Wilhelm

I'm guessing everyone reading this has seen someone who has claimed they're enlightened, and doubted their claim. I've had a lot of trouble with this throughout my adulthood - discerning who's real and who isn't.How does your tradition protect you from deluding yourself, or being deluded by others?If I were to go and read a ton of spiritual philosophy, it wouldn't be hard for me to build a framework of what an enlightened person 'should be'. If then, lacking self-honesty, strength of character (or possibly just good information) it wouldn't be much of a leap for me to qualify some aspect of an experience as me 'becoming enlightened'.Let's pose the question like this - if I were to tell you that I had achieved enlightenment according to the definition provided by your tradition (to be clear, I'm not actually claiming this), how would you know if I was full of shit or not? Is this something that's possible to discern over a forum, or would a practical demonstration be required? For clarity, it would help if you could at least allude to your tradition's definition of enlightenment. No need to define it outright and start arguing over who is correct, I would just very much appreciate your perspective from within your own tradition. Thank you! Summary: 1. How does your tradition protect you from deluding yourself, or being deluded by others? 2. if I were to tell you that I had achieved enlightenment according to the definition provided by your tradition (to be clear, I'm not actually claiming this), how would you know if I was full of shit or not? 3. Is this something that's possible to discern over a forum, or would a practical demonstration be required?

That's nice of you Fair enough. No crime against being silly.

This one: I've seen you talk at length about what you've gotten out of these arts to both Awaken and Freeform, and they in turn shared their own results with you. So to then follow this with ??? So long as we're just joking here, it's all good. You just seemed to be serious, so I wanted to check

Yeah to be honest I thought it was a bit silly to write off a couple of practitioners I've seen you have lively debates with on topics relating to various levels of practice. It's fine to disagree, but, have you ever wondered why you seem to disagree with just about everyone on this topic?

Don't you think you're letting your assumptions run a bit wild there sir

Say no more, I got you fam.

my dude you're describing resistance training with extra steps

If you hadn't seen it yet, one of the fellas you mentioned did a talk in Bhutan comparing the two Yes his method is obviously more involved than sustained attention on the lower abdominal space. The talk spoke specifically about the alchemical process, but his method involves doing quite a bit of foundation work in the area before attempting to 'ignite the fire' in that area. On a podcast of his, a varajyana practitioner guest gave a criticism of the way tummo is commonly taught that ignited a debate on the forum. I'll look for the link. Edit: Here it is

Somehow "I know a guy who knows a guy" and "bad man in the family" are on the more thoughtful end of criticisms I've seen re: Adam on TDB 😂🤦

I liked the way Apech gave an opportunity for even the casual lurker to throw their two cents into a poll around the controversial subject of visualisation (at least I think it was Apech), so I wanted to start with the same for what I'm calling 'Spiritual goal posts' (though the concept applies to almost any meditative or energetic art) I've spent some time recently thinking about two stances or approaches to 'goal posts' in our arts. What I'm talking about are signs of accomplishment which may be very specific to a very specific art, or may be general enough to be considered a cross-denominational attainment. Currently I'm aware of two specific approaches to the 'goal posts' written about in the classics of various traditions, and I'll try to briefly give my impression as well as the common criticism of each. First there is the 'literal' approach - where many of the core classics are taken to describe things more or less exactly as they happen as one develops in their art. A common criticism is that many of these descriptions are fantastical and so should be dismissed as nonsense and dogma. There are countless examples but I have one at top of mind from an interview I watched today where the practitioner of a specific style of Buddhist methods had stated that the classical description of the Anagami being free from sense desires was nonsensical because he believed himself to be an Arahant and knew others who believed themselves to be Arahants and they were all experiencing sense desires. These individuals represent the second 'camp', which I'll describe in brief next. This second group also studies the classical texts but as alluded to above believes some of the texts to be too fantastical to be taken literally. A common example are those who believe the classical description of Siddhis are mostly nonsense, and even if a person in this second camp might consider them real - they're often considered an unnecessary 'side quest' of sorts and probably a deviation from the true path. A common criticism of this camp is that they are moving the goal posts to fit their experience. So what do you think the nature of the supposed signs of attainment are in your own arts? Are these laid out literally in the classics, or were the descriptions somehow metaphorical or at least non-literal, and if so - how? And whether you take a literal or metaphorical interpretation - how specifically would you confirm the validity of your accomplishments? If a teacher or senior validates them for you - what is it about them or your relationship to them that causes you to believe and trust them and their interpretation? If you validate it for yourself - how do you know you're not moving the 'goal posts' in your interpretation to match your experience?

