When pushing hands, or minds, relax the tension

There's a lot of pushing on this blog, as elsewhere on the Internet. People read something they don't like. They push back. The pushed take affront and return the favor.

And so it goes. That's life. It's natural to resist having our psychological space invaded. Nestled comfortably in the four walls of my beliefs, someone bursts in and starts sledge hammering.

Hey! Stop, you stupid fuckhead! Got to defend the territory.

Some recent Church of the Churchless comments have been directed at seemingly overly aggressive language by a blog visitor who would go unnamed if I didn't mention that his moniker is "Tao."

It's true that Tao isn't shy about blasting away with word-weapons. But here's a suggestion about how to handle pushiness, whether in cyberspace or physical space: relax. Accept the incoming with little tension, then redirect it without losing your own center.

This is Tai Chi 101. Also, I'd say, Handling Life's Irritants 101. When we tense up and try to muscle our way through a confrontation, whether mental or physical, we'll likely find ourselves being thrown off balance. I know this even though I'm just a couple of years into my Tai Chi practice, after a much longer stint with hard style martial arts.

"Push hands" is done with a partner, as contrasted with Tai Chi forms, which are played individually (Tai Chi practitioners typically say "play" instead of "perform," a reflection of the relaxed Taoist sensibility that pervades this art).

One of the first things I learned when pushing hands is that tensing up offers the other person a marvelous means of manipulating me. If I extend an arm and it's grabbed by my partner, he can use it to throw me every which way if I keep it rigidly connected to my body.

But if I relax and empty the muscular tension, there's little left that's substantial to grab onto any more. A skilled Tai Chi master seems to "disappear" when force is used against him. He knows how to blend with someone else's energy, using the principle of flexible power to dissipate a threat.

Until we're challenged by another person, it's difficult to know where our tension—physical or psychological—is being held. This is why pushing hands with a partner is an important Tai Chi practice. Playing a form on my own, it's easy for me to believe that I'm centered, balanced, grounded.

When I'm stumbling backward after a push hands drill has revealed the flaws in my Tai Chi ability, self-deception has no place to hide.

Likewise, engaging in vigorous philosophical or religious debate helps us better understand the strengths and weaknesses of our position. Teeth-gritting tension usually means that we're trying to hold on to a belief that isn't truly a part of us (if it was, we wouldn't be worried that someone else could take it away).

After Laurel and I were married sixteen years ago, we spent many hours discussing our spiritual beliefs. Laurel wasn't reluctant to challenge the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) party line that I parroted back then.

I found that I could comfortably handle her skepticism about many RSSB articles of faith. But some of her questions struck a nerve. The ouch! I felt when she challenged certain tenets was, looking back from my current perspective, a symptom of my nascent churchlessness.

That is, my metaphysical tender spots were pointers to the beliefs that I had the least confidence in. Yet I defended them with remarkable vigor. I must have sensed that these were the weak spots in my fundamentalist armor.

You want to know why I believe that my guru is God in human form? You want evidence? Well, this isn't something that can be demonstrated rationally. It's a mystical thing. You understand it from within…Have I gotten such an understanding? No, I haven't. But other people have. How do I know that? Um, I just believe that they have, because I trust them…So you're saying that my RSSB faith is just like that of a Christian or Muslim, since I'm claiming that such and such is true without any evidence. Well, you're wrong! It's not….Stop asking me why. It just isn't! Let's stop talking and watch TV.

Thankfully, I'm not that rigid anymore. If anything, Laurel thinks that I've gone overboard in the other direction. I'm so flexible in my beliefs (or lack of them), I won't fight in the argument ring for hardly any spiritual position now. "Maybe," I'll say. "Or maybe not. Who knows? Certainly not me."

I'm pleased that much of the tension I used to feel is no longer there. But who knows? Maybe it was necessary for me to have my vulnerable belief areas exposed and become aware of how strongly I felt the need to defend them. This helped me realize that little was supporting the beliefs other than my hope that they were true.

So tension isn't always bad, if it leads to a letting go when the strain of maintaining an untenable position becomes too much to bear.

But usually it's better to relax when pushing hands, or minds. The Tao Te Ching shows the Way:

Yield and overcome;
Bend and be straight;
Empty and be full;
Wear out and be new:
Have little and gain;
Have much and be confused.

Therefore wise men embrace the one
And set an example to all.
Not putting on a display,
They shine forth.
Not justifying themselves,
They are distinguished.
Not boasting,
They receive recognition.
Not bragging,
They never falter.
They do not quarrel.
So no one quarrels with them.
Therefore the ancients say, "Yield and overcome."
Is that an empty saying?
Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.

