Bindi

Hi ralis, probably always good advice, but the subtle body is an amazing vehicle and not something on the radar yet with the medical profession IMO.

If one wants to see reality, what would be the point of visualising anything, no matter how vividly or effortlessly it appears? How to see reality seems more relevant to me.

Sorry to hear what a hard time you’ve been having cloud.

I see Jamgon Mipham states that the objects of their feelings have no real existence, though I don’t think it follows that feelings themselves are therefore unreal. I do see his point though that how we respond to something is relative, not intrinsic. It seems to me that you’re coming at it from a different angle, there is no self therefore no one to own emotions. I find myself saying “This too shall pass” when I am experiencing an unpleasant emotion, so I’m hooking into the changeable nature of emotions, not the unreality of self or objects.

Thanks Steve, if he means Buddhist practitioner it makes more sense to me. I was of course thinking Indian yogi.

i get the need for dissolution of distortions, but are Buddhist trying to actually terminate/extinguish emotions themselves?

I understand yogi’s realise they are not their feelings, but do they really believe that feelings are “unreal”/“have no real existence”? This seems like a more Buddhist stance to me.

But Todd Strandberg, editor and founder of RaptureReady.com, who tracks current events and links them to biblical prophecy and is the best source online for predictions and calculations concerning the end of the world, said, and I quote, “Obama probably isn't the Antichrist”. I believe Todd Strandberg. edit to add: I’m mildly surprised that you believed Obama was the antichrist in 2015, and still do to this day. Presidents will come and go, one ex president might even go to jail soon, but you’re still touting Obama as the ultimate evil. Conspiracy theory is a pretty sad hole to get stuck in.

You identified who the antichrist was because some famous person happened to make a speech on the same day an unconnected state lottery had the number 666 which by your accounting occurs three times per year every year in that state??? This does suggest you have a somewhat alarming propensity for fairly broad and unfounded associative reasoning. I declare nungali the winner, even though he likes Crowley.

Re the passage I quoted, which was actually Isiah 12:13 (my mistake) I note this comment from https://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/isaiah/14.htm Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is [however] a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel. So yes it seems to have been about a king and comparing him to Venus the morning star, but in the Christian context it somehow shadows and became equivalent to the fall of Satan. It pays to be goaty

I believe the Christian version is that Satan wanted to be like God, and he was kicked out of heaven because of this: Isaiah 14:12, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars [angels] of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High." As far as I know there is no reference in the entire Bible where God asks the angels to bow down to man and that Satan refused. The request that angels bow down to Adam was however mentioned in the Koran, which occasionally presents a garbled Christian story “…And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis (Lucifer)…”

There might be quite a few perspectives that Crowley had that also interest me, I think the difference is that he externalised the search. For example seeking the yin/yang dynamic within versus seeking it in ritual sex magic.

I don’t think the point is to feel better, in fact feeling better is more likely to distract from what is truly necessary. To me the important work is entirely within, in my terms correcting the subtle energy system, which isn’t achieved by good works, no matter how much better it can make me or another person feel. Besides, if the normal lower mind is the one making the helping decisions, chances are high that it’s going to be the wrong thing to do anyway, because the normal mind is too limited to see the big picture. There are a couple of stories about unintended consequences when trying to do good, one about a monk keeping a deer alive with his healing energy, until the deer finally pleads ‘please just let me die’, another about someone changing the weather to save a ship, but causing a disaster further along the chain. The Christian ideal is to love thy neighbour, but how often has this been an outward show, while abusing others behind closed doors? The good works count for nothing, better to root out the abusive nature within. I would make one concession, I do believe ultimately that thinking of others and loving others is the ideal, but I would take these as yardsticks by which to assess myself, measuring how close I am to doing this naturally, as opposed to imposing these traits as ideals to strive for.

Yes I have contemplated these questions and have come to my own conclusions, though I am open to alternative conclusions given increased understanding. I don’t think though that these are the most fundamental questions I am concerned about, and regarding ‘Will’ as long as my will is aligned with my truly greatest good, it’s also not something I spend too much time on. I am more preoccupied with the workings of Yin and Yang within myself, and lately the nature of the inner or spirit child within.

