Feeling of I Am

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Minh Nguyen Van
Paris, France
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Master Ralston,
You told me that the feeling of "I am" precedes memory responses about the I. In this feeling it
seems there is at the same time "perception" and "differentiation" of self/not self." Is this right?
Peter

Minh,
Actually I didn't say anything about the feeling of "I am." If we were to talk of a "feeling" regarding self, this would be a very different matter than the existence of self. I did say:
"The self certainly is identified relative to what is historical and so memory is a big part, but I don't think it is accurate to say that "I" is memory. At least one other ingredient is necessary, which is the conception that "I am." This is then followed by "I am this or that" based on identifying something that I am, which is a function of memory."

Whenever there is a self there is a not-self. They cannot exist independently. Memory can't exist until
something cognized has passed and then is re-created with a mimic of perception through
conceptualization. Without the distinction of "self" (and so not-self) there would be nothing to cognize and so remember. But it is also true that the self-"identity" is composed almost, if not completely, of memory -- which is to say, of elements cognized and then identified with. This builds a "sense" of self that is then confused with the "being" of self. If we are speaking of self as what is identified as an individual -- with a character, personality, and whatnot -- then this sense of self is "the" self. But if we speak of self as what exists as "being," or a consciousness with the potential to become attached to characteristics and behavior but is not itself these attachments, then the sense of self is not the real self.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

I am Nothing and there is no such thing as a Fight

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Arensberg
Hesperia, CA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
I wrote you a few months back and wanted to thank you for your response to my question. Now I have a few more questions if you have a few minutes. In your book The Principles of Effortless Power
there were two quotes that have been perplexing me for the six years that I have had your book. The first one was "I am nothing and everyone else is nothing". The other one was "There is no such thing as fighting, never was never will be." Could you please clarify these for me? And my other question was what move did you win the World Championship with?
Sincerely yours,
Howard Arensberg

Howard,
I didn't win with a move. I won with an understanding and making active the principles of Cheng Hsin.
About the quotes: An assertion such as "I am nothing" is absolutely worthless unless directly experienced for oneself. And what's experienced is not "nothing" but what "I am." Therefore the description is not useful, only the experience. I'm speaking here about the absolute nature of Being, and so there is no way for the mind to actually understand what is being said. So just toss it out. In your
contemplation it is important that you set out to experience the truth, not some answer or belief of yours,
mine, or anyone else's. No matter whose answer it is or how good the belief is, neither are the truth or a
direct consciousness, so they are only in the way.

As far as "There is no such thing as a fight . . . " work on it. Where does the concept "fight" exist? Who
makes it up?
Good luck.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

How are my actions aligned with the truth?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ollie Cornes
London, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Peter,
I would like to ask a question if I may. If an emotion arises which pulls us towards an action, how
can we get to a place where we know that the action is aligned with truth? To me the idea of "what comes from within must be right" is very attractive and seems like the ultimate destination, and yet this reasoning could easily be used as a justification for the most abhorrent of actions ("I felt like killing him"). I think what I am asking is how to find some sense of stability in a world where the old foundations of my self (created by my mind) are crumbling through the realization that I am not my mind.
Thanks,
Ollie

Ollie,
Good question. We shouldn't depend on that which comes from within being an indication of anything
true. Every impulse and emotion "comes from within" and they are designed to serve some purpose. This purpose is not the truth. It is actually the mind serving the mind, or to say it differently: emotions serve the self. This is a long story and so you'll just have to wait for the book I'm working on now (Now Published Titled: The Book of Not Knowing) to come out, if you want to hear more about it from me.

We can reflect, however, that what arises from feeling deeply into the "heart" seems in a different class
from most other impulses. Yet we need to acknowledge that there is heart pain, and so anger, etc. that
can cloud even this resource. If we work to clear such reactions from our hearts, we do find a sort of
measuring stick that provides a clearer sense of honesty and a fuller view on relationship. The heart
function seems to be about relationship, and so leads us to a space where our consideration isn't habitually narrowed to immediate self-concerns, and this does seem to allow a more honest or open relation to things. However, I'm not proposing this is the truth, and falling into a heart-state fantasy -- although infinitely better perhaps than our normal states -- shouldn't be mistaken for the truth. The truth is discerned through direct realization, since it is itself and no personal relationship or feeling or conjecture or belief has anything to do with it.