Comments

[ET]

Brian, in describing your discussion with Laurel you imply that she is philosophically an Evidentialist, that is she believes that it is irrational to believe anything without sufficient evidence. She was skeptical of your beliefs in the RSSB party line and insisted on proof.

I am familiar with this position as my atheist friends all have it. However when I absolutely insist that they show me their evidence -- their proof that of their own Evidentialism, their party line, they cannot show me a shred of evidence and they get just as upset with me as you did with Laurel and either leave in a huff or prefer to change the subject. In other words their belief in Evidentialism is just as rigid and improvable as my belief in my Guru!

Lets face it we humans all just believe all of the time - we believe that our senses are reliable, that our memories are accurate, and that life is real and that the world was not created 5 minutes ago (i.e. Bertrand Russell’s hypotheses) – all without any proof or evidence.

I think that you show remarkable spiritual growth and humility when you say - “I won't fight in the argument ring for hardly any spiritual position now. Maybe or maybe not. Who knows? Certainly not me."

Like you I have become very relaxed in my own beliefs. You will recall that I have said on this blog before that I believe everything and nothing. To me that equates to a relaxed position very similar to your own.

Perhaps the ultimate lesson of all of this is humility. It is a startling revelation when we all finally come to realize that anything we believe is without any evidence and that is that.

However, saying all of that, if I were on top of a burning building with no other alternative I would convince myself to believe that I could run and jump the six feet to the adjacent building -- or die trying. (smile)
ET

[Brian]

ET, I agree that humility is an ultimate lesson. Indeed, we humans don't know much about the universe. We're just poking around the edges of inconceivable vastness.

However, I don't agree with your equating an atheist's "show me evidence that God exists" with a believer's "show me evidence that God doesn't exist."

Science doesn't work that way. Neither does everyday life. By and large we don't go around searching for evidence that something doesn't exist. That's negative, non-productive, and non-sensical.

I can't prove that gnomes aren't causing the bulbs in our garden to blossom. I can't prove that a unicorn doesn't visit our bedroom every night and blow magic dust on us while we're sleeping.

And I can't prove that God doesn't exist, or that the guru isn't God in human form, or that WMD's didn't exist in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

But I don't need to. Science and common sense are based on what is possible to be known, not on what can't be proved to be impossible to be known.

It's a favorite argument of religious believers to say that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence (Rumsfeld liked saying this too, since it supports the administration's unsupported Iraq policy).

True. But also true is that positive evidence is what leads us to believe in something, not absence of negative evidence.

One reason I believe my wife loves me is that she gave me a Valentine's Day card. About six billion people didn't give me a Valentine's Day card. But who knows? They all might love me too, because I have no evidence that they don't.

So, using your reasoning, I'm justified in saying that I'm beloved by the entire world. I can't prove that I am, but you can't prove that I'm not.

And if you said, "But I don't love you. And I know some others who don't either," I could use your concluding argument and say, "Everything we believe is without any evidence, including your statement that some people don't love me. Hence, I choose to believe that they do."

So the way I see it, humility obliges me to rely on evidence that the natural world provides. Like, a Valentine's Day card that I hold in my hand. I can make up anything I want in my creative little mind. God, unicorns, gnomes, anything.

But that doesn't make them real. Except in my own mind.

[Marcel Cairo]

This whole post is a distraction from the real matter at hand - Tao is aggressive. Period. You may agree or disagree with him, but he is aggressive.

Now, if Tao were an NBA center, this would be proper on court behaviour. As this is a blog/discussion forum, Tao's actions quite often go overboard in my opinion. Yes, it is only my opinion, but just like Tao, I am allowed to have one.

As a staunch defender of the first ammendment, though, I would never want Tao censored or cut-off. Though there are times when a polite internet nudge from Brian would be nice. :-)

So why then does this latest posting smell like an apologist hiding behind taoist principles and lessons to defend an aggressive blogger? Because it is.

The way I see it, Tao is Brian's yang to his own ying. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Brian is Luke Skywalker walking that tight rope between "the force" and the dark side. Without Tao's very direct and cutting commentary, I think Brian would fall out of balance.

Sometimes, I've even wondered if Tao isn't simply Brian's alter ego or a nom de plume. Yes, I now have my very own conspiracy theory.

Anyway, I think this whole church of the churchless blog is possibly a "revenge vehicle" for Brian. What a great way to get back at those responsible for the years of brainwashing Brian received as a RSSB follower.

Don't get me wrong, though I know nothing about RSSB, I think Brian and Tao's efforts to keep people alert and avoid the cult of RSSB is a worthy pursuit... I just wish Tao (or Brian's alias) would be a bit more clever and pallatable while doing it.