Good point, I forgot to distinguish between mixing systems and compartmentalizing systems (of thought and practice). I don't think the former is a good idea, but is very common due to the common human tendency to add their own spin onto what they're taught

On the lower Dan Tien: I was taught in some systems Hui Yin is considered the LDT because it's where Jing is consolidated and later 'fired'. Other systems put it somewhere in the abdomen, as that's where Qi tends to gather (even TCM recognizes ren4 as the sea of Qi). On the middle Dan Tien: Im practicing master Feng's qigong system (not the Taiji - too complex for me haha) and I was taught to consider the middle Dan Tien as the yellow court region/solar plexus, and you were taught it's somewhere in the heart - so I'm not sure if different students took the material different directions... To add to the confusion, I also studied with another line that traced their lineage up to Hu Yaozhen as well but put the lower dan mmtien in the lower abdomen, so I'm not sure which he actually taught - more important is what your teacher wants you to do imo. As Taoist Texts said, these are all just models - if they work according to your teachers instructions, who cares if other teachers use different models?

I'd try going through their YouTube channels to find videos that stick out to you. I've only tried Nathan's foundations course but found it to be very in line with his first book. Damo's book was broader in scope, as is his course, but it might be useful to listen to their theoretical lectures to see who's more in line with what you're looking for.

Yeah according to the only tradition I know a tiny bit about there's a direct effect (this diagram looks like a mess but notice the moons in their various phases directly outside his body)

While I enjoy the work of Damo Mitchell, that seems a bit dismissive!

That came up in the forum as a lategame stage beyond what anyone here posting has reached (to my knowledge). So I wouldn't worry about it - By the time you get there, you'll be too old to be worried about your balls anyways

Ah shit we've been agreeing this whole time! Don't you hate when that happens Nah just an old timey American actor.

Yeah I understand you fine. Wouldn't have known it wasn't your first language if it wasn't brought up. Tbh I can't even remember what I had said but I think I was trying to agree to disagree, and adding a contentious but unconstructive point as to why I preferred my point of view. More important was the bit I do remember: I don't understand the Dao De Jing. I can appreciate an interpretation towards simple living, and even if I don't understand why verses like 1, 4, 14 etc. might be interpreted through that lens it doesn't matter cause I'd be arguing from ignorance anyways.

Edit: nvm. 2 people talking at you at once

Yeah that's fair enough. I had never gone too far into philosophical readings of the DDJ, but I appreciate that it's the most popular approach in the West (and probably China as well, for all I know)

Interesting. Have you read any of the alchemical classics like the Cantong Qi or Wuzhen Pai? Or is this approach mainly how you see the DDJ/Zhuangzi/etc.? Just asking because the former don't really allow for an interpretation at face value

I can't believe this guy took 81 chapters to tell people to live simply. What a blabbermouth! Luckily modern people can skip these old books and just watch Tidying Up with Marie Kondo on Netflix. It's a lot more of a practical look at simple living. Who wants to waste time (mis)interpreting a bunch of vague two thousand year old verses when you could just throw out all the shit you don't like? Edit: Yup. Looks like the Dao De Jing didn't even make the top 20 in the simple living category. Meanwhile, Marie Kondo is sitting pretty at #9.

If this is even a tiny bit accurate I'd be super impressed. Very clever word association algorithm, if nothing else

This possiblity never bothered me, cause I figured AI is being created under a materialist reductionist framework. If they don't believe in chitta then they stand little chance of recreating it accidentally (and I was under the impression such a creation was impossible - the ultimate outcome for AI would just be a very efficient memory bot) Maybe you're right. Creation still implies an original act to me, but not worth splitting hairs over