Lataif

A thread in "Daoist Discussion" got me wondering how much previous exploration there might have been here on differences between Eastern and Western interpretations/implementations of Taoism. Can anyone remember a thread on this from the past (?) Among the issues: ** In Eastern perspective, society (and even all of reality . . .) is understood to benefit most when individual psychology is subordinated to society. ** In Western perspective, society is understood to benefit most when society is subordinated to individual psychology. How you understand Taoism (both in theory and practice) diverges a lot based on which perspective you take. Michael Winn, for example, emphasizes how his perspective differs from that of Mantak Chia (who has himself been pretty non-Eastern) . . .

I don't consider "Inquiry" to be primarily a matter of thinking . . . at all. Thinking and awareness are not the same. Inquiry, at its best, is a multi-faceted curiosity about what's happening in our experience -- physically, emotionally, intellectually, whatever . . . Of course, if we think we already know what's happening . . . we're not going to be very curious. Sophisticated Inquiry requires a lot of different capacities. For example:: -- energy (to do what it takes) -- confidence (to keep doing it, sometimes) -- a sense of fun (to enjoy doing it) -- compassion for yourself (when you're having a tough time doing it) -- relaxation (not doing a certain thing, sometimes) -- absorption (not being detached from what's happening) -- balance (of all the other capacities) -- etc. Inquiry assumes that our experience unfolds in a purposeful, meaningful way . . . that we can become aware of that purpose and meaning . . . and that we can become more and more attuned to it. It's a way of Life . . .

.

Okay, I ordered the book from Amazon.com. Now they just have to get some stock of the book in . . . so that they can fill my order. I'm looking forward to seeing what it's all about . . .

Okay, let me think about this for a minute . . . First, there are a lot of different interpretations/implementations of both Buddhism and Taoism -- both in the East and in the West. I personally don't care about the Eastern ones at all. I don't feel they are relevant to me as a Westerner; everyone can decide that for himself. So any version of Buddhism or Taoism that retains a primarily Eastern perspective . . . I don't take seriously (at least not until someone re-interprets it in Western terms). Beyond that, I find that Taoism (in general) is much more capable of being usefully interpreted in Western terms than is Buddhism. And Theravada seems the LEAST so of the various types of Buddhism . . .

What specific QiGong teachers/lineages are people here most familiar with from personal experience (?) Could someone maybe estimate the percentages (?) For example, I'm familiar with Mantak Chia/Michael Winn . . . and with Yang Jwing Ming. Are 10% of people here familiar with Chia (?) 20% (?) What (?) Or . . . what are the "top 10" most common teachings that people here follow (?) Anyone in a position to guesstimate about this (?) I'd be interested in maybe looking into the most common teaching . . . that I'm not already familiar with. Thanks . . .

I found that just being "mindful" . . . eventually fails (or gets distorted) because it is too head orientated. Instead, I practice constantly returning awareness to sensation of the body (sensing the body). The body is always in the present and reflects a lot about what's happening with us. This is a very grounding, lower dantian practice. Extra added bonus: my sitting meditation is exactly the same practice, so there's continuity in all waking hours . . .

I have a practice that I do . . . and that is an implicit component of a variety of Qigong practices ("skin breathing", for example). I've been doing it succcessfully for a long time . But I swear, I still can't describe exactly what is I'm doing. Can anyone offer any insight (?) It's "breathing into the body" -- and here is the best I can describe it. First, regular breathing: I inhale into the lungs through the nose and then exhale out again. Just what you would expect. Now . . . on "breathing into the body", I inhale into my lungs through the nose . . . I do "something" (it seems??) with the back of my throat and a conscious intention . . . and half the exhalation "showers" instead into the body (the other half exits through the nose). But what exactly IS this "something" (?) No matter how carefully I observe it . . . I can't figure it out. The intention is enough to get it to happen . . . but the mechanics of it escape me. Thanks . . .

Is there a website for this teaching (?) I tried "blissenergetics.com" . . . and (LOL) found that website is for sale for 99 cents from godaddy..

Taoism (as far as I'm aware) has no comprehensive insight into the nature of Music. To my mind, Music is second only to romantic relationship as a comprehensive, differentiated clue to what we humans are all about . . .

One of the other threads reminded me of something I've wondered about more than once. Intuitively, it seems to me that there "ought" to be some herbal mixture that would trigger an energetic orgasm. Even with my limited experience of herbs, I've seen them produce a wide enough variety of effects (for example: cinnamon in hot water giving you a pretty good yang rush) . . . that it seems to not be asking too much to expect that energetic orgasm could be another one of them. What does everyone else think (?)

Quote and paste don't work for me either. I'm on Internet Explorer . . .

What do you want to know . . . that's not already in the detailed course descriptions on Winn's website (?) Here are the links: http://www.healingtaousa.com/ckf3 http://www.healingtaousa.com/ckf4

Inner Smile is a pretty good practice. Very high benefit to risk ratio. But I've never heard a good explanation of why it works. What exactly is the source of the smile (?) What is it (?) Where is it (?) And how do we connect with it (?) These questions become important . . . when you find you can't do the practice (or can't do it well). Can you inner smile . . . while being waterboarded (?)