[Edward]

I witnessed a reluctant push hands demonstration: neither person picked wanted to be there. They stood in balance for about forty minutes.

It is like having no preference. If something is proved, I don't need to believe or prefer it. If something is not proved, I may not have an opinion either way.

Is there aggression? Okay, but I may not prefer that anything change. Is there humility? Perhaps, but that is what it is.

I can spend today choosing one path after another, using habit and judgement. Tomorrow, I will be just as unattached to those choices.

Who wins at effortless push hands?

[benandante]

Marcel, usually I agree with what you say and so I never comment -- It doesn't occur to me to say anything unless I need to clarify for myself, or to ask a rhetorical question of the universe.

But Edward's comments, and Brian's post and then yours helped me to understand something about myself that has puzzled me for a lifetime.

I prefer aggressive to passive any day -- but what I may call aggression another person might label passion, or integrity, or selfless adherence to truth.... a stranger looks at me and I call him a lech - my beloved gives me the same look and I call it affection... or my beloved gives that look to the neighbor and she recoils where I would melt. Same look, different reactions.

My stuff is my stuff - I can spend my life acting on a pretension that I am humble and non judgemental because I never allow others to see the deeper and darker self I keep secret. Or I can expose the muck to daylight, whenever or wherever I encounter it.

My entire life I have been drawn to the people who ask the questions, who are outraged at artifice or sham. I feel affection for Tao - I don't find him aggressive or trollish at all. To me his responses are predictable in that he seems unafraid to call out the pretense in himself and he seems unafraid to call out the pretenses he encounters in others.

I can't expect everyone to be bland, passive implacable beings who refuse genuine connection. This is why I devour Brian's blog, he is sincere and genuine, even when that is contradictory and doesn't present a logical neat package of belief.

I guess I have an affinity for those whose first allegiance is to truth.

Jeanine

[Roger]

Fighting MidTown Gal,

The last sentence in your comment, sums it all up. I think that is why all the regulars keep coming back.

[manjit]

Hello, firstly I'd like to say that I enjoyed Brian's post as I usually do, even when I don't always agree with them, as in the Beas cameras & peeing posts! Brian's posts have the ring of sincerity, which is always difficult to contend with even for masster verbal tai chi experts!

Marcel, I think I would faint if Tao is Brian's alter ego! Tao is, however, another pseudonym for Soamianami from the chatgroup Radhasoamistudies. How's it going Mr Anami? :o)

Tao/SA, I just wanted to add my thoughts on this, in view of Brian's concept of intellectual tai chi. Personally, I think you can be overly aggresive, and not exactly 'flexible and empty'. Actually, I think you are pretty rigid and static in your anti-RS stance! Also, words like stupid, bitch, mentally retarded etc, are not, imo, words which turn turn another's energy against themselves, but rather are movements of inflexible aggression. Also, the inability to see the potential of very real beauty that others *can* experience in faith/religous systems such as RS, is also very inflexible.

Of course, this kind of aggression and inflexibility is hardly noticed by those that agree with your essential outlook!

But that is neither empty nor flexible.

Anyways, Peace bro....

[tao]

Manjit,

A.) This is NOT "radhasoamistudies".

B.) You are only speaking from your own concepts and judgments of "flexible and empty" and "rigid and static" and "inflexible aggression", which really has nothing to do at all with where I am at. You merely assume otherwise.

C.) I have no such "inability to see" either the pros, or the cons, of RS. It's just that the cons far exceed the pros. There is no doubt that people imagine and have illusions of "beauty" in their particular religion, but that does not validate the religion or make it Truth.

[Marcel Cairo]

Brian and Tao,

just for the record, I wrote my previous post under the influence of the flu and the waning effects of a two day 103.2 fever. Not that you would actually be able to tell the difference between my feverish rantings and my everyday, loopy-loop rantings, but I thought I would clarify for the record.

Jeanine, I'm with you on choosing passionate people over passive ones, but I don't always think that passion and aggression have to go hand in hand.

Can't one be passionate about a piece of steak on plate without using the fork to gouge out the eyes of the person sitting next to you? Don't bother answering this divinely constructed question... it is medium rare like myself. :-)

One thing for sure, it is almost time for Brian to organize the first Church of the Churchless Caribbean cruise. Any differences we have here can be easily dealt with on the shuffle board floor.

peace.

[tao]

Marcel,

Like I said dude ... its about time to PARTY!!! ... Churchless style!