Regarding action: action is action, to what truth should it align? If you mean: do your actions express and represent your internal state? That depends on your level of integrity. If you mean: do your actions
express an honesty and openness? That depends on your commitment to telling the truth. The fact is
actions will relate to experience, or what is perceived inside and out. If you experience the truth in someway or in some form, then your actions will arise from and relate to this experience. This then leaves us with the task of simply experiencing the truth. And that can be a lifetime endeavor.
Thanks for your input. Hope I've added to your investigation.
Peter Ralston

Attend a Seminar
More Info

"Finding" Purpose

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Pellegrino
Arlington, VA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
An ontological question: Do you have any suggestions of how to incorporate your ontologicalwork into "personal mission" work (or vice versa), exemplified by such books such "The Path - CreatingYour Mission Statement" by Jones and "Finding Your Purpose" by Braham? Do you feel it useful to have
and/or to know one's "personal mission?" It seems as if the anecdote of the Zen master responding to a similar question with "when I'm hungry, I eat and when I'm tired I sleep" goes against the quest of
discovering a person's "mission." Ontologically, will "knowing" "who/what" you really "are" result in understanding what you are "supposed" to do with your life? Vice versa, will developing a good "personal mission statement" likely get one closer to understanding who they really are?
Thank you very much,
Stephen

Stephen,
I'm not familiar with the books you mention. I'm sure, however, that the idea of a mission or mission
statement is one way of pointing to "creating purpose" and having objectives toward which to progress.
Getting clear on what one wants to be doing or to achieve is very useful for getting it. Purpose is what decides which actions are appropriate at any given time (i.e. What is the purpose for doing this? or What am I trying to accomplish? or How shall I go about accomplishing such and such).

Effective interaction is dependent on appropriate actions that relate to what's so. What's appropriate can
only be known by knowing the purpose or at least the objective for the interaction -- otherwise it wouldn't matter how the encounter turned out or what you did. One can be, and almost always is, motivated by hidden agendas which are acting out "incomplete" emotional self drives (trying to make life turn out sothat you feel whole and complete. By the way, it's not going to happen that way, but that's a long story I can only address at something like the ontological work of the month-long). In any case, creating clarity of purpose helps counter the tendency to be driven down old ruts.

Often missed is the fact that we don't "find" purpose. Purpose is only created. This bothers most people
for several reasons. Among these are: a sense of inauthenticity felt within themselves suggests that
anything they create will be bogus. From the place most people try to create, it often IS. Too often, instead of genuine creation, they substitute "pretend" or "make up" something, and call it being creative. Creation depends on not-you as much as it does on you. In other words, it can't be something simply fabricated by the self, it must be grounded in principles which lie outside the self, or I should say, independent of the self.

This is a another long story but a short form might be gleaned from a small example: The truth (of
anything) as itself cannot be a fabrication of one's self – in other words, we can't just make it up or have it be any way we want. If we did that, then what's true could be any way we say it is, and this has no power. Truth must be dependent on what is actually so or true. This is independent of my beliefs, opinions, knowledge, judgments, perceptions, desires, fears, and whatnot. It is itself.

Yet, my experience of the truth is the only way it will become conscious (at least for me), so I'm not
completely out of the loop. If I were to make my purpose in life to discover the truth (of life, self, a tree, or the corner store), we can see that at once my decision is created simply by an act of will (which only has power if it is an actual representation of my actions and future committed actions), and yet this act is dependent on something independent of anything I could make up (or at least should be). As such,
whatever is actually true will now direct my listening, contemplation, reading, speaking, searching,
questioning, experimentation, and so forth. I will be directed by some force over which I have no control. The control I have in the matter is the decision to do so, or not, and the degree of honesty and intelligence I apply to this pursuit. In this way my "mission" to discover the truth is directed by both me and not-me at the same time.

In regards to your other concerns: The "mission" of a Zen monk is enlightenment, but if his mission were to build a shopping mall, many activities would have to take place that would not take place in the pursuit of enlightenment. He might eat when hungry, but he also plows the field whether he's hungry at the moment or not.

Knowing who you are generally helps you create a purpose or mission statement, since it puts you in the middle of honesty, tends to free up so much mind crap, and opens your heart. Not being identified with all sorts of "false" characteristics and assumptions is very useful for creating the directions in which you want to proceed with life.