I’m not a fan of good works myself, far too easy for exactly this ^ to be the driving force.

I found “Love and do what thou wilt” in the writings of Saint Augustine, from his Seventh Homily on the Letter of John: “The deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity. For thorns also have flowers: some actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity. Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love and do what thou wilt. The only other reference I could find to Crowleys shortened version was from the French author Rabelais who wrote in a fictional work "fay çe que vouldras", French for "do what you will." Are there earlier references that you know of to “Do what you will” specifically? I get that you’re adding a second sentence that includes the word love to orient the first, also from Crowley as far as I can tell, but the whole thing doesn’t seem to have brought anything positive to the life of Crowley himself who lived out this version of the maxim. I guess if the whole was divorced from Crowley I can see why you’d take it positively, perhaps the issue is can it actually be divorced from Crowley in the form it’s been presented by you? I could do more research, but I suspect Crowley will always come out as a shady character.

Am I correct in thinking that @Nungali and @Michael Sternbach are actually positive about Aleister Crowley and value what he has written? I haven’t read Crowley’s writing, but watching this video I can’t see that anything true or valuable could have come from him. Is the documentary wrong, or am I missing some occult secret that allows Crowley to be anything other than horrifying?

In the early third century text Laozi zhongjing 老子中經 (Central Scripture of Laozi), an early iteration of neidan, there was the red child - I can’t help but see this as an early Chinese recognition of the same inner child that Thich Nhat Hanh refers to, but with more subtle body information. In later texts the child is a synonym for the elixir, here the child ingests an elixir, and being nourished by it obtains immortality. The Red Child (Chizi 赤子) The self is the son of the Dao; this is what he is. Human beings also have him, not only me.(1) He resides precisely in the ducts of the stomach, the Great Granary. He sits facing due south on a couch of jade and pearls, and a flowery canopy of yellow clouds covers him. He wears clothes with pearls of five hues. His mother resides above on his right, embracing and nourishing him; his father resides above on his left, instructing and defending him. Therefore constantly think of the True Man Child-Cinnabar residing in the Palace of the stomach, the Great Granary. He sits facing due south, feeding on yellow essence and red pneuma, drinking and ingesting the Fount of Nectar.(2) Child-Cinnabar, Original Yang, is nine tenths of an inch tall, but think of him as equal to your body. When his father and mother nourish him, you obtain divine immortality. (1) The initial part of this passage defies a proper translation, for Laozi (the speaker of the Central Scripture) refers to himself in both the first and the third person. He introduces himself as "I" (wu) and says that he resides in every human being ("human beings also have me," i.e., "him"); he is, therefore, one's own "self" (wu) represented by the Red Child. (2) Fount of Nectar is a name of saliva. Laozi zhongjing (Central Scripture of Laozi), sec. 12. Translation published in Fabrizio Pregadio, "Early Daoist Meditation and the Origins of Inner Alchemy," in Benjamin Penny, ed., Daoism in History: Essays in Honour of Liu Ts'un-yan, 138 (London: Routledge, 2006). This quotation is expanded. The Lower Cinnabar Field (Dantian 丹田) The ☞ Cinnabar Field is the root of the human being. It is the place where essence and spirit are stored, the origin of the five breaths (wuqi), and the Storehouse of the Red Child (chizi zhi fu)… It rules on generating children and is the gate of the joining of Yin and Yang. It is three inches below the navel, attached to the Caudal Funnel (weilü),(1) and is the root of the two kidneys. (1) The Caudal Funnel is a point at the level of the coccyx.

If someone wants to interact with the I ching it seems like a good idea to respect it, but if its meaningless to someone I would say they can have any attitude towards it that they like. Same with other 'sacred' texts, should they all be respected, or can one have a critical opinion about any or all of them? The Koran comes to mind, Salman Rushdie was stabbed because he disrespected the author of that text. I think we have the right to disrespect any religious or spiritual text that we want to in the interests of critical thinking.