So are we goin to be spliffin-out irie in Jamaica, swimin nude with the ladies in St. Martin, or high-rollin in Nassau, Bahamas?

If we're goin on a cruise, then why not all the above?

So when do we set sail Brian?

[Manjit]

Hello Tao/SA, first of all, I hope you are doing well? I have to be honest and would like to respond to your points above, and generally question your viewpoints and animosity towards RS.

a) I know this isn't Radhasoamistudies! All I said was that you're SA from RSS. Is this not entirely true?

b) 'flexible and empty' are inherently concepts when in written form, so I can only comment from my understanding of these concepts! In this next point, I'll explain why I don't feel you exactly fit any kind of reasonable definition of these concepts.

c) Well Tao, let's get into this a little deeper. What exactly is illusion and what is 'reality'? Why do people only have 'illusions' of beauty in RS? What you are actually doing is denying and dismissing the subjective experience of many many thousands of RS *believers*. This is, imo, ignorant and arrogant.

We both know I have posted up hundreds of posts which have gone into nauseating *detail* about why I feel the RS faith system can be limiting, and the various inconsistencies and mistruths within it! Yet, I cannot deny that there were times of excruciating beauty, happiness and even bliss as a believer. In comparison to what 'reality' is this an illusion? Now you can state that in comparison to the reality of self-realisation is the RSS faith an illusion, and I would agree. BUT, simply discarding RS doesn't *automatically* lead one out of 'illusion' and into 'genuine' beauty, my friend....far from it. Perhaps this is too subtle a point to grasp? Move from one form of 'illusion' to another, spin the wheel of maya.....so what?

We all have our illusions, sir. For example, if I had to choose between living in a world where I believed the RSS theeology, and a world where our our governments committed terrorist acts against their own people, as you believe with 9/11......the RS 'illusion' wins hands down every time....far more beautiful an illusion!

You have stated here and in other posts you have more experience and knowledge about RS, and can see the pros & cons of it, but when have you ever even ackowledged the good parts?

Indeed, you have stated several times over at RSS that you have never been stupid, moronic, idiotic etc enough to ever follow or have bhakti for such scumbag frauds as RSSB gurus! Actually, despite your claims of understanding RS, I cannot recall EVER reading something from yourself that demonstrates a personal knowledge, affinity, or experience with RS! I'm serious. I know you will take this badly, but I'm actually just stating what I've observed. I've heard numerous CLAIMS of knowledge, but NEVER ANY details? This seems like criticism by numbers.

The criticisms of Brian, Dave, the poster today, or the countless others are genuine heart rending accounts of those in transition (not neccessarily to freedom and beauty, btw, but often sadness and confusion......I had a dark night of the soul leaving RSSB that lasted several years....and I mean DARK). Nobody has a right to even question those accounts. But the criticisms of somebody who boldly declares he has never been 'moronic' and 'idiotic' enough to believe it in the first place? Hmmmm.

The fact is, this whole thing is a wonderous and mystical display of the human condition. There is no right and wrong, no definitive path one should or shouldn't take. Each to their own.....and that doesn't neccesarily make somebody stupid, idiotic or moronic. Everyone is living or chasing after one manifestation of maya/illusion or another, and if they're not, then they would be extremely understanding and ACCEPTING of the various manifestations of maya in others.

One Taste. Peace.

[tao]

Manjit,

Again... this site is not the radhaoamistudies site. I would say that your attempt to mix the two is rather disingenuous.

Next, your so-called "point" is rather pointless.

In other words, what exactly IS this "subjective experience of many many thousands of RS believers" that you are referring to?

You cannot possibly say what is the "experience of many many thousands" of people, or if they actually have any experience, or if such "experience" amounts to anything fundamentally meaningful besides mere transitory phenomena. So your "point" sounds pretty vague to me.

Furthermore, I am not making any such comparisons between RS and self-realization, so don't put words in my mouth.

Next, you simply do not know what I believe or know about 9/11, nor is this an appropriate place to debate about it. You are agin trying to put words and ideras in my mouth, so to speak.

You wrote: "You have stated ... you have more experience and knowledge about RS, and can see the pros & cons of it, but when have you ever even ackowledged the good parts?"

I did not say that I have "more" of anything. I simply indicated that I have considerable knowledge and experience.

As for when have I "acknowledged the good parts" of RS? ... I have indeed discussed the "good parts" of Sant Mat (not RS) about a year and a half ago on this site as well as another site. However, at this point, I am not interested in going over it again.

Your so-called "observations" and your doubts about the veracity of my deep experience and knowledge of Sant mat and RS is probably due to the fact that you apparently missed many of my previous posts in which I related my experience with such matters. In any case, your doubts are but your problem, not mine. I am not interested in proving myself to your satisfaction.