The ontological work of Cheng Hsin is applicable to far more than most people realize. I know it's not easy to grasp, especially from the books, but this is why I'm so excited about being able to do this work again at the month-long. Hope to see you there.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

A Breakdown of Ontological Terms

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Russell
Atlanta, Georgia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
Long ago, I took Pleiades, two Empowering Transformation Workshops, and a couple of Contemplation Intensives. What I am trying to remember and focus on now is the "sequence of encounter."
Something like: It's quite faded in my memory. I would like to identify those distinctions again. Will you provide the missing links?
Mark Russell


Mark,
I thought it might be fun to share this in the Newsletter, mostly for those who have worked with it before, but also to provide a peek for people unfamiliar with the kind of work we do in ontological workshops.

There are two sets of the Sequence of Encounter. The first is:

EXPERIENCE --> PERCEPTION --> COGNITION--> EFFECT

As you might remember, this is not a conventional use of these terms. In our language we don't make these distinctions but blur them as pretty much the same thing, and live primarily at the effect of everything. But that's another story, best told when we're together and can work through what they are "experientially" rather than merely hear about them intellectually.

I use a "camera analogy" to introduce part one:
Experience = subject of photography
Perception = developing the picture
Cognition = see an image of your girlfriend
Effect = excitement, oh joy!

It's not very accurate but gives something for the mind to stand on. The thing to remember is that most of this happens in a place we call "unconscious" which is why we can't easily recognize it.

EXPERIENCE itself is incomprehensible to us. What we commonly call experience is the formation of the meaningless into a specific and useful "perception." But, in terms of our sequence here, Experience is so far back that we cannot even imagine it. This is direct experience at its core -- it is "Being" or Consciousness in the place of the Absolute or Nothing -- before anything is separated and becomes
distinct or known. See how useless that is?

PERCEPTION is simply the phenomena that creates the "possibility" of anything being known. Think of it like the possibility that distinctions can be made, and so something can be cognized as separate from something else. It is the possibility from which perceptive organs are created, and so sight, sound, etc. can become a reality. It doesn't mean anything, and isn't really what people call perception. It is prior to sight, sound, etc.

COGNITION is the phase that turns this perceptive possibility into what we normally call experience and perception; i.e. when something is somehow "known" in one's consciousness or awareness.

EFFECT is our reaction to whatever seems to be coming into our awareness. The operative word here is "seems," because what we are reacting to is an interpretation that's been processed through our own personal "mind factory" and is not what is actually there or true. (This is not to assume that there is some solid reality or anything prior to cognition simply waiting to be known; the knowing itself may well "create" what's known. But that's another story.) The point is that we need not be dominated by unnecessary "effects" that we ourselves create.

The second breakdown starts at Cognition above and breaks it down further into:

Interpretation --> Reaction Sensation --> Meaning --> Reaction Appearance

Reaction Appearance is basically the same as Effect. It is what appears to us as a reaction or what we commonly call our "experience," so you can see how far this is from direct experience. Reaction Sensation is too subtle to grasp here; so we have mainly Interpreting what is perceived (which is a meaningless phenomenon), and giving it the meaning and charge that determines our reaction.

The breakdown in Cognition begins with Interpretation which simply associates what is perceived with all that is remembered and finds matches, thus turning it into something that can be conceptualized and"known" in a very basic sense. But this interpretation is devoid of emotion or charge, it is meaningless and not useful in the normal sense. So we run this interpretation through another process that matches it up with a complex set of data that tells us what it means. This gives it charge, juice, lets us know it as good or bad, dangerous or useful, etc.

This is the first time in this process that something could be useful. It is when an orientation can occur. This process is called Meaning. Prior to this, everything is pretty much in a "detached" place, it ain't personal, it doesn't mean anything. Now that it means something we can react to it -- have a feeling or thought that tells us what to do: run or feed it a biscuit. This is the Effect or this whole Reaction's Appearance in the matter. All of the above takes place faster than light speed, so it's difficult for most people to discern.

How to sum it up? Let's see. The most important parts are: there is whatever is true, and then we somehow encounter it. In this encounter we turn what is true into something we can be aware of and then into something that means something to us personally. We react to this personal meaning, but we are not actually reacting to or knowing what the thing is for itself.

Now here's the good part: When we become aware to any degree of something for itself --before judgment, reaction, etc.-- our relationship to it is more accurate, more appropriate, and more REAL.

Hope this refreshes your memory.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

What is Cheng Hsin continued...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Justin Adler-Swanberg
New York, NY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[A continuation of our past dialogue above titled, "What is Cheng Hsin?":]

Justin: From my limited exploration there seems to be a lot of insight that can gained about the experience of being in a body that has nothing to do with an apparently functional application. I think the problem I am finding is that I love the exploration for its own sake but cannot seem to find a particular arena in which to do that exploration that really "draws" me except for purely meditative or contemplative disciplines.

