” or words to that effect. The results were quite predictable, and as boring as usual, everyone jumped in and a blazing great argument started.

I have to admit to being something of an agnostic on all of this, I take the view that there is much we don’t know and will possibly never know.  As much as many would like to cling to a holy book and proclaim that this is certainty, it isn’t and I’ll refer the reader to my essays for more on that.  In many ways I can make a similar observation of the scientific orthodoxy, science seems to get a revolution every so often and is quite defined by the unknown.  I’m also not the first to observe that science seems to be gaining it’s share of fundamentalists, and I feel that a fundamentalist attitude does science no justice at all.

I’ll also step aside from the row surrounding the much misunderstood and misrepresented theory of Evolution, other than to observe that it seems to be producing the goods in a very practical sense across a number of fields and that its opponents have produced no science of their own that I’ve seen and seem to do nothing but throw mud.

So I’ll move towards the whole question of a creator prior to the beginning of the universe.  Now this, of course, assumes that there was a discrete beginning and that the whole thing doesn’t move in some kind of cyclical way that would make for a very interesting line of investigation.

Now, for what I can see of it everything we have regarding events prior to the big bang is pure conjecture, nobody really knows. It seems to me that every debate I’ve seen boils down to a “yes it was / no it wasn’t” with nobody willing to budge an inch. Now, this sort of thing is one of the questions that the Buddha described as being a net, I can see why, all it does it cause upset and you can never really settle the argument no matter which side you’re on.

But it makes me realise, that many people are shouting certainty from a position of not really knowing.  My sense of things is that true liberation and real courage is to openly admit that you don’t know and possibly never will.  Then get on with something more relevant.