Bindi

Yes true, but his perspective was different to the Indian perspectives of his day. So it’s more like original Buddhist teachings and doctrine was later subjected to Indian thought which developed into the ‘non-dual Buddhist’ traditions of East Asia and Tibet. “he also rejected the metaphysical doctrines of the Upanishads, particularly ideas which are often associated with Hindu nonduality, such as the doctrine that “this cosmos is the self” and “everything is a Oneness” isn’t silent on the subject. If I really cared what the Buddha did or didn’t think I would explore this quote, but since I’m not Buddhist I’m not interested enough. He seems to have had very strong opinions about many things, and not just for the sake of it. See above. Logically, wouldn’t this mean that the Buddha’s mind wasn’t sufficiently prepared or ripened for non-dual realisation since he personally rejected the notion? Conversely a Neo-Advaitan can achieve non-dual realisation with no preparation whatsoever. In reality I think this is because it’s a mental perspective that one can choose to embrace or not, depending on one’s level of resistance to accepting a belief system.

Indian Buddhism brought non-dual themes to the concept of This does make me wonder if the Buddha was a daobum member would he be agreeing with the non-dualists or the anti-nondualist?

Yes, I Believe I can actualise my ‘Self’ and I am on the way to this, but to have any belief about what happens after that would for me be merely a belief, until I am in that situation of fully realised Self. So this is one option that is not available to non-dualists who I understand would have no interest in a Higher Self because that is not a necessary point on their way to ‘non-dual truth’.

Can belief in a Higher Self be either in a dual or a non-dual capacity? I gather yes, I can believe in a Higher Self strive to actualise this and still find that Higher Self to be non-dual. Or does the concept of a Higher Self negate the possibility of non-duality?

I suspect all successful non-dualists have foreclosed on their emotional and mental health. I do agree with non-dualists that I am not my emotions or thoughts, though I value them differently overall to non-dualists, but I disagree about the nature of Self-consciousness beyond emotions and thoughts. You posit the non-dualists concept of what is beyond emotions and thoughts as the ‘Truth’, but forget that this Truth is just one more belief system that has its rewards and costs. Most people within any philosophy or religion believe that they are in possession of the Truth, why is the non-dualist any more correct than any other belief system about their truth, other than their own insistence?

Broadly I think of a non-dualist as having a purely mental perspective that allows the non-dualist to believe they have arrived at the ‘truth’ which was always present anyway and just needed to be realised, and nothing more needs to be done. Whatever was done up to that point is also deemed irrelevant, because only perspective ever needed to be altered/corrected. I don’t think it’s about alternative goals, I think there are forces within everyone that actively desire development or evolution of the subtle energy body. The philosophy of non-dualism makes people not only deaf to this call, but active deniers of its existence. Unfortunately I think most people suck at subtle body practices, but only because it’s such a difficult and complicated endeavour and most if not all teachers are equally in the dark. Yes I think people are always cultivating a subtle body of one sort or another, but if they’re not aware of the blueprint then it’s more than likely to be a somewhat distorted subtle body which can create difficult to shift karma. What is ignorance, people not believing what a particular group of people believe? True ignorance to me is not understanding the nature and proper cultivation of the subtle body.

Am I right in thinking you don’t start with cultivating the lower dantian? I don’t follow neidan methods but I did find that I was naturally drawn to start with the lower dantian, and I found it to be necessary and fundamental to first cultivate there.

Is it important to actually know the underlying truth before making an analogy, or is the point of the analogy so profound that it just doesn’t matter if the comparison is just plain wrong? Crocodiles don't sweat. To keep cool, they open their mouths which is known as "mouth gaping," very similar to panting. They are not displaying aggression when you see them with their mouths wide open! They often sleep with their mouths wide open to release heat. Many born again Christians go through this phase as well, have they also realised ‘the truth’?

For me, wuwei comes after youwei, but I hadn’t thought of wuwei as non-dual.

Most if not all references to Saiva Siddhanta that I have come across do state it is dualistic, for instance this Diploma in saiva siddhanta course from an Indian university states “Being a dualistic philosophy, the goal of Shaiva Siddhanta is to become an enlightened soul through Lord Shiva's Grace.” https://www.universitydunia.com/courses/arts/p-g-diploma-in-saiva-siddhanta Is this your particular perspective and preference?