PR: Nothing wrong with pure contemplation; just watch out for all the lies and traps that accompany such practices -- ALL such practices. And it is healthy and grounding, and helpful to include some physical form of practice and relationship. It does balance the tendency to become devoted to pure MIND, rather than the truth.

Justin: The experience of this principle (Cheng Hsin) seems to manifest in concrete aspects dependent upon the immediate personal commitments and involvements of the experiencer. What I mean by this is that outward demonstrations of the insights are determined by the arenas for interaction to which the person is committed. For example, you had a commitment to the martial arts, so your insights showed up very intensely in that domain. You are not known for being a cook, so I assume that that was not something to which you were particularly committed.

PR: I was also very committed to contemplation and discovering the truth -- completely independent of martial arts. My insights were applied to the martial arts, and much was studied and discovered within that pursuit having nothing to do with martial arts in particular. The martial arts as we practice them (I don't really like what most others do as "martial arts"), is a great place for feedback -- it is immediate, recurring, and covers a whole range of the human experience, from the physical to emotion, thought, perception, etc. But, as you know, much was done outside of the martial arts in other domains, and a great deal was discovered there. And yes, one's focus or commitments will determine the arenas in which insights will occur and show up. Cheng Hsin applies to all human activities and pursuits. Besides, I make a mighty good omelette.

Justin: I like the fact that Cheng Hsin is not in English and is hard to translate. It makes it harder to have a comfortable symbol for consciousness, which I believe you have said is part of why you chose it.

PR: In response to this comment directly above, for the Newsletter, I want to insert a section from an interview done in 1979:

Q: How original is your work? 

PR: In some sense, very original, and in some sense not so original. I learned a lot from my teachers. If it wasn't for my teachers I may not have moved into some very important observations and considerations. They opened up a lot of areas for me, taught me, and assisted me in breaking through a lot of stuff. And what I do is still quite different. 

Q: So, how unique is your school and your teaching? 

PR: Very unique; there is none other like it. 

Q: Is it a synthesis? 

PR: It's not a synthesis, it's a discovery. Sometimes people talk about eclecticism, but I'm not eclectic. It is not like I've taken a little from here and there and built up a patchwork quilt of a practice. I didn't do that. 

Cheng Hsin is at once discovered and created. I discovered it and in so discovering, I also created it. The first manual I wrote starts off saying: "Cheng Hsin is perfect already. It's perfect not because I made it perfect, or anybody else made it perfect, or because it was made; it is perfect because it is just what it is. "It's what is Being!" It's not a system of my beliefs, it's not something Imade up, it's not my fantasy, or anybody else's, you see? I looked and it was there. I havenothing to do with it. But that's very unique. You see, most people don't truly look. So when I did, an incredible communication I call Cheng Hsin came up. It was both created and found. It is at the same time the way that it is, most fundamentally, and what is merely occurring as a function of Being. 

Q: So the name Cheng Hsin is entirely yours? Why would you, did you, choose the oriental, the Asian words? Because of its accuracy technically, or why? Why didn't you call it Ralstonizing or something? 

PR: (laughter) One reason is because of the accuracy, because I couldn't find a word that I could say it with. I've started using "Integrity of Being" for a while, but when I say that do you see what happens? People hear what they think. Hsin translates as "Being", which means your True Nature, it means Consciousness itself, the Origin of mind and heart -- where mental activity, conscious awareness, heart, feelings and even the life force, all come from. But whatever I call it, people will relate to is what they think or associate with the words. When I say Cheng Hsin, nobody knows what it means, and that's true! 

Justin: What would you say is the most important thing that you could get across, regardless of the domains or disciplines in which one is engaged? I know this is a lot to ask, but whatever you could say would be appreciated.

PR: What is most important to say is what is being said all the time, but never spoken. It is not possible to"tell" so will have to emerge as time goes by -- or fail to do so.