Diamond also claims “We were all once children, and still have that child dwelling within us. But most adults are quite unaware of this.” Why and how would people go about engaging with this inner child that they’re not even aware of, but which nonetheless dictates their behaviour?

歷觀五臟視節度，六腑修治潔如素，虛無自然道之故。物有自然事不煩，垂拱無為身體安，虛無之居在幃問，寂寞曠 然口不言，恬淡無欲游德園，清爭香潔玉女存，修德明達道之門。 Contemplate each of the Five Viscera and see them as revenue. Cultivate and heal the Six Mansions like cleaning pure silk. The strength of the Tao is in the Void and Naturally-Just-So. All things have the Naturally-Just-So, the Tao is never vexed. It is non-action that surrounds and bequeaths the giving of ease to the self and body. A curtain is situated at the chamber leading to the Void. Remain solitary and silent so the mouth does not speak. Cultivate harmony by standing alone in the True Person’s Palace. Roam about without desire in the Garden of Virtue, a cheerful peace. With fragrant incense cleanse and purify before the Jade Maidens. At the gate of Spiritual Penetrations cultivate Bright Virtue. - Olson Then, one can vividly observe the five viscera and see their terms of continence. When the six receptacles are kept well-nurtured, they are as clean as white silk. Void, Inaction and Nature are Tao’s old chums. When beings and things are kept according to Nature, there will be no trouble. If one keeps inaction as a high arch does, one’s body will be free from troubles. The living of void and inaction is right behind the curtain. When one is quiet, detached, silent, simple, contented and without any desires, One can enjoy leisurely tours of the Garden of Te, Virtues, Where it is clean, quiet and fragrant, and the Jade lady will come. Cultivating and understanding Te, the Virtues, is the gate to Tao. - Huang Observe five solid organs, to learn their mutual interaction and rhythm. Six offices manage repair and cleanliness, so they are like white silk. Void is the nature of the strength of Tao. Substantial is the nature of the sobriety of Tao. Non-action with a firm resolution makes the body relaxed and the mind concentrated. Find the void behind the curtain of the residences of bright spirit. Do not interact and talk without need, so your city wall is upright and Qi doesn’t leak, However maintain independence and harmony with the world at the same time, In a stance of a True Man. Achieve inner peace and accomplish external things without effort, enjoying the Garden of Virtue. Clear and fragrant the passage before the entry of the Jade Girl. Cultivate virtue to avoid distractions in your Primordial spirit manifestation. - Archangelis and Lanying

“Your inner child and you aren’t exactly two, but you aren’t exactly one, either. You influence each other.” The commentators quote from Thich Nhat Than at 9.00 minutes in the video below. The inner child as ‘sub-personality’, a more personalised entity than the ‘subconscious’. Many must question if this notion of a discrete sub-personality is necessary, but having sought my inner child for decades, without realising fully that this was what I was doing, I concur with Thich Nhat Than that: “It’s our life’s work to stop, notice, and listen to this child. We cannot reach our destiny without healing the inner child’s pain and transforming their sadness, fear or anger. https://insighttimer.com/blog/inner-child-meaning-noticing-healing-freeing/ It’s a fundamental requirement, and I’d say it’s even more fundamental than Thich Nhat Than is expressing. To my mind, re-establishing the inner child in its rightful place in our subtle body system is in fact the culmination of inner alchemy, and the only possible authentic resolution to the dilemma each human finds within themselves.

Sure, removed, my apologies. I think when talking about ‘bliss’ there are many different versions of bliss, to make a sweeping negative statement about bliss because of your particular experience whatever that might be might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

One can show evidence of all the signs that are expected in a particular method, because that is what the particular method is designed to actualise, but this isn’t an overall proof of anything, it merely proves that by following a particular method particular signs can be expected. How would one know whether any of these signs are actually valuable in an ultimate reality? 3bob suggests the small voice within, but that hasn’t been very effective for the people in death cults, or suicide bombers for example. Belief systems can override the small voice within, and not just in obvious cases, but in less obvious cases as well. How would you know whether you’re following a belief system and it’s method or working towards ultimate truth?