Yin and Yang are too general to explain the variety of musical experience. The Five Elements are no better. Taoism simply doesn't understand Music in the way that people actually experience it. Humans have the capacity to experience different Music in different ways. And that capacity is important to us because it reflects various specific ways that we manifest the possibilities of the Absolute as individuals. Taoism is tone deaf to this . . .

Okay, but that's very general. May I offer an analogy (?) Let's say that one person likes potato chips . . . and another likes ice cream. What is it about their respective experiences that they like (?) Sure, you can say "horses for courses". But you can also say that one person likes salty things . . . and the other likes sugary things. Why doesn't Taoism say something equally specific about musical taste (?)

Simple questions about Music that Taoism seems to have no specific answer for: why do some people like the experience of Frank Sinatra while others like the experience of the Sex Pistols (?) What is it about the respective experiences that they like (?) Specifically . . .

Hello Bruce . . . Good, very good. The distinction between a sympathetic orgasm and a parasympathetic one . . . is really useful here. I've gotten into some discussions before about whether Yin and Yang themselves can be understood in those terms. Can't quite make it work 100% . . . but you can maybe learn some things if you try .

Energetic orgasm is great . . . if it's a "valley" orgasm. A "peak" energetic orgasm, on the other hand . . . seems like it has the potential to fry some circuitry. I think there's a good chance that cultivating a permanent, ongoing "valley" orgasm . . . could be a pretty comprehensive practice. How does "bliss energetics" understand this (?)

I've come across an article by Gunther Weil, who historically has a prominent background/position in Mantak Chia's teaching. Weil argues for questioning the value of that teaching -- and all "progressive" Neigong teachings. He advocates instead for "effortless effort" such as that in, for example, the "Zhan Zhuang" perspective. In some respects, it sounds like a Dzogchen kind of non-duality, non-practice "practice" in which Wu Chi has the same status as Dzogchen. I've come across similar people before . . . and I notice 2 things. First, if the person gives me the impression that he knows from personal experience what he is talking about in advocating against "progressive" spiritual practices . . . I can't help but notice that he's usually done A LOT of those practices at a deep level before coming to that conclusion. And second, if the person gives me the impression that he DOESN'T know what he is talking about . . . he's usually NOT done those practices at a deep level. The conclusion I myself draw from that . . . seems a pretty obvious one.

IMO: It might be better for you to: (1) find some mainstream teacher outside of your location (Mantak Chia lineage for example) (2) travel to an introductory workshop and learn some single basic practice (don't try to do too much -- certainly don't try to do EVERYTHING) (3) go home and practice it regularly in conjunction with phone/email consultations with the teacher (4) see what happens

Yes, I read about this earlier in the week. This kind of stuff kills me. Just kills me, I tell you . . . You repeatedly hear of these traditional medicines made up of convoluted combinations of ingredients that would take, like, forever (LOL) . . . to arrive at by trial-and-error. Ayahuasca (yage), for example . . .

Well . . . it's awfully hard to say much of anything about this without it sounding like a useless truism. Nevertheless: I think there's a good case to be made that human beings have a privileged place in Reality. There's probably nothing that can't in principle be known by us. But we can't know everything. That would defeat our purpose in Reality as I understand it. Here's how the argument for this goes. If Unlimited Reality were only COMPLETELY known . . . then that would be a limitation of that Reality (to not also know itself PARTIALLY). So . . . there's a means by which Unlimited Reality knows itself in partial ways . . . in order to fulfill its nature as Unlimited. (LOL) That's us. We're that means . . .

I usually find it tiresome when people say "it depends" . . . but it's okay as long as they then tell me what it depends on. So: it probably depends on the nature of the scar . . . the person's individual skin characteristics . . . the type of energy work being done . . . and the ability of the person doing the energy work (which includes both the ability to generate the energy and the receptivity to it). When I clicked on this topic . . . I was expecting a question about how to make scars disappear more quickly using energy work. That seems a reasonable possibility to me (depending on the foregoing factors). I'd try "skin breathing" QiGong specifically . . .

Is anyone else skeptical of the conventionally disproportionate Daoist association of Yin with the "Feminine" . . . and Yang with the "Masculine" (?) I'm not talking about exceptions to the rule: "everyone has some of both" . . . or "some Men are mostly Feminine and some Women are mostly Masculine". I'm talking about the rule (principle) in itself. Follow me for a just a minute . . . while I offer some counter examples to the conventional perspective. Let's consider, for example . . . some of the conventional qualities of Yin. (1) How about Yin as . . . "contraction" (as opposed to expansion). How are Women more "contracted" than Men (?) I don't see it. Most Women enjoy expressing themselves in clothing and cosmetics, for example. That's clearly "expansion" . . . not "contraction" . (2) How about Yin as . . . "internal" (as opposed to external). How are Women more "internal" than Men (?) I don't see. Most Women are relationship oriented, for example. That's clearly "external" orientation . . . not "internal". (3) How about Yin as . . . "cold" (as opposed to hot). How are Women more "cold" than Men (?) I don't see it. Most Women are more emotional and less intellectual, for example. That's clearly a "warm" orientation . . . not "cold". My alternative perspective: Yin Chi and Yang Chi are BOTH "Feminine" energies . . . and the only true "Masculine" energy is that rarest one (in our usual experience) that contains them both and from which they both arise: Yuan Chi.