I used to think that people would get it much faster, but it seems it takes many years of constant exposure before what's important about Cheng Hsin begins to seep into their bones. When the first group of apprentice-instructors graduated in 1986, I sent them on their way with this advice: be honest, be honest, be honest. What else can I say?
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

What do you think of Jung? Thinking in boxes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Pellegrino
Arlington, Virginia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
What do you think of Jung's work? Having a framework of likely behaviors and responses has helped me in my "relationships" at work and home. Though most of the psychological benefit is fairly superficial right now, I think that there is a practical benefit in being able to predict other's actions (even if I do not understand why they choose that behavior, outside of an "archetype" framework.) Therefore, I am a little surprised that I do not remember you mentioning Jungian concepts at the PEI (Principles of Effective Interaction) or TER (Transforming Our Experience of Relationship) seminars (and I apologize if you did and I forgot). Regardless, could you tell me what you think?
Thank you,
Stephen


Stephen,
The issue you bring up is actually much more complex than simply addressing Jung's contribution to psychology. There is an important point here, however, and one so few people grasp that I am going to tackle it. First, you should know I don't really know Jung's work; I am barely familiar with his general theories. But the point I have to make isn't necessarily about Jung.

From time to time, some very intelligent people come up with descriptions of reality, or of human psychology, that can be revealing and useful. These are usually based on a great deal of observation and consideration. From these observations, patterns are recognized, and through the contemplation of these patterns an idea explaining them or categorizing them emerges. This idea is then tested with more observations while keeping the theory in mind. When the idea tends to fit the observations, the theory is made available to people to explain things, in this case human behavior.

If it is a good idea and well based on what is observable in people, it can be quite useful. When we learn it, we can superimpose the categories or distinctions onto reality (or others) and so we begin to see things in a way we never could before. Changing our perceptions of things will change our relationship with them. And since, in Jung's case for example, the matter is one of human psychology, we will see people and their behavior in the light of this structure and also learn to recognize facets we'd never noticed before, thus supporting the view that such a thing is very useful. But, it is only useful up to a point.

With every such pursuit, at some point people will always start to cram the truth into the framework, rather than realize that the framework is an artificial device superimposed on what's occurring. In some ways this may be inevitable, since much of our interpretation of reality is acquired through the use of models. These "models" are simply ways of explaining and categorizing what's perceived into something that makes sense to us. They help explain the world around us. But an explanation is not the truth.

In the pursuit of Cheng Hsin we use structures and develop models or theories, but our main focus is on finding the principles that make things the way that they are, and on directly experiencing the nature of what "is". When we investigate effective interaction or body-being, we consider the principles that support or determine such effectiveness. When we examine human psychology, we look into the principles that make up the human experience or "mind."

The difference between a model and a principle may sometimes be hard to discern. A principle is a constant, it is what's true or inherent within a given activity. A model is an abstraction invented to explain some observation about a given activity. The principles that actually determine people's behavior and thinking must always be true. Otherwise, they are not principles, but theories that try to explain what appears to be there.

There are many such models and ideas -- astrology, Gurdjieff's personality categories, Jung's archetypes, phrenology, etc. These may be born of considerable observation, but they are all artificial inventions that must be "applied" to reality. We can't help but use these models like templates, excluding anything that doesn't fit and filling in whatever is missing in order to validate our model of “reality.” Such interpretations not only observe what's there but also create what's there.

For example -- in a very different domain -- consider how language is not a “universal truth” but an invention. The English language is a particular tool within that invention. If we were to presume that English is language, and that language is a reflection of reality, then we would fail to notice how much we are "creating" our interpretation of things, rather than merely perceiving them. This is easily done (most everyone does) since we grow familiar with our particular world of language and take it for granted. Fromthere it is a short step to assuming, without thinking, that the English language is somehow simply the expression of universal reality. I'm sure you have seen the Sci Fi shows where all the aliens speak English. Obviously this is to make it easy on viewers, so we can get on with the drama, but it is beyond farfetched. What it fails to acknowledge in many subtle ways is the real nature of language; that it is superimposed on reality, not a reflection of reality. Language "creates" as much as it expresses. But this is another long story. Regarding Jung, his contributions might be as powerful as creating language (then again, probably not) but they are artificial and applied, not reflective or directly experienced. Such things can be very useful --where would we be without language?-- we simply need to understand what they are and what they are not.

People seem most likely to champion a given set of "archetypes" if they themselves approve of the category in which it puts them. This is true of many so called "spiritual" pursuits and views, which are especially popular if people feel approved of by them, or if their lives feel special and full of meaning when viewed through that particular cosmology. Of course, it is also to be hoped that some sense of truth helps us determine what to believe, but this is tricky in itself since a "sense of truth" may well be based on personal and cultural programming and beliefs.

