Wilhelm

Double post sry

Ahhhh nvm. This topics gettin too serious and I don't really have anything new to add

Thanks for going into so much detail. Yes I believe this is the same as what was being talked about already in this thread - the lights that were achieved by the three people I had mentioned. And I'm sorry to hear about those poor carrying method and transfer method practitioners. I'm glad there's no one here claiming to use those methods!

Ah - that make sense. Thanks for going into details! I couldn't put my finger on how we had used the same process to come to separate possibilities - but once subjectivity gets added to the mix (in our individualized application of logical reasoning) then yeah of course we'll probably see many things differently

I see. To me it means neither. Another word we sometimes use for practice is training. In English you practice something so that you might achieve something - but the former is the activity and the latter is the result So to clarify a previous point they have all said they achieved (or attained, accomplished) the light to varying degrees.

Ah ok - in English practice can also mean the process that leads towards achievement, and it goes without saying that visualization and realization are completely different (at least to my way of thinking)

Yeah that's what they were talking about, actually

I made this damn thread and I intend to egotistically bend the Frank Yang gang to my subject of choice! That's fair enough! What do you think it was that caused you to apply a higher reasoning process to the concept of telepathy than you did to the concept of immortality?

You'd have to ask them - although Shadow Self included the Chinese characters for one version of the light that was practiced, he and Freeform also alluded to several higher states. I have no knowledge on the subject so will not comment

Freeform, Shadow Self, and Taoist Texts have all talked about the light in the last two pages. Technically I talked to them as well about it but I excluded myself from the group as I'm not currently practicing the light. To my knowledge all of them are active and dedicated practitioners.

Which group of people are you referring to? As far as I can tell, the three people here who've talked about the light other than yourself are all active practitioners...

I had thought the White Moon was analogous to this - but what I know about the classics could fit into my previous post so I could be mistaken. Btw it looks like we're the ones who are off topic now So as you've experienced light through your five senses, but you've not experienced telepathy - is this how you've determined what constitutes reality? Or have you made determinations in the negative i.e. I have not seen any empirical evidence for telepathy therefore it does not exist. Because at some point in these arts you would've had to grapple with concepts for which empirical evidence does not exist such as immortal life, and if your system of belief includes what is and isn't possible for all of reality I would assume you set the bar higher than what you've experienced so far! (Otherwise the implication is that you've already experienced all there is to know of life) For what it's worth I believe you are correct. I'm only pressing the point about basing belief systems as to my mind holding an active disbelief of something - because one hasn't experienced it - is qualitatively the same as believing something because one wants it to be true.

First of all thank you for your continued engagement _/\_ Very true. But the light is not always called 'the light' in the classics, is it? So how much more reason is needed to discern the meaning of a grain of millet, an immortal fetus, a golden embryo and so on. Not so. The implication in your previous message was that the path forward was interpretation of the classical texts in line with your own: So if you're of the opinion that consensus is not needed in these arts - why is it necessary to follow the specific process you've outlined in order to progress? Or was your implication that it's because of the lack of consensus that so many amateurs exist? Not so. I would say that telepathy falls outside of my own experience. Similarly to the brilliant white light experienced with eyes open that you mentioned. I find no utility in either believing or disbelieving concepts outside of my experience, and I consider it part of my duty as a cultivator to be honest with myself about what I know and what I believe. The point I was making is that I /believe/ it is unreasonable to disbelieve something because it falls outside of one's own experience. In arts where strange phenomena like blinding white lights occur shouldn't a higher bar be set for differentiating the true and the false?

Awaken when I said I believe many things are lost in translation what I meant was that I believe you have very noble intentions as a practitioner and a teacher but that maybe the google translate is misrepresenting the intent of your messages, leading to disagreements and confusion where there ought to be none. I am fairly sure google translate has done a poor job of conveying my own messages, as I'm not sure exactly what we're in disagreement about here . Here's some of the confusion I am having: You are recommending a thorough study of the fundamental classics But you have said many of the classics that were read here were false, and even if the correct ones were read they would most likely be misinterpreted (so instead of self-study why don't you just reccomend that beginners talk directly to you?) You are saying that I am of a low level and what I am doing is wrong But you don't know who I am or what I'm doing You say there is no fixed method But what is sitting in the grass and allowing the energy to move you if not a fixed method? You say practicing QI will lead nowhere and we must practice Shen Without wondering if we're practicing Qi as a foundation to practice Shen To an inferior person such as myself, your words sound the same as a famous prophet in the West: "I am Awaken. I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and none may get to the Dao except through my methods." So I think this impression (which I'm sure is mistaken) has caused some unnecessary disagreements here. That said, you clearly have a true dedication to the art - I understand you regularly practice 4 hours a day, and that is truly admirable. Even under the mislead guidance of the fake qigong masters (which - as far as google translate has allowed - I am assuming is a term you use to refer to any public teacher of the Daoist arts), I can only manage between 3 and 4 hours a day at the moment - but I am working to develop more discipline. You have studied the classics and believe to have attained full comprehension which is remarkeable to me because after a decade of study I know for a fact that the majority of their message eludes me. You spend day after day here trying to assist people in their development without asking anything in return and so I am impressed both with your kindness and dedication. If your understanding of this idiom is the same as is found here, then thank you very much _/\_ I enjoyed its relevance to our discussion. Indeed, much of my path thus far seems to have been looking for a fish in a tree