In view of your history of flip-flopping, and the fact that I believe that you had once said that you were not an actual RS initiate, it is really you who are the one who should be doubted when it comes to this subject.

However, suffice it to say, that I have been at the Dera numerous times over the past 30 years and know more about all aspects of RS and Sant mat by far than most average initiates and followers.

As for your statement that supposedly I said that I "have never been stupid, moronic, idiotic etc enough to ever follow or have bhakti for such scumbag frauds as RSSB gurus!"... That is toally false and incorrect.

However I think that some time ago on this site I have said that I never had anby kind of "bhakti" type of relationship with Charan Singh, as most other RS satsangis did. Even though I was initiated into shabda yoga via RS, I did not consider Charan Singh to be my guru at all.

Furthermore, you are very mistaken... I have never said or implied that anyone was "stupid, idiotic or moronic" simply because they are following their chosen spiritual path. I have simply said many times that it is stupid for those who do continue to follow and believe in Sant Mat and RS Mat to react negatively, to challenge, and to attack people like myself and Brian and others who simply no longer buy into the Sant Mat and RS dogma and guru myth.

In view of your comments above, it is clear to me that you really know little or nothing about who I am and where I am coming from. You are also attempting to create a very false and distroted image of me on this site instead of just commenting about your own views and understanding, and your own experiences.

In conclusion, I would like to point out to you that this is Brian's site (not the radhasoamistudies group) and I prefer to keep most of my comments in more or less direct response to Brian's articles and essays, and to refrain from engaging in cross debate with other visitors like yourself as much as possible. Sometimes it does happen, but I am reticent to draw it out more than necessary. Basically this is Brian's Church of the Churchless blog site (and not just some Yahoo group that you seem to keep referring to). So I try to respect that. But you seem to have some other agenda.

As for whether people are "chasing after one manifestation of maya/illusion or another", you can only speak for yourself.

-- tao

[Roger]

Brian,

Your statement,

"Some recent Church of the Churchless comments have been directed at seemingly overly aggressive language by a blog visitor who would go unnamed if I didn't mention that his moniker is "Tao."

offered an opportunity for some of my goofy thinking;

An Internet "WORD" should not hurt.

However,

An Internet "STICK" may hurt.

Finally,

An Internet "STONE" can hurt. Wow, it can even break a bone.

[tao]

To Manjit (and also to readers in general):

Manjit wrote:

"For example, if I had to choose between living in a world where I believed the RSS theology, and a world where our our governments committed terrorist acts against their own people, as you believe with 9/11....the RS 'illusion' wins hands down every time....far more beautiful an illusion!"

Problem is... the latter is hardly an "illusion".

So perhaps you need to seriously consider viewing this presentation a few times:

" What Would You Do ? "

[ words and music by Paris ]
[ images and video by Alex Jones/Infowars.com ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2f7VW9_YOM

[Manjit]

Hello Tao. I'm sorry, I found your response typically one dimensional, lacking in honesty, and quite honestly, I find this discussion rather boring.

I sincerely wish you peace on your path.

[HXH]

Aggression is poison. How much tension to put into a Tai Chi 'ward off'? Only enough to blend. Words, words, everywhere...need to stuff them into my Ayn Rand pipe and smoke them. Then back to practice: ward off left, ward off right, Roll Back, press, push, single whip,...
Peace and thanks for some motivating discussion:))

[tao]

Manjit,

Go fuck yourself. You have no right to say someone like myself is dishonest unless you can prove it. So prove it or shut-up, you bore.

Go back to your usual habit of bowing and kissing your Queen's royal ass... and take your phony "peace" and "sincerely" with you.

[Roger]

Tao,

haha........you know to keep this website interesting.........along with Jeanine, I gotta luv ya.......

[tao]

Thanks Roger. Its nice to know that at least someone appreciates a tough knarly old spiritual biker dude like myself. The pretentious airy-fairy pseudo-spiritualists certainly don't.

[Roger]

Tao,

I do enjoy your sentence by sentence analysis. It's healthy (from time to time) for Ones "Internet head" to get smacked with a, "Common Sense Sledge Hammer."

Hopefully, not too many are getting their feelings hurt.

Best wishes,
Roger

[HXH]

Ahhhhh Taoy got an owy.

Group hug everyone.

This is really weak.

Bye bye little boys

[tao]

HXH,

And a damn good riddens to wimpy and juvenile little punks like you who have nothing meaningful or intelligent to offer.

[benandante]

I get it.

Jeanine