I think I may have stirred up more dust than I have settled, but I trust my point is beginning to reveal itself. Some practical advice: when you find yourself trying to fit people's observed inconsistencies into the boxes, or pushing a person into a "type" even though they may not actually fit, this might be the time to give up that tool, since it has begun to displace the truth and honesty and reduce people to a model of predestined limits. When you begin to think of yourself as a "type" rather than an open human event, this is another clue that it may be doing more harm than good.
Good luck.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

What is Cheng Hsin?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Justin Adler-Swanberg
New York, NY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Justin (Cheng Hsin instructor in New York city, and level three apprentice) and I have been having a dialogue recently. I thought it might be useful for Newsletter readers to share with you a small part of this dialogue.]

Peter,
Q1: In your words, what is Cheng Hsin? (simply; I am not expecting a miracle of clarity, just what you would say?)

PR: Cheng Hsin itself is the source of the "communication" of Cheng Hsin, which manifests as a practice or study (or way of inquiry) that has produced the "body of knowledge" that comprises the bulk of the Cheng Hsin work. This inquiry is pursued in the arts of Cheng Hsin that have been adopted for this purpose.

I imagine that you are asking about the source or Cheng Hsin itself, so I will respond to that aspect. Cheng Hsin is Consciousness, or the nature of Being -- which is the origin or source of consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and the "rationale", as it were, of existence -- in other words why body, physics, mind-forms, etc. make sense -- and so is the "mother" of the principles that found everything. Cheng Hsinis the genius of being. It is Nothing and it is Absolute. It is the source of everything. But I doubt this will really make much sense, or be very useful.


Q2: In my own experience and interpretation, Cheng Hsin refers to the actual nature of all things as they actually are.

PR: Yes, but we can't presume to "know" what that is. It is not thinkable or perceivable, even in the abstract. So whatever image, notion, sense, etc., we come up with will not be it and, although sometimesuseful, should be known as an inadequate symbol, a "place holder" at best. Really. It cannot be thought. It cannot be perceived. I know this is unacceptable to the human mind, but don't blame me, I didn't make it that way.


Q3: This is an absolute principle which so far as I have been able to tell is not altered in any way by any possible situation or condition. I have only been aware of this to this level since the camp, by the way.

PR: This is true. It is really impossible to communicate about the "source" or "Nothing" from which the Cheng Hsin communication comes, so I don't try. There is just no way anyone would understand this correctly. They must find the way there themselves (with a lot of assistance). It is of the nature of "blah, blah, Ginger" (if you are familiar with that Larson cartoon). Much can be said but then a leap in consciousness must be made. This consciousness generates what is said, but it not what is said.


Q4: In other words, as far as I can tell, I have had a clear experience of what Cheng Hsin itself asa principle actually is but this has not suddenly made me an expert, or even significantly more skillful, inthe arts that you teach.

PR: Cheng Hsin itself isn't actually a principle, it is the mother of principles. If you grasp the unifying principle of the principles of Cheng Hsin, then it should show up in your practice. However, the arts must be grasped on their own terms, and practice as well as study is necessary. An insight can certainly help, even speed up the learning, but doesn't provide skill automatically.

An insight of Cheng Hsin itself is as true of cooking and talking and laughing as it is of martial interaction. It's an opening and doesn't necessarily provide something concrete; rather it provides the opening, the nothing, the space, the honesty, and usually the sensitivity and intelligence to learn, become more skillful, to investigate and discover what is true.
Peter

What is Prior to Perception?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Minh Nguyen VanParis, France
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Master Ralston.
I'm upset by your "17. Effect or Reflection" article in "Internal Dialogue Anthology": you said "At some point we must leap beyond perception [...]. This leap is called direct experience [...]". You mean there is something which can occur before perception? I have difficulty to understand and visualize your telling because, by definition, for me perception is chronologically the 1st and only one contact we have with reality (mind as memory and interpretation coming later).
Minh


Minh,
I usually consider it a good thing when someone becomes upset by an ontological communication; it frequently means they care enough to become upset and that the communication has hit something and so disturbed it. Whatever has been disturbed often needs disturbing.

In any case, yes there is something prior to perception. To say something "occurs" before perception is inaccurate since "occurs" implies a process and what "is" before perception is not a process. Consider: if nothing existed with perceptive potential, or the possibility to cognize perception, how would perception take place? You haven't looked past conventional presumptions in this matter. Such experience of the nature of consciousness isn't received from reading books or making presumptions. It is gleaned solely through direct investigation.

Ask: What is prior to perception?
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info