Buddhist Mindfulness vs Taoist Flow

DT Strain · 10-31-2005, 09:24 PM

Hi all,

I have recently been reading about Buddhism and the concept of mindfulness. The author mentions always being aware of all of the stimuli around you (breathing, footsteps, etc) and all of the little things we normally do on "autopilot".

This seems like a great practice and I can understand its appeal. Yet, previous to this I was reading about Taoism in Chuang-Tzu. There, he mentioned the centipede speaking with the walrus. The walrus asks the centipede how he handles so many legs. The centipede responds that he doesn't try to think about it, but lets it flow naturally. If he actually stopped to think about it, he'd trip.

This sort of automatic "flow" as it might be called, also seems to me to be an approach with good potential and application.

But how can I reconcile these two concepts, which seem directly at odds with one another? I know they both come from different traditions, but might there be some philosophy by which we can know when mindfulness is proper and when flow is proper? Both of these traditions seem to be encouraging them exclusively, but this doesn't seem like truth to me.

Thoughts?

Thanks

p.s.
I'd also like to ask this of the folks over in the Taoist forum, but I once posted the same post in more than one thread and was deleted for spamming. I'm not sure how to do this properly?

earl · 10-31-2005, 10:29 PM

I dare say "it" can only flow naturally when a good degree of mindfulness has already developed. We may only have 2 legs as opposed to the multitude of the centipede, but we've all had the experience(s) of walking along with our mind a zillion miles way from our present reality and, as a result of the unmindfulness in that moment, may have stumbled and fallen or even run smack dab into something. In fact, with enough mindfulness, we quickly discover we're not "flowing" effortlessly in that we are often an eddy of competing, conflicting currents spinning ourselves about and not generally flowing in an effective direction in a given moment. However, with greater mindfulness comes a certain "natural" degree of unfication of those currents and directionality ensues. Now who/what is doing the unifying, there's the koanic rub.

Have a good One, Earl

wil · 10-31-2005, 11:29 PM

In being aware of everything, we are aware of nothing...knowing we know nothing is everything.

Only the first steps need to be taken care and only the front legs managed the others follow.

I can't think of anytime when I was in the flow that I have stumbled...it is always when my thoughts were someplace else (usually in the past or making up stories to questions I didn't have answeres) and not in the now that I ran into something.

I don't see the dichotomy...look at the millions of bits of information your subconscious absorbs with every blink, your conscious can't handle that, but can acknowledge and move on...if I can use the Star Wars going into hyperspace....while you see it all, are aware of it all, it allows you to flow by. As something arrives into awareness you focus acknowledge the footstep and smile blissfully enjoying being in the place to be aware...

ps....spammers cover their ears...change three words... betcha that'll do it.

namaste,

seattlegal · 11-01-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DT Strain

Hi all,

I have recently been reading about Buddhism and the concept of mindfulness. The author mentions always being aware of all of the stimuli around you (breathing, footsteps, etc) and all of the little things we normally do on "autopilot".

This seems like a great practice and I can understand its appeal. Yet, previous to this I was reading about Taoism in Chuang-Tzu. There, he mentioned the centipede speaking with the walrus. The walrus asks the centipede how he handles so many legs. The centipede responds that he doesn't try to think about it, but lets it flow naturally. If he actually stopped to think about it, he'd trip.

This sort of automatic "flow" as it might be called, also seems to me to be an approach with good potential and application.

But how can I reconcile these two concepts, which seem directly at odds with one another? I know they both come from different traditions, but might there be some philosophy by which we can know when mindfulness is proper and when flow is proper? Both of these traditions seem to be encouraging them exclusively, but this doesn't seem like truth to me.

Thoughts?

Thanks

p.s.
I'd also like to ask this of the folks over in the Taoist forum, but I once posted the same post in more than one thread and was deleted for spamming. I'm not sure how to do this properly?

Only you can answer that question for yourself. To trust or to question? How well do you know yourself? Flow is more creative and likely to be faith based, whereas mindfulness is more rational. We can interfere withourselves, like an unobserved photon {See Young's Two Slit Experiment}, or we trust ourselves to do the correct thing? Once you know yourself, you will have your answer.

DT Strain · 11-01-2005, 05:58 PM

Thanks for the responses all. I will give this more thought

Seatlegal, that quote at the bottom of your posts - you put "Chantecler" as the author, but I haven't been able to find such a person in my online searches. In other places, I've seen that poem attributed to George Herbert Palmer. I don't have a clue either way, but thought you should know.

seattlegal · 11-02-2005, 07:39 AM

Thanks, DT Strain. I have a feeling that "Chantecler" is a collection of poems, rather than an author.

PrimaVera · 11-02-2005, 09:07 AM

DT,

I'm neither a Buddhist nor a Taoist, so take this with an appropriately-sized grain of salt. But, it seems to me that the common thread between the two concepts is a lack of self-consciousness. No?

seattlegal · 11-02-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DT Strain

Thanks for the responses all. I will give this more thought

Seatlegal, that quote at the bottom of your posts - you put "Chantecler" as the author, but I haven't been able to find such a person in my online searches. In other places, I've seen that poem attributed to George Herbert Palmer. I don't have a clue either way, but thought you should know.