Thanks for the clarification, but the point I was making was that someone could experience a dim light behind their eyes and assume this is the 'white light' talked about in the texts. Likewise with the brilliant light that appears (eyes closed or open). If one's only source is their own experience, what's to stop alternative interpretations from proliferating? I appreciate that you're encouraging individual pursuit of the classical texts, and I'd say the 'gate' being kept here is that someone reading them will come to the same conclusions as you have. How often on this forum has that been the case? I know this is the approach encouraged by Awaken as well. Do the both of you agree on which texts should be read, and did you both interpret them the same way? I had asked specifically why these would be delusional as from my understanding delusion can only verifiably be determined through experience as opposed to inference, so I was wondering if you had had any experience with telepathy or the validity of other testing methods which allowed you to determine them as delusional. Thank you again for continuing the dialogue _/ \_ as goofy as it is - Daobums is as close to an active Sangha as I have at the moment, and I am grateful to be speaking with you and many others who have dedicated their lives to the arts that I love.

Thanks! I understand I stopped well before its full effect blossomed, but to be honest I'm hesitant to simply because I'm really actively working on a separate system of energetics and can't say for myself where the potential conflicts are (especially as so little of the mechanics of Shambhavi were talked about beyond the physical dimension).

Yes that was the foundational practice accompanied by the inner engineering theory. I practiced it as well as some of their Hatha and Kriyas for a few years and then when starting Nei Gong I juggled both for a while before deciding to stick to Nei Gong simply because I had better access to the teacher.

Isha - attending a foundational workshop in America then studying a bit further at the Tennessee school

Thank you again 🙏 and this is off topic but I was planning on asking the forum why Yogic methods were relatively under represented despite the prevalence of modern (though admittedly watered down) Hatha in the West. I wanted to know which Yogic schools were available that sought the deeper teachings so thank you for listing a few (I spent a few years at one of them a decade ago and can vouch for it, and am excited to look into the rest of the list for personal interest)

Disclaimer: don't understand a lick of Dharma but am enjoying the topic and article Reducing but not ending suffering - an alternative interpretation of the third noble truth? Somehow we're back on topic! 😍 My overly rigid heart is throbbing with excitement! So the author suggests that all self-taught practitioners (or put another way - practitioners who learned from books) using the same language will very often be describing subtly different experiences using the shared language - until said language (the examples he gave were sense of self, or no-self, consciousness, form, emptiness, infinitude, oneness and non-duality) don't really mean anything as we're all talking about something different. There's a lot more to the article that'd be good for someone with experience to talk about, but I really enjoyed the authors contribution to my topic (unfortunately my world still seems to revolve around me - more practice needed!)

Thanks for making this distinction which I was unable to succinctly put into the poll _/ \_ Then with a teacher - are we able to confirm their status as an insider using our own discretion, or is there some necessary element of trust or even faith?

My impression was of a practitioner who had achieved high level of skill in Samadhi without corresponding skill in Sila or Prajna. Impressive in and of itself but not necessarily enough to make him a teacher of the Dharma. If everything in the above article is true it just goes to show the wisdom behind the threefold training, and how we might over-emphasize the one that (to me) seems the hardest... If nothing else I've taken away from his example the depth that is possible in meditative practice. If he deviated and did all the horrible things listed above, then I'll definitely not be listening to anything he says - but maybe I'll stop complaining when my knees start to burn after an hour or two of sitting The thread's long been fucked, and I need to be less rigid in the presence of Daobums' patented ever-branching stream of consciousness anyways

Thanks for making a distinction between literal goalposts and literal language, as I hadn't considered in writing the OP the added complexity of metaphorical language ever present in specifically Daoist texts. I appreciate your focus on self reliance 🙏 The white light is a good example, because I think many people have seen some fragmentation of (perhaps dim) white light appearing behind their own closed eyes at some point in their life. But even this is spoken of metaphorically. How then can someone be expected to grapple with concepts completely alien to their experience (Such as an immortal fetus)? Is there not some risk of adapting ones interpretation of such a thing to fit ones own experience - given no external confirmation is sought? I disagree. In my experience everyone here is applying a separate internal logic to their own practice, and it's in the differences in each of our reasoning and knowledge that we get many of the discussions here. Do I mean to say that everyone is correct? Of course not. But anyone on the forum could be asked why they're doing what they're doing and they will give an answer that makes sense to them.

The usual, unfortunately Obtain power -> start cult -> do bad things

This is a thread on the literal or metaphorical interpretation of the classics which is repeatedly becoming derailed in true Daobums fashion Thank you for your contribution. I think many things are becoming lost in translation and I don't want to cause any aggravation with someone I don't know