Perhaps there is a state that you have experienced/do experience that you have named ‘non-dual realization’, but this realization doesn’t contain the evolved subtle energy body that I have seen glimpses of and am cultivating. Everyone contains the subtle energy body potential, but if that potential is left unfulfilled because of engagement with non-dual philosophy or the non-dual state then to me it is like the non-dualist holds a seed in their hand and thinks they have arrived, all the time never planting the seed and never seeing it’s true potential form revealed. Not knowing or caring that they hold the seed, and not valuing its potential or realised form, I feel the non-dualist dismisses the pursuit of subtle body development as the lesser path. One thing I would note though, I think it’s true that many people engaged in subtle energy body development make grave errors in their methods, and in this sense I suspect people would generally be better off doing nothing rather than make errors. Yes, thoughts, ideas and feelings of the View are hollow when not backed up by the state, I gather you have to make some effort to attain that state again and again and not just spout the philosophy. TBH I even question the value of resting in Unbounded Bliss. I have some inkling of the practical healing and knowing power of the evolved energy body, and I wouldn’t trade the evolution of it for a lifetime’s Unbounded Bliss.

Regarding its firmly dualistic stance, “Saiva Siddhanta is of the belief that the individual soul maintains its individuality even after liberation, lives in close proximity to Siva and does not merge with Siva.”

One that is very clear and simple to keep an eye on is whether air is flowing through the two nostrils. If one nostril is blocked, this indicates that the channel associated with that nostril, ie., Ida or Pingala, is also blocked. According to Yoga theory, both side channels have to be open before starting on the central channel because you need the emotional and mental stability that this indicates. This is such an easy one to check, just press on one side of the nose and see if you can still breathe through the other side. I’ve been doing this occasionally for years, ever since I heard about it in a yoga class, and I have been able to validate it for myself, going from one nostril permanently blocked to breathing through both equally now.

Saiva Siddanta philosophy states that “Before taking any birth, the soul was in a state, enmeshed in the darkness of anavam, unable to exhibit its capabilities to know, act and desire.” For the soul to come to exhibit these capabilities is the goal of Saiva Siddanta (as you say above the evolution of the soul). It is interesting that Buddhism’s philosophical solution specifically aims to extinguish desire, and as far as I know doesn’t value knowing and acting. No wonder there is a fundamental mis-fit between your views and non-dualism/Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. Interestingly in terms of the capabilities of the subtle body I appear to be more aligned with Saiva Siddanta philosophy. I have come to understand that subtle acting and subtle mentation/directing are the capabilities of ida and pingala respectively, perhaps leaving ‘desiring’ as the capability of the central channel? In this case I imagine desiring as in accord with God/the Dao/ultimate truth etc. I’m not sure as I haven’t enabled this channel yet. Enabling these subtle energy channel capabilities is exactly the aim of my life. edit to add: It might be taking a liberty but it might be that the ‘soul’ is in fact one and the same with the subtle energy body, both need to evolve into their full capacity.

Non-dualism is just one more school of thought, though undeniably popular. “Advaita Vendanta begins with the Commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, written by Gaudapada around the seventh Century CE. We saw earlier that the Mandukya Upanishad contains passages that can be interpreted as describing a philosophy of nondualism. Writing almost 1300 years later, Gaudapada draws on elements of the Buddhist theory of emptiness to re-interpret the Mandukya Upanishad in a strongly nondual manner… There is some controversy over the extent to which Gaudapada was influenced by Buddhism. Gaudapada uses intellectual arguments and images directly drawn from Buddhist sources to construct his philosophy. …Gaudapada was the paramguru (guru’s guru) of Shankara, who is recognized as the founder of the Advaita Vedanta movement… In Shankara’s formulation the individual soul and Brahman are identical. The soul (atman) is not some small part of Brahman that eventually merges back into Brahman. The soul is actually the entirety of Brahman. According to Shankara (unlike in the Western religions, and some forms of Hinduism), each person does not have a unique, individual soul that then returns to Brahman upon enlightenment or death. Instead there is no individual soul whatsoever. There is only one Atman, and it is identical with Brahman. The false idea that there are many souls arises from the tricks of maya. Individuals (jiva) live in a state of ignorance in a body with senses, which causes the delusion that we feel as if we have an individual soul. In Shankara’s metaphor, it is as if the one moon in the sky were reflected by many bubbles. Critics accused Shankara of being a “secret Buddhist,” and of more or less sneaking Buddhism into Hinduism. Indeed, it is hard not to compare his atman/Brahman concept to the Buddha-nature or storehouse consciousness ideas. They seem to just be different names for the same idea. For his part, Shankara vehemently denied this. He was an erudite philosopher, and used his extensive knowledge of Buddhism to show the differences between his teachings and the Buddhist view. A review of these differences, however, quickly shows them to be (in my opinion) very minor. Call it Brahman or Buddha-nature, it is nondual awareness either way.” From Here. So Advaita Vendantists and Western non-dualists and Buddhists can all agree that their philosophy is the Truth, that this is how it actually is, whilst overriding earlier Hindu approaches, and throwing Daoism into the non-dual mix - all the while forgetting that non-duality is just a belief, just a philosophy, an opinion, currently popular but by no means the final word on spiritual thought. I would suggest that ‘non-duality’ is so popular because it is experienced as a temporary relief from the clamouring of the mind and the emotions. To authentically clarify the emotional and mental streams takes a lifetime of work, which does lead directly to ‘the Self’, which in its turn is equivalent to energy entering the central channel. The Tibetan Buddhists are an interesting juncture between non-duality and energy entering the central channel, because they go about forcing exactly this to happen, energy is directed into the central channel, but this in its turn is also misguided because we all know that forcing anything is wrong don’t we?