Hmm, I did an online search, and came up with a poem that seems to address the ideas of "mindfulness" and "flow" quite well:

Poem – The centipede
by Mrs Edmund Craster (d. 1874)

A centipede was happy quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said ‘Pray which leg moves after which ?
This raised her doubts to such a pitch
She fell exhausted in a ditch,
Not knowing how to run.

While lying in this plight,
A ray of sunshine caught her sight;
She dwelt upon its beauties long,
Till breaking into happy song,
Unthinking she began to run,
And quite forgot the croakers fun.

It seems that both concepts have their proper applications.

_Z_ · 11-02-2005, 09:18 PM

If we take away all the language distinctive to the separate parties [religious, cultural etc], such things as Tao, maat, ceugant are all part of the same world. If not then they don’t exist, if you except that for example; the Tao and mindfulness exist then they are both part of a greater something!

Strip it all bare and see.

Z

rdwillia · 11-03-2005, 02:38 AM

Hello!

I believe that everyone has touched on the truth, there are some really good posts here. That being said, I think that both can be incorporated, I think that Buddha Shakyamumi would have told you the same thing. Some of the ideas get taken too literally and are also taken out of context with the situation at hand.

Keep in mind that in most Buddhist schools of thought, one is free to take what they want and leave the rest. You're not barred from believing in letting things flow as well. I think Tai Chi is a good example of this. You are very mindful of your movements, but flow with them as well. Although it's not the best example becuase in some cases you are trying to manipulate the Chi...

I myself, tend to go with mindfullness over flow, perhaps this is due to my Buddhist background. There are so many things one can accomplish with mindfulness. Let's take speech for example, to be mindfull of what you are saying to others. Just the simple practice of being mindfull of what you are saying to others can be very enlightening. I can think of many cases where I wouldn't have wanted to "let flow" exactly what was on my mind. I think we can all agree that we could do some serious damage to ourselves and others if we didn't practice some form of mindfulness in our speech. But if we were to stop the flow, life would lose it's sponteneity. So, I would be mindful of what point I really wanted to get across and then let it flow from a higher level, or from the heart.

Hope this helps.

seattlegal · 11-03-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

I think Tai Chi is a good example of this. You are very mindful of your movements, but flow with them as well. Although it's not the best example becuase in some cases you are trying to manipulate the Chi...

Perhaps what athletes call being in "The Zone" might serve as another example of the integration of mindfulness and flow. The "flow" aspect adds a 'timeless' quality to your heightened perception, allowing you to apply an enhanced 'mindful' approach to your actions.

DT Strain · 11-03-2005, 07:18 PM

Thanks for all the responses everyone.

So, I'm seeing, looking over everything here (as well as responses in some other forums I placed this question on), that it seems the responses are boiling down to two general lines of thought on this question...

1) Mindfulness and nomind/flow are really two parts of the same process and not opposite. You must be mindful, and this then allows you to achieve flow.

-OR-

2) These two practices are different, and perhaps even opposite, but they are useful at different times and in different circumstances. Sometimes mindfulness is proper and sometimes nomind/flow is proper.

1 and 2 do not seem to be compatible answers to my question, yet each seem like possibilities. The problem with 1 is that is seems a little bit like a forced hodgepodge. The problem with 2 is that it seems to contradict what seems to be a Buddhist notion that we should ALWAYS be mindful.

Any more thoughts on this?

Thanks!

rdwillia · 11-04-2005, 05:45 AM

Good point Seattlegal.

DT, I guess that my point and your paradox, both come from the idea that flow, in terms of action, in my opinion, doesn't equal 'no-mind'. How can one enjoy the benefits of flow if they're not using their mind to interpret it? I would say that it would be more accurate to call it, no manipulation/flow.

seattlegal · 11-04-2005, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Any more thoughts on this?

mindfulness--from the rational, conscious mind
flow--from the intuitive, subconscious mind
Both are complimentary, as opposed to opposite, aspects of mind. When we multi-task successfully, we are employing both processes.
Trying to multi-task without being mindful can result in errors in your tasks.
Much can be done when employing flow, but mindfulness is necessary in order to minimize errors, and increases chances for the desired outcome.

Vajradhara · 11-04-2005, 11:01 PM

perhaps...

the reason that the two methods seem in contradiction to each other is due to how the term "mindful" is understood?

generally speaking, being mindful is being aware, i think that we could all agree on this. the salient bit, in my view, is becoming aware of awareness and how awareness is empty of any sort of internal referent.

another interesting thing about the confluence of Buddhist/Taoist thought can be found in the Ch'an schools of Chinese Buddhism wherein they turn the idea of mindful awareness to a different end.

not so much to realize the lack of inherent self nature, more to the experience of, as they say "being in the grove everywhere you go". this is, in my view, the essence of what is being alluded to.

anyway.. it's been a good discussion thus far

metta,

~v