I agree with 3bob, Buddhists aren’t Hindu’s aren’t Daoists, different methods lead to different results and to imagine they all end up at the same place when they have arrived at their particular destination is common but shallow thinking.

What are Yin and Yang, how do Yin and Yang relate to us, and is the end result of neidan something that is pure Yang, or still related to Yin and Yang somehow? I see Yin and Yang as emblematic of the two side channels that interact at each dantian, so to me entirely relevant on a personal level throughout the inner journey, and the end result, ie., alchemical gold, as a contribution from both channels, to be placed in the central channel beyond yin and yang. “The trigrams of the Book of Changes are used to show how the alchemical process consists of extracting the precosmic Real Yin (zhenyin) and Real Yang (zhenyang) from Yang and Yin as they appear in the cosmos, respectively, and in combining them to produce an elixir that represents their unity.” Here (Anything that seems to suggest only pure Yang as an end point seems tarred by patriarchal conditioning to me.)

Looking at your lists above, I don’t understand why you associate ‘moon’ with fire, and ‘sun’ with water. Isn’t ‘moon’ Yin and ‘sun’ Yang? And following from that, wouldn’t water be associated with Yin and fire associated with Yang?

I would take the orange-ish lotus opening above your head as a symbol of the orange sacral chakra opening in your consciousness, it’s in the same general area that the lower dantian is which is where the Daoist energy path should start. In a quiet moment I would make a point of attending to that general area below the navel and notice if there is any sensation in that area and tune into that. The bits of red I would see as consciousness still operating a bit from the red root chakra. Black and white I personally take as the colours of the subtle channels on the right and left sides of the body, and in the words of the TTJ “Know the white, keep to the black” ie. cultivate the black/yin energy, the white will look after itself.

Very similar to these verses from the External Yellow Court When you bring the Po and the Hun (Yin and Yang) together in the the centre of the UDT, then indeed they will produce the sound of thunder when they meet there. More likely you cannot hold much Qi because it’s not Qi made directly from Jing. This Qi made from Jing lines the bottom of the pool in the MDT so it doesn’t leak out. Of course the classics also assume that you’re working with the fundamentals of Yin and Yang/Po and Hun. We’re not on the same page in this, and I doubt we ever will be.

I think Yin and Yang as processes appearing one after the other is when Yin and Yang are operating within us as they ultimately should. To me the initial decades of work is to get to exactly this point, reinstating the authentic cycle of Yin and Yang.

From my perspective Jing as a substance actually does transform into Qi when it rises from the ldt to the mdt - without depleting the Jing in the LDT because Jing should have become self-replenishing before this step. Qi in its turn should also be self-replenishing, as there should be an endless supply of Jing. (This is talking about alchemical Jing, ie., subtle water, nothing to do with bodily fluids).

I was trying to say something like this here

I don’t think you’re trying to convert me, but I do think you judge everything according to your school, whether you have a personal understanding of it or not, and whether your school is correct or not. So for you if your school doesn’t think it, ergo it’s not true. Well, actually, yes, I think yin and Yang as underlying principles are profound. I am Are Yin and Yang really just philosophical to you, not any part of your process? Despite being an underlying theme in the Yi Jing and the Dao de Jing? To me they are the most important underlying principle to engage with.

If you belonged to a completely different school that taught completely different things, I suspect you would be quite as enthusiastic about that one as well. You are believing the entire philosophy of a single human institution, that is a mix of 3 different philosophies in the first place, Buddhist, Confucian and Daoist. What are the chances that it is 100% correct about absolutely everything? Or is it a case of everyone most likes their own qigong? (to paraphrase cleansox) In this process of change why aren’t you expounding on the endless cyclical changes of Yin to Yang to Yin etc within ourselves as well as the world? This is foundational in Daoism isn’t it?